WHITE SOX WINNER!!!

[nitetrain8601]

He's acknowledged the psychosis. That's at least step 5 or 6. There's hope for the young man yet.

 

Nothing but love.

 

Lol. We all love J4L though. Jackson is just a discussion that he won't budge on and that's fine. Some of us have our biases for certain players, whether we like to admit it or not. At the end of the day, it's

 

[ILMOU]

Lol. We all love J4L though. Jackson is just a discussion that he won't budge on and that's fine. Some of us have our biases for certain players, whether we like to admit it or not. At the end of the day, it's

 

 

I'll officially nominate AJP as my whipping boy of the team, and this really goes back to last year. I've come to fully expect badness like his bases loaded DP today, and utter failure in RBI situations generally. Anything, other than a lousy AB is a shock for me, almost.

 

I don't consider myself a hater, but a little guilty here. Still love the intangibles, but when intangibles are all you got, you're Mark Kotsay, minus the hot wife.

 

Prove me wrong AJP.

[BFirebird]

Great all-around game. Pitching. Defense. Timely hitting. Bullpen. Stolen bases. Double steal!

 

Just got back from it but DAMN IT WAS COLD. DAMP cold.

Just got back as well..screw the weather people and their 50 degree prediction for today. EJax was dominate. Commanded the whole plate and timely hitting won this game. Nice to see them get some wins with 0 home runs.

[iamshack]

And some of you guys read what the hell you want to read while completely missing the point.

You said the trade was an obvious loss from a White Sox perspective.

 

How else can one read that?

 

And how on earth could you possibly know this at this point in time?

 

Do you realize how huge it is to have Jackson in the rotation right now as opposed to Hudson? Do you realize how vulnerable we would be at this particular stage without Peavy and with an unproven starter in our rotation? What if Hudson falters early this year, as young pitchers often do after experiencing some success? And how is it that Hudson's small taste of success with Arizona last year is somehow something that can be relied upon, whereas Jackson, who has posted an ERA around 3.5 in a White Sox uniform still needs to show us more?

 

I can accept that some people would rather have saved the money and had the 5 extra years of service time out of Hudson. But no one can say right now that either team has won or lost the trade, because the results on the field are not yet complete.

 

What if Jackson anchors our rotation and leads us to a division title? An ALCS win? A World Series win? How the hell do you quantify the final result of the trade before the results have even played out yet?

[Milkman delivers]

You said the trade was an obvious loss from a White Sox perspective.

 

How else can one read that?

 

And how on earth could you possibly know this at this point in time?

 

Do you realize how huge it is to have Jackson in the rotation right now as opposed to Hudson? Do you realize how vulnerable we would be at this particular stage without Peavy and with an unproven starter in our rotation? What if Hudson falters early this year, as young pitchers often do after experiencing some success? And how is it that Hudson's small taste of success with Arizona last year is somehow something that can be relied upon, whereas Jackson, who has posted an ERA around 3.5 in a White Sox uniform still needs to show us more?

 

I can accept that some people would rather have saved the money and had the 5 extra years of service time out of Hudson. But no one can say right now that either team has won or lost the trade, because the results on the field are not yet complete.

 

What if Jackson anchors our rotation and leads us to a division title? An ALCS win? A World Series win? How the hell do you quantify the final result of the trade before the results have even played out yet?

 

I actually thought Jackson's ERA has been lower with the Sox.

[iamshack]

I actually thought Jackson's ERA has been lower with the Sox.

It probably is after today....

[Milkman delivers]

It probably is after today....

 

Haha, good point. I just thought it was in the lower 3's.

[iamshack]

Haha, good point. I just thought it was in the lower 3's.

My guess is it's around 3.2-3.3 or so now...

[Rowand44]

You said the trade was an obvious loss from a White Sox perspective.

 

How else can one read that?

 

And how on earth could you possibly know this at this point in time?

 

Do you realize how huge it is to have Jackson in the rotation right now as opposed to Hudson? Do you realize how vulnerable we would be at this particular stage without Peavy and with an unproven starter in our rotation? What if Hudson falters early this year, as young pitchers often do after experiencing some success? And how is it that Hudson's small taste of success with Arizona last year is somehow something that can be relied upon, whereas Jackson, who has posted an ERA around 3.5 in a White Sox uniform still needs to show us more?

