WHITE SOX WINNER!!!

[iamshack]

It's baseball, so of course this is a real possibility, but you have to view the trade from when it was currently made, and from the results. To me, it wasn't just the value of the return (I actually liked picking up Jackson, though I did feel it was an overpay especially without getting a fair amount of cash back), but the position that the Sox were/are in in terms of starting pitching depth.

 

The Sox are taking a large gamble on competing this year, I would rather see a plan to compete for the next 3-5 years. Trading away your only MLB ready young starter with good potential for an iffy starting pitcher who had shown tons of question marks throughout his career with only 1.5 yrs left on his deal was just not a decision I would make, unless I got the Dbacks to pick up half of this year's contract and we also didn't send along Holmberg. I say the last part because you can then use those savings in $ towards resigning Jackson or another one of our pitchers who are hitting FA soon, while still "going for it."

I can respect that position.

 

Two things that sum up the way our FO does business and the belief we have in our pitching coach: I believe Kenny realizes the huge failure rate of major league prospects, and also has tremndous faith that Don Cooper can straighten out some issues with high-upside, inconsistent arms. We have shown a repeated willingness to operate with these philosophies in mind, and for the most part, have succeeded with it.

 

Because of this, I think we sometimes overpay in order to acquire very specific targets, rather than simply a certain "type" of player or a player rated in a certain tier. You'll see a lot of organizations treat prospects and mlb players alike as fungible, whereas we very much do not. We identify specific players and target them (or at least we are led to believe we do, and very much seem to).

 

Anyone who has had experience trying to acquire very specific goods or services will quickly realize that often times a premium is necessary in order to transact for said goods. I, for one, have never really minded paying such a premium, but when viewed separately from the eventual results, the price paid at the time of the transaction can often be questioned. However, when the actual production is measured at a later time, the value of the transaction often comes out on the side of the White Sox.

Edited April 8, 2011 by iamshack

[bigruss]

I can respect that position.

 

Two things that sum up the way our FO does business and the belief we have in our pitching coach: I believe Kenny realizes the huge failure rate of major league prospects, and also has tremndous faith that Don Cooper can straighten out some issues with high-upside, inconsistent arms. We have shown a repeated willingness to operate with these philosophies in mind, and for the most part, have succeeded with it.

 

Because of this, I think we somehow overpay in order to acquire very specific targets, rather than simply a certain "type" of player or a player rated in a certain tier. You'll see a lot of organizations treat prospects and mlb players alike as fungible, whereas we very much do not. We identify specific players and target them (or at least we are led to believe we do, and very much seem to).

 

Anyone who has had experience trying to acquire very specific goods or services will quickly realize that often times a premium is necessary in order to transact for said goods. I, for one, have never really minded paying such a premium, but when viewed separately from the eventual results, the price paid at the time of the transaction can often be questioned. However, when the actual production is measured at a later time, the value of the transaction often comes out on the side of the White Sox.

Yea, they fall in love with certain players, and are willing to pay more for them. And like I've said, I was actually really intrigued by picking up Jackson especially if Cooper saw something he really thought could help him, I just thought trading Hudson for the reasons I stated was a bad idea.

 

Also, I really do think that Hudson's numbers from last year get lost on this board because Jackson had good success last year, but Hudson was beyond phenomenal with the DBacks in his 11 starts with them. In 80 innings he had a .84 WHIP, a 1.69 ERA and showed the control that was expected out of him. Now, there is no way to know if he could have done that with the Sox, but his minor league numbers showed a pitcher that was ready to be successful in the majors.

[iamshack]

Yea, they fall in love with certain players, and are willing to pay more for them. And like I've said, I was actually really intrigued by picking up Jackson especially if Cooper saw something he really thought could help him, I just thought trading Hudson for the reasons I stated was a bad idea.

 

Also, I really do think that Hudson's numbers from last year get lost on this board because Jackson had good success last year, but Hudson was beyond phenomenal with the DBacks in his 11 starts with them. In 80 innings he had a .84 WHIP, a 1.69 ERA and showed the control that was expected out of him. Now, there is no way to know if he could have done that with the Sox, but his minor league numbers showed a pitcher that was ready to be successful in the majors.

