The GREAT Daniel Hudson

[iamshack]

Not happening.

 

 

No.

I love answers like these. It really helps create more discussion.

[Quin]

 

 

 

As in the Yankees would never trade Montero? I don't think anybody in their system is off limits with their starting pitching situation. Nothing will happen this year (unless the Sox really stink up the joint). If KW could get Montero and one of Betances/Banuelos (and I would accept no less for a pitcher of Danks' caliber), I'd praise him like I do Cargo.

 

 

That's what I want if I have to give up John Danks.

 

 

I love answers like these. It really helps create more discussion.

 

 

No.

[Bubba Philips]

He won't give the contract, which is why I believe John is gone.

Buehrle, didn't sign a longterm contract while he was under the sox control. Perhaps it is a good strategy.

[southsider2k5]

Buehrle, didn't sign a longterm contract while he was under the sox control. Perhaps it is a good strategy.

 

Buehrle has also signed deals before that deal. He had a much bigger history than Danks does. He also wasn't looking at the payday that Danks is.

[cws0591]

God if only mlb the Show was real baseball... I just traded Mark B, Pierre, and gallagher (Arod went down with a torn ACL) for Gardner and Montero....

[macsandz]

Can we please stay on topic here boys...? Daniel Hudson sucks.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Can we please stay on topic here boys...? Daniel Hudson sucks.

 

Excellent analysis.

[witesoxfan]

Buehrle, didn't sign a longterm contract while he was under the sox control. Perhaps it is a good strategy.

 

What? Yes he did. The extension he signed with the Sox in '07 was in like June.

[oldsox]

On the open market, Danks is undoubtedly worth more.

 

Does anyone really believe that JR will give a $100 million dollar contract to a non-superstar pitcher for five years or more?

 

Let's say we're talking a contract somewhere in the vicinity of the Braun deal that was recently announced. Barring some type of incredible 2005/2006 run, I just don't see the cost/benefit analysis on that one ending up in favor of Danks sticking around with the Sox.

 

He just happens to be the most important trade chip in any rebuilding effort. Hopefully they don't go that direction, and there's certainly logic to retaining Danks if Buehrle is actually planning to leave the Sox or retire. It always comes back to Peavy.

 

If he's healthy enough, then you have three starters (Floyd/Danks/Peavy) and theoretically Sale. But to rebuild an entire rotation around Floyd and Sale, that's a huge non-starter in terms of "patching" on the go or "reloading" and finally points to rebuilding. (That is, unless there's a big offset in insurance for Peavy not pitching for the major league team for the remainder of his contract.)

If Dunn is worth $60mm, then Danks is worth something in the neighborhood of our national debt.

[LittleHurt05]

Excellent analysis.

 

If that doesn't convince you, then nothing will

[lostfan]

If Dunn is worth $60mm, then Danks is worth something in the neighborhood of our national debt.

I lol'd at this

[caulfield12]

I lol'd at this

 

$14.29 trillion or ZERO in the case of a default.

 

Maybe we can split the difference and value Danksie at $7.1 trillion.

 

 

[Quin]

Can we please stay on topic here boys...? Daniel Hudson sucks.

 

Please, give me a reason?

 

Is it his numbers this season? Because then Chris Sale sucks too.

 

Look, Hudson isn't a surefire Hall of Fame lock, but he should be a damn good number three starter for the Diamondbacks in the NL.

 

I was indifferent towards the trade. I still think it was an overpay, but Jackson could very well be our ace this year so I accepted it. Threads like this are just to whip your dick out and yell "I WAS RIGHT!" and bait people into reacting.

 

Right now, if I had one game, I'm taking E-Jax. If I'm planning for the future, it's Hudson. If we somehow resign EJax, get a good pitching prospect, or draft one with whatever picks we hopefully can get for him (I believe he is a Type-B FA right now) then we win the deal. If we don't, we lose, because Hudson represented value. It's like the Charlotte Bobcats pick for the Bulls, you could strike gold or you don't and Hudson looked like he had damn good value until we called him up, then got it back in Arizona. Had he bounced back like that here we'd have been talking about Chris Sale in the rotation and trading Hudson in a package for a closer, probably Heath Bell.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Quinarvy

[Dick Allen]

Please, give me a reason?