 

I can accept that some people would rather have saved the money and had the 5 extra years of service time out of Hudson. But no one can say right now that either team has won or lost the trade, because the results on the field are not yet complete.

 

What if Jackson anchors our rotation and leads us to a division title? An ALCS win? A World Series win? How the hell do you quantify the final result of the trade before the results have even played out yet?

Overall, it's going to be a loss, yes. And for the 90th time, I haven't anointed Hudson anything and neither has anyone else around here. Edwin and Huddy both have to show more, Jackson has had an up and down career and well Hudson hasn't proven anything in the majors yet.

 

Here's what we know: Jackson has the higher ceiling but Hudson thus far has been a tad better since the trade and the Dbacks get 5 years of a very inexpensive pitcher. At best, Edwin turns into an ace this season and we lose him next year. Now, once again, if Edwin has turned the corner(and I DO believe he has) and we can somehow manage to re-sign him then that changes pretty much everything. But at this point, it's definitely a net gain for the Diamondbacks.

[iamshack]

Overall, it's going to be a loss, yes. And for the 90th time, I haven't anointed Hudson anything and neither has anyone else around here. Edwin and Huddy both have to show more, Jackson has had an up and down career and well Hudson hasn't proven anything in the majors yet.

 

Here's what we know: Jackson has the higher ceiling but Hudson thus far has been a tad better since the trade and the Dbacks get 5 years of a very inexpensive pitcher. At best, Edwin turns into an ace this season and we lose him next year. Now, once again, if Edwin has turned the corner(and I DO believe he has) and we can somehow manage to re-sign him then that changes pretty much everything. But at this point, it's definitely a net gain for the Diamondbacks.

And what if Hudson struggles and never turns into anything more than a fringe pitcher? You're saying you haven't annointed him anything, and yet you are, saying he's going to be starting for the next 5 years. Seems like you are annointing him to be at least an average mlb starter to me.

 

We've seen plenty of starters start out like Hudson and then turn into Zach Duke.

[Jack Parkman]

Overall, it's going to be a loss, yes. And for the 90th time, I haven't anointed Hudson anything and neither has anyone else around here. Edwin and Huddy both have to show more, Jackson has had an up and down career and well Hudson hasn't proven anything in the majors yet.

 

Here's what we know: Jackson has the higher ceiling but Hudson thus far has been a tad better since the trade and the Dbacks get 5 years of a very inexpensive pitcher. At best, Edwin turns into an ace this season and we lose him next year. Now, once again, if Edwin has turned the corner(and I DO believe he has) and we can somehow manage to re-sign him then that changes pretty much everything. But at this point, it's definitely a net gain for the Diamondbacks.

At the time of the Hudson/Jackson trade, I thought that Hudson was a #3 at best and Jackson under Cooper's tutelage could be an ace, and maybe would be appreciative enough to the Sox for helping him reach his potential to give them maybe a 2/25 extension. I was for the trade, until I heard that Jackson's agent was Boras. Now I know that if Jackson reaches his potential, it is the Danks situation again. He'll get ace money from someone, and 5-7 years. Sometimes I think you have to make an exception for pitchers and pay up, but I don't know if Jackson is the right guy to do it with because he relies so much on his stuff, and when it declines,(which you never know when it will happen) he'll get lit up like a pinball machine. second off, he is pretty much on the young end of free agency. When top free agents are 27 or 28 years old, they get more money. The maximum year length deal I'd sign him for is 4 years, taking him from age 28-31, and knowing Boras's MO, he'd laugh at that. I think Jackson may win the CY award this season, so that just plays into Boras's hands. The best we can hope for is a return to form by Peavy this year, Jackson turning into an ace, and Danks taking that next step, all leading to a Sox WS win. Unfortunately, all that will lead to is a complete blowup of the team after this season a la Florida Marlins in 1997-1998. I think when they say they're "all in" they mean it in the sense that this season is the last one for the Sox as we know them, and they plan to go young next season. This is the last shot, It's 2011 WS winner or bust, and bust is coming whether the Sox win the WS or not.

By the way, does anyone remember when Hudson pitched for the Sox? The guy has no breaking ball. He's fastball-changeup with a mediocre at best slider and curve.