I can concede there was a history there that suggested he could be a successful major league pitcher, but I don't even think Daniel Hudson's own mother would have suggested he would pitch as well as he did with Arizona. Secondly, despite those 11 starts with Arizona, I still believe that odds that Jackson succeeds in our rotation were/are much, much higher than the odds of Daniel Hudson succeeding in our rotation. I also believe Jackson will easily outperform Hudson this season.

 

Whether this leads to postseason victories will probably ultimately determine how much sleep many fans who share your opinion of the trade will lose in the years to come...

[bigruss]

I can concede there was a history there that suggested he could be a successful major league pitcher, but I don't even think Daniel Hudson's own mother would have suggested he would pitch as well as he did with Arizona. Secondly, despite those 11 starts with Arizona, I still believe that odds that Jackson succeeds in our rotation were/are much, much higher than the odds of Daniel Hudson succeeding in our rotation. I also believe Jackson will easily outperform Hudson this season.

 

Whether this leads to postseason victories will probably ultimately determine how much sleep many fans who share your opinion of the trade will lose in the years to come...

Yea, this is the key thing for KW and co, because if they don't make it they will have a ton of big holes in the starting pitching staff to fill, and if we assume that attendance does not spike due to not making the playoffs, then they will be in a financial mess.

[Lillian]

Was that really a slider that Jackson was throwing?

I've never seen a slider with that much downward movement.

The ball was diving straight down, as if falling off a table.

 

That looks more like a splitter to me.

The velocity was pretty consistently around 87 to 89. Does that seem a little high for a split finger fastball?

[Balta1701]

Was that really a slider that Jackson was throwing?

I've never seen a slider with that much downward movement.

The ball was diving straight down, as if falling off a table.

 

That looks more like a splitter to me.

The velocity was pretty consistently around 87 to 89. Does that seem a little high for a split finger fastball?

That's Jackson's hard slider.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Not to be a downer but that trade is still quite the loss for us.

 

Depends on how we finish this season and the role he plays. If he plays a big role in a special year then it could make any loss from that trade worth it.

[JorgeFabregas]

Was that really a slider that Jackson was throwing?

I've never seen a slider with that much downward movement.

The ball was diving straight down, as if falling off a table.

 

That looks more like a splitter to me.

The velocity was pretty consistently around 87 to 89. Does that seem a little high for a split finger fastball?

Check out some Stephen Strasburg highlights. His slider has similar movement (and then some).

[southsider2k5]

The problem is that's all you guys are going by is "ifs." What we KNOW is that we gave up a potential future stud who could be had cheap for a long time for a guy on a much shorter term who's a Boras client and has proven to be inconsistent in the past. While I agree either way it's a risk, but Jackson clearly seems like the bigger one; I think you simply saying "What if Hudson doesn't pan out?" is a bit silly when the same thing applies to Jackson, and more critically IMO.

 

Um, judging a guy on potential, is pretty much the definition of "if".

[Rowand44]

Was that really a slider that Jackson was throwing?

I've never seen a slider with that much downward movement.

The ball was diving straight down, as if falling off a table.

 

That looks more like a splitter to me.

The velocity was pretty consistently around 87 to 89. Does that seem a little high for a split finger fastball?

He throws a splitter too but ya his slider has more downward movement than the average one does.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I had such a great time at the game yesterday. I went by myself and just absorbed every moment.

 

PS: Damn you weather man for saying it would be 55 and the temp never went above 42!!

Edited April 8, 2011 by Athomeboy_2000

[SoxPride56]

I had such a great time at the game yesterday. I went by myself and just absorbed every moment.

PS: Damn you weather man for saying it would be 55 and the temp never went above 42!!

 

 

Tell me about it! I guess one of the good things about being sick, but still going to the game, was I dressed for 30 degree weather!

[southsider2k5]

I had such a great time at the game yesterday. I went by myself and just absorbed every moment.

