Nationals broke deal on Dunn/Jackson

[Jordan4life_2007]

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.

 

I think Milkman just hates the subject all together. And that's fine. I had sorta forgotten about it until SS2K5 or whoever it was broke the REAL story. Now I will unleash my fury upon Soxtalk since KW doesn't live next door to me.

[sircaffey]

Edwin put up good numbers with the Sox but the teams he faced were sort of a joke. (DET 4 times, BAL 2 times, CLE 2 times, KC once, OAK once, and an injury riddle BOS team once). Hopefully he turned a corner, but I remain highly skeptical.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Edwin put up good numbers with the Sox but the teams he faced were sort of a joke. (DET 4 times, BAL 2 times, CLE 2 times, KC once, OAK once, and an injury riddle BOS team once). Hopefully he turned a corner, but I remain highly skeptical.

 

Meanwhile Hudson bamboozled offenses like the Reds twice, the Brewers, Rockies and that team that won the World Series twice as well.

[Milkman delivers]

I think Milkman just hates the subject all together. And that's fine. I had sorta forgotten about it until SS2K5 or whoever it was broke the REAL story. Now I will unleash my fury upon Soxtalk since KW doesn't live next door to me.

 

Yes, I'm just sick of the topic.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I hate this debate too. No matter if Jackson wins the Cy Young next year, people will still hate the trade simply because it means we don't have that extra 5 years of Hudson. In some people's minds, Jackson will never be able to produce well enough to justify 5 years of decent pitching in the National League. I feel like even if we traded Hudson for Roy Halladay, people would still complain because Hudson will have 5 years of control. It's just a no-win battle.

[SoxFan1]

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

I couldn't agree more.

[Quin]

I couldn't agree more.

 

I'm gonna go ahead and third this.

[Leonard Washington]

I'm guilty of commenting on it in the past few days (today included), but I agree that what's done is done and the discussion has likely been exhausted. My only defense is I didn't post here in July/August unless I was drunk (and thus don't remember).

[gatnom]

I hate this debate too. No matter if Jackson wins the Cy Young next year, people will still hate the trade simply because it means we don't have that extra 5 years of Hudson. In some people's minds, Jackson will never be able to produce well enough to justify 5 years of decent pitching in the National League. I feel like even if we traded Hudson for Roy Halladay, people would still complain because Hudson will have 5 years of control. It's just a no-win battle.

 

And no matter what Hudson (or Holmberg for that matter) will always just be a crappy NL pitcher to others. It goes both ways, you know. I didn't like this trade initially mostly because of money (which doesn't matter now that we raised our payroll $20-30 million) and because Edwin Jackson has been mediocre at best his entire career save for half a year with Detroit and his few starts with us. If Coop fixed him and we are willing to pay big bucks to fill in the holes we create by not having any cheap prospects, I'm all for this trade.

 

That being said, this will be my last post on the subject. Every post in here saying they are tired of it (me included) is doing nothing more than bumping the thread up for somebody else to maintain the same old tired arguments.

 

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm guilty of commenting on it in the past few days (today included), but I agree that what's done is done and the discussion has likely been exhausted. My only defense is I didn't post here in July/August unless I was drunk (and thus don't remember).

 

That's a perfectly acceptable excuse. Never explain yourself for that. I was born drunk.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

And no matter what Hudson (or Holmberg for that matter) will always just be a crappy NL pitcher to others. It goes both ways, you know. I didn't like this trade initially mostly because of money (which doesn't matter now that we raised our payroll $20-30 million) and because Edwin Jackson has been mediocre at best his entire career save for half a year with Detroit and his few starts with us. If Coop fixed him and we are willing to pay big bucks to fill in the holes we create by not having any cheap prospects, I'm all for this trade.

 

That being said, this will be my last post on the subject. Every post in here saying they are tired of it (me included) is doing nothing more than bumping the thread up for somebody else to maintain the same old tired arguments.

 

 

In his 4 full seasons in the bigs, his worst season produced a 1.3 WAR, and his last 2 seasons he has produced a 3.5+ WAR. So, if 10.1 WAR ($43.3M) over his 4 seasons in the bigs is "mediocre at best", then your standards are quite impressive.

[Jordan4life_2007]

In his 4 full seasons in the bigs, his worst season produced a 1.3 WAR, and his last 2 seasons he has produced a 3.5+ WAR. So, if 10.1 WAR ($43.3M) over his 4 seasons in the bigs is "mediocre at best", then your standards are quite impressive.

 

I just find it so hypocritical of those who support Jackson and his 'awesome' stuff when we had another guy that went by the name of Javy Vazquez who used to get chastised by this board like no SP we've had in years. He sported WAR of 3.6, 4.8 and 5.1. Always raked up huge K numbers and had solid peripherals across the board. But all we ever heard was that he was a dickless choker and EVERYBODY wanted him gone. At least my b****ing is consistent. You guys all over the place.

[Ranger]

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.

