The Ultimate Champion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 07:51 PM) We got them in the Jason Frasor trade and gave up Holmberg along with Huddy. Even if you just look at the 1.5 years that Jackson was here, Huddy out produced him. Enter into the equation the amount of years Huddy was under contract(yes I know he's been hurt), the fact that Hudson had to have had a ton of value at that point and we gave up another good arm in the deal? Yuck. 1) This was in the NL 2) You are using hindsight There have been posters here making it out like Coop didn't like Hudson, which would make sense for the deal. If that's true then you trade your guy before he gets hurt. But back to the above 2 points, there's no guarantee he would have done that here and also, going back in time to when that deal was made, it would have been a leap at best to say that during the 1.5 seasons Jackson was contracted to the Sox that Hudson would have been the better bet for both making the postseason (high IP) and going deep into it. Kenny wanted Jackson for the same reason the Cards wanted him to complete the Rasmus deal. Edited December 21, 2013 by The Ultimate Champion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Best KW move is hard to say, there were so many good ones. My favorites are probably the AJ signing, picking up Iguchi out of Japan, the Alexei signing, the Uribe trade, Thornton coming here, dumping Nick Swisher in that 2nd deal (wish that could have been Ozzie), Loaiza for Contreras with NY paying Jose for us (that was nice), Thome for Gio, Haigwood, Rowand and cash as a buy-low thumper who produced well above what we had to pay him, obviously both Freddy deals were fantastic, McCarthy for Danks was wonderful, lots of great moves. Can't name a single favorite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 ^OOOh Jermaine Dye coming here on a sweet deal, that was really nice. What a player he was for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 I know we were trying to win but you don't trade your best prospect and one who was ready to go for a guy who was already been proven to be mediocre and had a 5 era at the time. You can try to spin it any way you want but it was at the time and will always be a ridiculously stupid move to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 07:05 PM) 1) This was in the NL 2) You are using hindsight There have been posters here making it out like Coop didn't like Hudson, which would make sense for the deal. If that's true then you trade your guy before he gets hurt. But back to the above 2 points, there's no guarantee he would have done that here and also, going back in time to when that deal was made, it would have been a leap at best to say that during the 1.5 seasons Jackson was contracted to the Sox that Hudson would have been the better bet for both making the postseason (high IP) and going deep into it. Kenny wanted Jackson for the same reason the Cards wanted him to complete the Rasmus deal. How is that hindsight? I hated the deal when it happened and Edwin was extremely mediocre through out his career when we got him. He was just as much of a wild card as Hudson with out the remaining years and once again we gave up an extra good arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 08:21 PM) How is that hindsight? I hated the deal when it happened and Edwin was extremely mediocre through out his career when we got him. He was just as much of a wild card as Hudson with out the remaining years and once again we gave up an extra good arm. Not to mention taking on $13 million in salary obligations while giving up those 2 kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 06:51 PM) We got them in the Jason Frasor trade and gave up Holmberg along with Huddy. Even if you just look at the 1.5 years that Jackson was here, Huddy out produced him. Enter into the equation the amount of years Huddy was under contract(yes I know he's been hurt), the fact that Hudson had to have had a ton of value at that point and we gave up another good arm in the deal? Yuck. And Frasor was in the second Jackson deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 ^I was just commenting on the 0 sense part only. In hindsight we'd keep Hudson, let him pitch well, then send him to the Blue Jays right before he gets hurt like we usually do. But then again, the first thing we do in hindsight is change all our draft picks, not sign Linebrink or Dunn, fire Ozzie a long time ago, etc. I think it's only fair to judge Kenny and any other GM by the logic of the moves. For example, look at Dayton Moore. He's going to continue to be ripped on for the Shields trade, but there was real logic there. Winning baseball in KC was like snow in hell, no prospect is worth all that futility. Building a winner by taking some chances and trading some prospects isn't necessarily a bad thing to do at all. However, making that deal and then following it up with *absolutely nothing* of significance in over a year since is so illogical, so uncommitted, so stupid on every level that it makes the Jason Vargas signing look par for the course. You evaluate that guy and it doesn't seem like he makes many good baseball moves at all. There's little logic anywhere over there. When it comes to Hahn, likewise I think he should be evaluated based on the conditions of the time. Hector Santiago hasn't been getting a lot of love, but if he turns into a solid #3 for the Angels while Eaton is a 4th OF/complete bust then what are the fans going to say about Hahn? The move made sense when it happened, was a good baseball move, fit into the current team direction nicely ala the EJax deal in win now mode, and regardless what happens I think it's unfair for anyone to go back in time and rip him for it if things don't work out in our favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 07:26 PM) And Frasor was in the second Jackson deal. Separate deals. Either way, Holmberg is the most valuable of all those guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 08:21 PM) How is that hindsight? I hated the deal when it happened and Edwin was extremely mediocre through out his career when we got him. He was just as much of a wild card as Hudson with out the remaining years and once again we gave up an extra good arm. You said Hudson outproduced