 

PS: Damn you weather man for saying it would be 55 and the temp never went above 42!!

 

The fog messed up everything yesterday.

[Controlled Chaos]

The fog messed up everything yesterday.

Yeah it was definitely chilly and the bathroom lines were the worst I have experienced in 17 years of opening days. You could easily miss 1-2 innings.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Yeah it was definitely chilly and the bathroom lines were the worst I have experienced in 17 years of opening days. You could easily miss 1-2 innings.

I missed 3 batters in the 6th inning, that was it.

[ptatc]

He throws a splitter too but ya his slider has more downward movement than the average one does.

 

That's because he actually throws it properly with an over the top motion instead of trying to drop down and get more lateral movement. It reminds me alot of the way Roberto Hernandez used to throw his. He was a very good relief pitcher due to that slider.

 

[bigruss]

Um, judging a guy on potential, is pretty much the definition of "if".

Jackson was pretty much the same way though, loads of potential and spotty results.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Jackson for Hudson will be an economic fail no matter what happens. That's the key. All thing being equal and I'd be fine with the trade. If Jackson has a breakout year then he's looking at 5 years and at least $70-75 million. And then we've still got the two giant elephants in the room that is Danks and Buehrle to worry about. And a farm in which Wite would be the team's top pitching prospect. And hes's garbage.

[BigSqwert]

Jackson for Hudson will be an economic fail no matter what happens. That's the key. All thing being equal and I'd be fine with the trade. If Jackson has a breakout year then he's looking at 5 years and at least $70-75 million. And then we've still got the two giant elephants in the room that is Danks and Buehrle to worry about. And a farm in which Wite would be the team's top pitching prospect. And hes's garbage.

 

So lets say we win it all this year, largely because of a monster year by Jackson. Is the trade still an economic fail? Winning the WS is a huge deal financially and I think our chances of doing that are much greater with Jackson. I just don't see us winning it this year with a Hudson in our rotation.

[Soxbadger]

(Edit Bigsqwert beat me to the punch, so this is in response to J4l)

 

You actually are wrong there.

 

If Jackson brings the Sox increased revenue which is greater than his contract (profit) that exceeds what the revenue minus Hudson's contract would have been, then Jackson would be an economic success.

 

So lets call a spade a spade, Hudson is cheaper, but cheaper does not always mean economically better.

 

Ill make it simple:

 

There are 2 tacos I can buy, the first is from a shady restaurant and costs $1, the second is from a Rick Bayless restaurant and costs $13. Using your simplistic view, 13 costs more than 1 dollar, therefore economically the first taco must be a better buy.

 

But if the taco I bought for $1 gives me salmonella and that costs me $1,000 in medical bills, it was not a better economical purchase, because $1001 (the real cost of the taco) is greater than 13.

 

The only way we will be able to determine an economic fail would be to determine the actual value brought to the team by Jackson minus his cost, versus the actual value brought to the team by Hudson minus his cost.

 

Its not just as simple as $7mil > $350k, you would have to wait until the end of both of their careers to really know who was the more economical player.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Chicago White Sox]

Jackson for Hudson will be an economic fail no matter what happens. That's the key. All thing being equal and I'd be fine with the trade. If Jackson has a breakout year then he's looking at 5 years and at least $70-75 million. And then we've still got the two giant elephants in the room that is Danks and Buehrle to worry about. And a farm in which Wite would be the team's top pitching prospect. And hes's garbage.

If Jackson has a breakout year, does he still have a chance of becoming a Type A free agent? If he were to become that and leave, we'd get 2 high picks and 1 1/3 years of Jackson in exchange for Hudson. Unless Hudson becomes a legit top of the rotation starter, I don't see how the trade is an economic loss. Sure, they don't help us in 2012, but those potential picks need to be considered before concluding which team received more value in the trade.

[southsider2k5]

Jackson for Hudson will be an economic fail no matter what happens. That's the key. All thing being equal and I'd be fine with the trade. If Jackson has a breakout year then he's looking at 5 years and at least $70-75 million. And then we've still got the two giant elephants in the room that is Danks and Buehrle to worry about. And a farm in which Wite would be the team's top pitching prospect. And hes's garbage.