 

Is it his numbers this season? Because then Chris Sale sucks too.

 

Look, Hudson isn't a surefire Hall of Fame lock, but he should be a damn good number three starter for the Diamondbacks in the NL.

 

I was indifferent towards the trade. I still think it was an overpay, but Jackson could very well be our ace this year so I accepted it. Threads like this are just to whip your dick out and yell "I WAS RIGHT!" and bait people into reacting.

 

Right now, if I had one game, I'm taking E-Jax. If I'm planning for the future, it's Hudson. If we somehow resign EJax, get a good pitching prospect, or draft one with whatever picks we hopefully can get for him (I believe he is a Type-B FA right now) then we win the deal. If we don't, we lose, because Hudson represented value. It's like the Charlotte Bobcats pick for the Bulls, you could strike gold or you don't and Hudson looked like he had damn good value until we called him up, then got it back in Arizona. Had he bounced back like that here we'd have been talking about Chris Sale in the rotation and trading Hudson in a package for a closer, probably Heath Bell.

I disagree about your thoughts about the thread. Last season we constantly heard how great Daniel Hudson was. How terrible of a trade it was because of what he did in AZ, even though Jackson was pretty much lights out with the Sox. As for Hudson's value, I would guess if KW is shopping him, and believe me I'm no KW fan, he probably has a better idea of that than we do, and if Hudson is 0-4 with high ERA in the NL, how will that translate to the AL? Its just another case of love for mediocre prospects on this board. Hudson may be a decent 4 or 5 starter but that's his ceiling. When Brandon Allen got traded the outrage was just as intense, and he can't beat out Russell Branyan 3 years later. There were posts that he would be an All Star. I believe people on Soxtalk have a way higher view of some White Sox prospects than the guys who get paid to evaluate.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Dick Allen

[justBLAZE]

I completely agree with above and I think it comes from the fact that our farm is so s***ty, any decent looking prospects is viewed as next Babe Ruth.

 

 

[iamshack]

I completely agree with above and I think it comes from the fact that our farm is so s***ty, any decent looking prospects is viewed as next Babe Ruth.

Daniel Hudson was getting some pretty solid national attention for his efforts. Sure, he was a bright star in a sky full of very dull ones, but he still went out and pitched superbly against the competition of other team's systems and proved he belonged at every level til he reached the parent club. I'm not a Daniel Hudson guy - and I wasn't from the time I first saw him pitch on tv - but this wasn't a matter of him being only touted by internal scouts.

[Dick Allen]

I completely agree with above and I think it comes from the fact that our farm is so s***ty, any decent looking prospects is viewed as next Babe Ruth.

I think with sabermetrics becoming more and more mainstream, a lot of people are just looking at stats to determine how guys in AA and AAA project. Jeremy Reed and Jeff Abbott had minor league hitting stats that would project them to be perennial all stars. It didn't happen. Josh Fields was going to be a star because of how he lit up some pitchers in some meaningless games, then the league realized they didn't have to throw him strikes. The biggest jump isn't from A to AA or AA to AAA its from any level to MLB.

 

Personally, I would like the Sox as an organization to put some value on making contact. Its not like they are developing 40 homer guys or 30 homer guys or even 20 homer guys right now, and I'm not emphasizing small ball or bunting. I know contact all around baseball has be de-valued for a long while, although I laugh that a strikeout is just an out like any other out. Its OK some guys strike out a lot, but they should be run producers who also walk a lot. Not every hit is a rocket. If Jordan Danks struck out 80 times instead of 150 and made contact those other 70 ABs some of those 70 would find a hole even if they were weakly hit.

[caulfield12]

Please, give me a reason?

 

Is it his numbers this season? Because then Chris Sale sucks too.

 

Look, Hudson isn't a surefire Hall of Fame lock, but he should be a damn good number three starter for the Diamondbacks in the NL.