He'll get hit hard once the league adjusts to him.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Elgin Slim

[iamshack]

At the time of the Hudson/Jackson trade, I thought that Hudson was a #3 at best and Jackson under Cooper's tutelage could be an ace, and maybe would be appreciative enough to the Sox for helping him reach his potential to give them maybe a 2/25 extension. I was for the trade, until I heard that Jackson's agent was Boras. Now I know that if Jackson reaches his potential, it is the Danks situation again. He'll get ace money from someone, and 5-7 years. Sometimes I think you have to make an exception for pitchers and pay up, but I don't know if Jackson is the right guy to do it with because he relies so much on his stuff, and when it declines,(which you never know when it will happen) he'll get lit up like a pinball machine. second off, he is pretty much on the young end of free agency. When top free agents are 27 or 28 years old, they get more money. The maximum year length deal I'd sign him for is 4 years, taking him from age 28-31, and knowing Boras's MO, he'd laugh at that. I think Jackson may win the CY award this season, so that just plays into Boras's hands. The best we can hope for is a return to form by Peavy this year, Jackson turning into an ace, and Danks taking that next step, all leading to a Sox WS win. Unfortunately, all that will lead to is a complete blowup of the team after this season a la Florida Marlins in 1997-1998. I think when they say they're "all in" they mean it in the sense that this season is the last one for the Sox as we know them, and they plan to go young next season. This is the last shot, It's 2011 WS winner or bust, and bust is coming whether the Sox win the WS or not.

If that is indeed what you think, then I'd be hard-pressed to imagine how trading Hudson for Edwin results in a loss for us, especially considering the makeup of our roster and what a CY season from Edwin would probably do for our chances this year.

[TheBigHurt]

If that is indeed what you think, then I'd be hard-pressed to imagine how trading Hudson for Edwin results in a loss for us, especially considering the makeup of our roster and what a CY season from Edwin would probably do for our chances this year.

 

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.

[Knackattack]

Player-wise, we definitely came out on top of the Ejax-Huddy deal. There's no question that Jackson has better stuff and is a better pitcher as of right now - Value-wise, however, I don't think we come out on top in that perspective unless we can re-sign Ejax.

 

But as of right now I like it. And even if A.J. is a weakness in the line-up, the value he brings with the pitching staff makes him better than any of our other options. Although the future at catcher is a bit sketchy for us, IMO.

[Jack Parkman]

If that is indeed what you think, then I'd be hard-pressed to imagine how trading Hudson for Edwin results in a loss for us, especially considering the makeup of our roster and what a CY season from Edwin would probably do for our chances this year.

It doesn't, because after a few months of jumping on the 'KW got robbed in the EJ deal' bandwagon, I went back thought about what I thought of Hudson when KW made the trade and before Hudson lit up the NL. I remembered that Hudson does not have a major league breaking ball, though he does have an awesome fastball-change combination. I remembered how in his starts with the Sox lefties killed him because of his almost sidearm arm angle. I thought that once the NL advance scouts realize this Hudson will be hit hard and relegated to the bullpen or be # 3 on his best days and most of the time a back end guy in the NL. I remember praising Keith Law for saying that Hudson was a back end guy with no breaking ball. Even if we get one season of solid pitching from Jackson (14-10, 3.75 ERA 180-190 K) it is better for us than Hudson because a guy with his stuff can be dominant in the playoffs, and a guy with Hudson's stuff and inexperience would probably get shelled.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Elgin Slim

[iamshack]

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.

I think it's fair to say that Kenny probably got less than he could have for Hudson. I can't really argue that.

 

But ultimately, it's what production you receive versus what you give up. If Jackson performs at the level he has since the trade was made, I will be pleased with the gamble, and I think we will have had a chance to do some damage in the postseason. That opportunity, given the makeup of our current roster, would have been worth Hudson, in my opinion. I understand, however, that it may not be the opinion of others.

 

What would you rather have though, a trade in which it appeared you were the clear winner at the time of the trade, or a trade in which you were the ultimate winner after all the chips have fallen where they might?

[Jack Parkman]

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.