 

If Hudson turns out to be Kip Wells or Brandon McCarthy 2.0, the deal is not a fail.

[Soxbadger]

Its a statement that can not be defended.

 

He said "NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS"

 

So even if Jackson resigns with the Sox for $300k, wins 7 cy young awards and 7 world series, it will always be an economic fail.

 

It should be pretty clear at this point some people refuse to look at the Jackson-Hudson trade fairly, I just hope the majority of White Sox fans can appreciate Jackson for who he is, not as some comparison to the mythical legend that is Daniel Hudson.

 

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

So lets say we win it all this year, largely because of a monster year by Jackson. Is the trade still an economic fail? Winning the WS is a huge deal financially and I think our chances of doing that are much greater with Jackson. I just don't see us winning it this year with a Hudson in our rotation.

 

I don't see us winning it this year because of Jackson, either. Now if he can prove me wrong and finally have that breakout year and spearhead us o a title, then damn, I won't have anything to say. Though it'd be a lock that we lose him after the year. But if something as dramatic as a World Series title has to occur to justify a trade then it probably wasn't a good one to begin with.

 

 

(Edit Bigsqwert beat me to the punch, so this is in response to J4l)

 

You actually are wrong there.

 

If Jackson brings the Sox increased revenue which is greater than his contract (profit) that exceeds what the revenue minus Hudson's contract would have been, then Jackson would be an economic success.

 

So lets call a spade a spade, Hudson is cheaper, but cheaper does not always mean economically better.

 

Ill make it simple:

 

There are 2 tacos I can buy, the first is from a shady restaurant and costs $1, the second is from a Rick Bayless restaurant and costs $13. Using your simplistic view, 13 costs more than 1 dollar, therefore economically the first taco must be a better buy.

 

But if the taco I bought for $1 gives me salmonella and that costs me $1,000 in medical bills, it was not a better economical purchase, because $1001 (the real cost of the taco) is greater than 13.

 

The only way we will be able to determine an economic fail would be to determine the actual value brought to the team by Jackson minus his cost, versus the actual value brought to the team by Hudson minus his cost.

 

Its not just as simple as $7mil > $350k, you would have to wait until the end of both of their careers to really know who was the more economical player.

 

I'm not waiting that long. As I've said before, I don't think Hudson is Strasburg the sequel. But I was against the trade as soon as it happened. Not just when Hudson went on to blitz the NL.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Jordan4life

[Jordan4life_2007]

If Jackson has a breakout year, does he still have a chance of becoming a Type A free agent? If he were to become that and leave, we'd get 2 high picks and 1 1/3 years of Jackson in exchange for Hudson. Unless Hudson becomes a legit top of the rotation starter, I don't see how the trade is an economic loss. Sure, they don't help us in 2012, but those potential picks need to be considered before concluding which team received more value in the trade.

 

And then we'd have to wait 2-3 years for those picks to possibly become something when we already had a major league ready pitcher in Hudson.

 

If Hudson turns out to be Kip Wells or Brandon McCarthy 2.0, the deal is not a fail.

 

That's what pisses me off right there. We keep coming up with the worst case scenario when it comes to Hudson but the best case when it comes to Jackson. Hudson doesn't have to become Clayton Kershaw to make this trade a loser from the Sox's end. No matter what Jackson does.

 

Its a statement that can not be defended.

 

He said "NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS"

 

So even if Jackson resigns with the Sox for $300k, wins 7 cy young awards and 7 world series, it will always be an economic fail.

 

It should be pretty clear at this point some people refuse to look at the Jackson-Hudson trade fairly, I just hope the majority of White Sox fans can appreciate Jackson for who he is, not as some comparison to the mythical legend that is Daniel Hudson.

 

As I've said many times before, it's a natural tendency for some to automatically think the team they root for can magically have an impact on a guy(s) that nobody else could. Jackson will never sniff a CY award. So I don't know why you went there. Can he be good? Sure. But so can Hudson.