 

I was indifferent towards the trade. I still think it was an overpay, but Jackson could very well be our ace this year so I accepted it. Threads like this are just to whip your dick out and yell "I WAS RIGHT!" and bait people into reacting.

 

Right now, if I had one game, I'm taking E-Jax. If I'm planning for the future, it's Hudson. If we somehow resign EJax, get a good pitching prospect, or draft one with whatever picks we hopefully can get for him (I believe he is a Type-B FA right now) then we win the deal. If we don't, we lose, because Hudson represented value. It's like the Charlotte Bobcats pick for the Bulls, you could strike gold or you don't and Hudson looked like he had damn good value until we called him up, then got it back in Arizona. Had he bounced back like that here we'd have been talking about Chris Sale in the rotation and trading Hudson in a package for a closer, probably Heath Bell.

 

The problem is that we'll never know if Hudson or McCarthy or anyone could have done the same things if they'd stayed here. Heck, you can add Kip Wells and Josh Fogg while you're at it.

 

We only know what Jackson has done since the trade.

 

I can't imagine a rotation of Danks-Floyd-Buehrle-Sale-Humber would be doing all that much better. You'd have to argue that Heath Bell would have been available straight up for Hudson AND that Sale could actually outpitch E-Jax this season. We can argue with Bell they would have had 3-4 less blown saves, but it's all murky conjecture.

 

I don't think you can state either with anything close to certainty, especially the idea of Sale outpitching Jackson in 2011 as a starter.

Edited April 23, 2011 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

The problem is that we'll never know if Hudson or McCarthy or anyone could have done the same things if they'd stayed here. Heck, you can add Kip Wells and Josh Fogg while you're at it.

 

We only know what Jackson has done since the trade.

 

I can't imagine a rotation of Danks-Floyd-Buehrle-Sale-Humber would be doing all that much better. You'd have to argue that Heath Bell would have been available straight up for Hudson AND that Sale could actually outpitch E-Jax this season. We can argue with Bell they would have had 3-4 less blown saves, but it's all murky conjecture.

 

I don't think you can state either with anything close to certainty, especially the idea of Sale outpitching Jackson in 2011 as a starter.

Heath Bell for Daniel Hudson straight up wasn't happening, at least last year at the deadline, and if KW made the move a year earlier people would have been complaining he traded for a closer when he already had one, and you don't trade your top prospect for a set up guy.

 

BTW, Jose Contreras has 5 saves and an ERA of 0.00.

 

I also can't believe I'm defending KW.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

I think with sabermetrics becoming more and more mainstream, a lot of people are just looking at stats to determine how guys in AA and AAA project. Jeremy Reed and Jeff Abbott had minor league hitting stats that would project them to be perennial all stars. It didn't happen. Josh Fields was going to be a star because of how he lit up some pitchers in some meaningless games, then the league realized they didn't have to throw him strikes. The biggest jump isn't from A to AA or AA to AAA its from any level to MLB.

 

Personally, I would like the Sox as an organization to put some value on making contact. Its not like they are developing 40 homer guys or 30 homer guys or even 20 homer guys right now, and I'm not emphasizing small ball or bunting. I know contact all around baseball has be de-valued for a long while, although I laugh that a strikeout is just an out like any other out. Its OK some guys strike out a lot, but they should be run producers who also walk a lot. Not every hit is a rocket. If Jordan Danks struck out 80 times instead of 150 and made contact those other 70 ABs some of those 70 would find a hole even if they were weakly hit.

 

 

Which was the essence of the problem with guys like Brian Anderson or even Getz K-ing like they were 30 homer guys.

 

We can afford to have guys like Morel and Pierre and AJ, we're not going to have 7-8 twenty homer guys again in our line-up. However, if you start having Beckham, Rios and Ramirez K-ing 100+ times without making productive outs, the whole structure of the line-up becomes severely hamstrung.

 

Outside of Quentin and Konerko, nobody's been hitting, so there are targets throughout the line-up for criticism.

 

Not to parrot Rongey and DJ/Farmer and Hawk/Stone, but we've had a long string of facing some really good starting pitchers, since the beginning of the A's series.