Please read my post on what I thought of Hudson in his short time with the Sox. Jackson has the higher upside, period, and I don't think that Hudson can get hitters out consistently in the majors with what scouts call fringe-average breaking balls.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Elgin Slim

[T R U]

Dan Hudson sucks

[TheBigHurt]

I think it's fair to say that Kenny probably got less than he could have for Hudson. I can't really argue that.

 

But ultimately, it's what production you receive versus what you give up. If Jackson performs at the level he has since the trade was made, I will be pleased with the gamble, and I think we will have had a chance to do some damage in the postseason. That opportunity, given the makeup of our current roster, would have been worth Hudson, in my opinion. I understand, however, that it may not be the opinion of others.

 

What would you rather have though, a trade in which it appeared you were the clear winner at the time of the trade, or a trade in which you were the ultimate winner after all the chips have fallen where they might?

 

I agree with that notion. But if you're thinking long term (which you should) then Hudson was a better fit. In short, I think it becomes a huge tragedy if the Sox don't make the playoffs this year.

 

 

Please read my post on what I thought of Hudson in his short time with the Sox. Jackson has the higher upside, period, and I don't think that Hudson can get hitters out consistently in the majors with what scouts call fringe-average breaking balls.

 

Once again, for the most part it seems a lot of people are hung on "I believe," "I think," and "if." Same goes for my earlier argument about Walker/the offense. I think putting all opinions/preconceptions aside, logically going with Hudson would be an overall more conservative decision. If we win it all this year or even just go to the playoffs I guess it become null, I admit that. But if not, then it just looks like a huge waste... which is exactly how it looked at the time of the trade (which IMO is the most logical way to look at it; value the trade for how it looked at the time of).

[iamshack]

I agree with that notion. But if you're thinking long term (which you should) then Hudson was a better fit. In short, I think it becomes a huge tragedy if the Sox don't make the playoffs this year.

 

 

 

 

Once again, for the most part it seems a lot of people are hung on "I believe," "I think," and "if." Same goes for my earlier argument about Walker/the offense. I think putting all opinions/preconceptions aside, logically going with Hudson would be an overall more conservative decision. If we win it all this year or even just go to the playoffs I guess it become null, I admit that. But if not, then it just looks like a huge waste... which is exactly how it looked at the time of the trade (which IMO is the most logical way to look at it; value the trade for how it looked at the time of).

I don't really take issue with anyone's opinion of the deal anymore. I think reasonable minds can easily disagree on this one.

 

What I do disagree with, is the notion that somehow a value judgment can be made as to who won the trade at this point. We just haven't seen enough play out yet.

 

I can understand those who feel like we could have gotten more for Hudson, but ultimately, I care about results on the field, not who won the negotiations.

[ScottyDo]

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.

That's a pretty "iffy" word itself.

 

That's what happens when you try to predict the ultimate outcome of a trade well before the results are in. You say "if" a whole bunch.

[bigruss]

That's a pretty "iffy" word itself.

 

That's what happens when you try to predict the ultimate outcome of a trade well before the results are in. You say "if" a whole bunch.

Jackson was just as big of an IF as Hudson IMO.

[bigruss]

I don't really take issue with anyone's opinion of the deal anymore. I think reasonable minds can easily disagree on this one.

 

What I do disagree with, is the notion that somehow a value judgment can be made as to who won the trade at this point. We just haven't seen enough play out yet.

 

I can understand those who feel like we could have gotten more for Hudson, but ultimately, I care about results on the field, not who won the negotiations.

Agreed, I have obviously stated my opinions on the trade, but I can understand the mentality of the other side, I just don't agree with it.

 

But here's to hoping he keeps it up and wins us some more ballgames!

[iamshack]

Agreed, I have obviously stated my opinions on the trade, but I can understand the mentality of the other side, I just don't agree with it.

 

But here's to hoping he keeps it up and wins us some more ballgames!

Russ, let me ask you this...what if Hudson were to struggle this season, ultimately get sent back down to AAA, and never really end up doing anything more than being a long relief kind of guy? Would you still view the trade as one we lost because we might have gotten more in return for him had we made a deal with someone else?

[bigruss]

Russ, let me ask you this...what if Hudson were to struggle this season, ultimately get sent back down to AAA, and never really end up doing anything more than being a long relief kind of guy? Would you still view the trade as one we lost because we might have gotten more in return for him had we made a deal with someone else?

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."