 

I don't think anyone has justified the trade by calling Hudson "terrible", have they? I don't think you need to say Hudson was terrible in order for the trade to make sense, because it does make sense even if that is not the case. I don't think Hudson's terrible. What I do think is that the Sox absolutely needed a starter they could count on down the stretch last year, and Hudson had not shown in his 3 starts that he could be counted on. I don't care what anyone here says, if you don't think there is a great difference between knowing that you have to replace Jake Peavy in the final two months of a pennant race in Chicago versus pitching for a team with zero playoff chances, you're mistaken. I guarantee that fans would've been furious that Williams did nothing to help the rotation if Daniel Hudson was awful for them down the stretch. And just because he pitched well for Arizona, does not mean he would have pitched well here in this situation. I hope Hudson does well in his career and he just might. Good for him.

 

But, I also have to say that if you have ever assigned the phrase "...but he did it in the NL" when talking about Peavy, you may not praise Hudson without attaching the phrase to him as well.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I just find it so hypocritical of those who support Jackson and his 'awesome' stuff when we had another guy that went by the name of Javy Vazquez who used to get chastised by this board like no SP we've had in years. He sported WAR of 3.6, 4.8 and 5.1. Always raked up huge K numbers and had solid peripherals across the board. But all we ever heard was that he was a dickless choker and EVERYBODY wanted him gone. At least my b****ing is consistent. You guys all over the place.

 

Don't lump me in there. I wasn't here for that, and I never had a problem with Vazquez. He was frustrating as hell sometimes, but there was no doubt in my mind he was a very solid pitcher. In fact, I even recall picking Vazquez for my Cy Young darkhorse for 1 or 2 years in a row. I always had faith in him.

Edited January 6, 2011 by JoeCoolMan24

[justBLAZE]

I don't think anyone has justified the trade by calling Hudson "terrible", have they? I don't think you need to say Hudson was terrible in order for the trade to make sense, because it does make sense even if that is not the case. I don't think Hudson's terrible. What I do think is that the Sox absolutely needed a starter they could count on down the stretch last year, and Hudson had not shown in his 3 starts that he could be counted on. I don't care what anyone here says, if you don't think there is a great difference between knowing that you have to replace Jake Peavy in the final two months of a pennant race in Chicago versus pitching for a team with zero playoff chances, you're mistaken. I guarantee that fans would've been furious that Williams did nothing to help the rotation if Daniel Hudson was awful for them down the stretch. And just because he pitched well for Arizona, does not mean he would have pitched well here in this situation. I hope Hudson does well in his career and he just might. Good for him.

 

But, I also have to say that if you have ever assigned the phrase "...but he did it in the NL" when talking about Peavy, you may not praise Hudson without attaching the phrase to him as well.

 

on these boards? Kenny has been already called an 'idiot' and 'terrible' isn't the worst this trade has been called.

 

Agree with your post 100%, well said.

[gatnom]

Since Ranger commented on my post I had to respond... but I swear this is the last time I bump this thread!

 

I don't think anyone has justified the trade by calling Hudson "terrible", have they? I don't think you need to say Hudson was terrible in order for the trade to make sense, because it does make sense even if that is not the case. I don't think Hudson's terrible. What I do think is that the Sox absolutely needed a starter they could count on down the stretch last year, and Hudson had not shown in his 3 starts that he could be counted on. I don't care what anyone here says, if you don't think there is a great difference between knowing that you have to replace Jake Peavy in the final two months of a pennant race in Chicago versus pitching for a team with zero playoff chances, you're mistaken. I guarantee that fans would've been furious that Williams did nothing to help the rotation if Daniel Hudson was awful for them down the stretch. And just because he pitched well for Arizona, does not mean he would have pitched well here in this situation. I hope Hudson does well in his career and he just might. Good for him.

 

It's just incredibly annoying to hear the bold phrase below over and over and over again in order to try to belittle what Hudson does while completely giving Jackson the benefit of the doubt in his situation. I don't think Hudson will be what he was last season for his career, but he put up better numbers in a better hitters park and if I recall correctly he even did it against better teams.

 

As I said in a post above, I'm fine with this trade if Coop legitimately fixed Jackson and we as a team are willing to dish out millions of extra dollars to fill our holes because we can't find cheap talent (see: this offseason).

 

But, I also have to say that if you have ever assigned the phrase "...but he did it in the NL" when talking about Peavy, you may not praise Hudson without attaching the phrase to him as well.

 

Thank god I never did that, huh.

 

And, I'm just curious, but have you seen Jackson's actual stats, Joe?

[Rowand44]

I don't think anyone has justified the trade by calling Hudson "terrible", have they? I don't think you need to say Hudson was terrible in order for the trade to make sense, because it does make sense even if that is not the case. I don't think Hudson's terrible. What I do think is that the Sox absolutely needed a starter they could count on down the stretch last year, and Hudson had not shown in his 3 starts that he could be counted on. I don't care what anyone here says, if you don't think there is a great difference between knowing that you have to replace Jake Peavy in the final two months of a pennant race in Chicago versus pitching for a team with zero playoff chances, you're mistaken. I guarantee that fans would've been furious that Williams did nothing to help the rotation if Daniel Hudson was awful for them down the stretch. And just because he pitched well for Arizona, does not mean he would have pitched well here in this situation. I hope Hudson does well in his career and he just might. Good for him.

 

But, I also have to say that if you have ever assigned the phrase "...but he did it in the NL" when talking about Peavy, you may not praise Hudson without attaching the phrase to him as well.

Well it's also quite ridiculous to say we knew we could count on Jackson during the stretch run considering he had an era over 5 with Arizona at that time, so if that's the reason this trade was made than there was no reason.