 

Farmer made an interesting comment about Morel not being the same since facing Jared Weaver, and Beckham and Rios both look totally lost. Dunn, you know, somehow ends up with his numbers, but hopefully he learns the league quickly and those are Albert Belle 1997 "meaningless" stats where the season's already been lost.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Not to parrot Rongey and DJ/Farmer and Hawk/Stone, but we've had a long string of facing some really good starting pitchers, since the beginning of the A's series.

 

That just tells me that we have no chance in the post season if we somehow got in.

[Dick Allen]

Which was the essence of the problem with guys like Brian Anderson or even Getz K-ing like they were 30 homer guys.

 

We can afford to have guys like Morel and Pierre and AJ, we're not going to have 7-8 twenty homer guys again in our line-up. However, if you start having Beckham, Rios and Ramirez K-ing 100+ times without making productive outs, the whole structure of the line-up becomes severely hamstrung.

 

Outside of Quentin and Konerko, nobody's been hitting, so there are targets throughout the line-up for criticism.

 

Not to parrot Rongey and DJ/Farmer and Hawk/Stone, but we've had a long string of facing some really good starting pitchers, since the beginning of the A's series.

 

Farmer made an interesting comment about Morel not being the same since facing Jared Weaver, and Beckham and Rios both look totally lost. Dunn, you know, somehow ends up with his numbers, but hopefully he learns the league quickly and those are Albert Belle 1997 "meaningless" stats where the season's already been lost.

I just find it ironic how strikeouts are not cared about anymore when BABIP is always used to determine if you've been lucky or unlucky. Batting Average for Balls Not In Play is .000. Some players would make a lot more money if they gave up trying to hit it 500 feet. Some would probably would hit more homers as well.

 

How come people are still up in arms KW traded a stiff in Daniel Hudson, but the same people aren't upset Gio Gonzalez isn't in White Sox double knits?

Edited April 23, 2011 by Dick Allen

[sin city sox fan]

BTW, Jose Contreras has 5 saves and an ERA of 0.00.

 

 

Is that like a cousin or something of the Jose Contreras that used to be on our roster? Can't be the same guy...is it???

[gatnom]

I disagree about your thoughts about the thread. Last season we constantly heard how great Daniel Hudson was. How terrible of a trade it was because of what he did in AZ, even though Jackson was pretty much lights out with the Sox. As for Hudson's value, I would guess if KW is shopping him, and believe me I'm no KW fan, he probably has a better idea of that than we do, and if Hudson is 0-4 with high ERA in the NL, how will that translate to the AL? Its just another case of love for mediocre prospects on this board. Hudson may be a decent 4 or 5 starter but that's his ceiling. When Brandon Allen got traded the outrage was just as intense, and he can't beat out Russell Branyan 3 years later. There were posts that he would be an All Star. I believe people on Soxtalk have a way higher view of some White Sox prospects than the guys who get paid to evaluate.

.

No, that had absolutely nothing to do with why anybody was angry with it. The people who didn't like the trade thought we didn't get adequate value for 6 years of well below market value for a mid-rotation starter, while leaving us with almost completely nothing in the minors in terms of pitching talent. Anybody who mentioned the "greatness" of Hudson was only responding to the idea that Hudson was only some sort of "NL" pitcher even though he was having a better year than Jackson, against better competition, in a more hitter friendly park. Hudson's ERA was less than 1/3 of Jackson's in Arizona, yet somehow Jackson was the only one possibly capable of handling the AL all of a sudden, which is absolutely absurd.

 

I'll agree to disagree on this issue, but my problem with this trade has nothing to do with how "great" Dan Hudson is. The point is that Hudson doesn't have to be better than Jackson for us to lose this trade. Even if he's only the 4-5 starter you pessimistically peg him as, and I agree he's not as good as he was last year, we could still lose this trade. The argument has nothing to with Hudson being better than Jackson. It has everything to do with money.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

That just tells me that we have no chance in the post season if we somehow got in.

 

They can't beat good pitchers in April, so they won't be good pitchers in October.

 

That's perfectly rational.