Jackson. EJax was a Major Leaguer, Hudson was a prospect. EJax was a MASSIVE prospect coming up with the Dodgers while the write-up on Hudson was a #4/#5 in most of what was out there (which BTW I completely disagreed with as well after seeing him pitch). Going back in time and saying that Hudson would perform as well or better would have been a leap at best IMO. Jackson at that point had gotten better and better ever since getting traded to the Rays, then had a real bad 1st half with AZ. He had also pitched 214IP the year prior with Detroit & 183 the year before. To say that Hudson could equal what Jackson was trending towards, back then, would have been a leap, unless you of course believed that the ever-improving Jackson of the previous 2-3 years was a fluke & the real EJ was the guy in AZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jacksed01.shtml Look at Jackson's numbers trending upwards from 2007-2009. Look at that BB/9 just drop. Watch it raise way up to 4.0 with AZ after having fallen to 2.9 in Detroit, and then see how with the Sox under Coop his BB/9 immediately drops from 4.0 to 2.2. Look I liked Hudson too but come on, that guy still is the most overrated pitching prospect we've had that I can remember on these boards. I think it was just the dearth of pitching we'd had coming through in general as so many of our starters were coming out of other organizations, but man was that Hudson s*** unbearable. If he was so great Kenny wouldn't have been laughed at by Rizzo when he tried to deal him for a 1/2 season of Dunn. And the Milwaukee people who were shopping Prince and the Padres people who were shopping Gonzalez probably would have bitten if they thought he was an ace. Or if nothing else they would have done better in the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 08:33 PM) Separate deals. Either way, Holmberg is the most valuable of all those guys. Edwin Jackson has started 235 games in MLB with 1444 total innings and his earnings to this point = $40.355M Dan Hudson has started 62 games in MLB with 381 innings and has earned $1.441M Holmberg has started 1 game in MLB with 3.2 total innings pitched and has earned what, a prorated league minimum for being on the roster? Yes, if the Sox could take any 1 of the 3 right now, given their situation as a rebuilding club wanting to dump salary, they'd take Holmberg. But Holmberg may not be worth anything at all a few months from now for all we know, and if there's any one of the three pitching for me in a game that actually matters and a game that I want to see my team win, then that's a slam dunk who I want pitching it and it's certainly not Holmberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 07:05 PM) There have been posters here making it out like Coop didn't like Hudson, which would make sense for the deal. Even if they didn't like Hudson, they still overpaid for Jackson. He was having a terrible year, the Diamondbacks were terrible and were looking to dump salary. To trade our top 2 pitching prospects for him (HOlmberg was our top low-minor prospect) was bad negotiation. In our position, we shouldn't have been trading for a Jackson anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 07:53 PM) Edwin Jackson has started 235 games in MLB with 1444 total innings and his earnings to this point = $40.355M Dan Hudson has started 62 games in MLB with 381 innings and has earned $1.441M Holmberg has started 1 game in MLB with 3.2 total innings pitched and has earned what, a prorated league minimum for being on the roster? Yes, if the Sox could take any 1 of the 3 right now, given their situation as a rebuilding club wanting to dump salary, they'd take Holmberg. But Holmberg may not be worth anything at all a few months from now for all we know, and if there's any one of the three pitching for me in a game that actually matters and a game that I want to see my team win, then that's a slam dunk who I want pitching it and it's certainly not Holmberg. I meant between Holmberg, Jaye and Webb. As for the rest of this argument, I've said my piece, I'm done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 06:43 PM) I probably hated the BMac-Danks trade more than anyone when it happened but that ended up being lopsided in our favor. No way. Willie's birthday is December 23rd. He got a McCarthy jersey for his birthday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 21, 2013 -> 12:43 AM) No way. Willie's birthday is December 23rd. He got a McCarthy jersey for his birthday. Ha, sadly enough I actually remember that conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 06:43 PM) I probably hated the BMac-Danks trade more than anyone when it happened but that ended up being lopsided in our favor. The Huddy-Jackson trade to this day still makes 0 sense to me. I was in that group. I hadn't been that pissed at a Sox move since they let Robin Ventura leave for the Mets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2013 -> 12:14 AM) I was in that group. I hadn't been that pissed at a Sox move since they let Robin Ventura leave for the Mets. I vaguely remember kind of understanding that deal but really thinking I'd miss Brandon. Loved his skill set but was giving Kenny some leeway on getting 2 pitchers back. I still think the Hudson deal was the single dumbest deal Kenny made, including that whole "Trading for the wrong person" deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 I said he frequently gave more in trade value than he got; I didn't say he didn't win any. FWIW, McCarthy has a lower WHIP and ERA than Danks. Stats the player puts up after being released by the team he was traded to don't really count in the evaluation of the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple, Trading nobody for Rios was a pretty good deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackSox8 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Todd Ritchie wasn't a good deal Alomar and Colon trades were decent at their time IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 QUOTE (onedude @ Dec 23, 2013 -> 08:33 AM) Todd Ritchie wasn't a good deal Alomar and Colon trades were decent at their time IMO The Colon trade was one of the most lopsided trades of the past 10-15 years for the White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 23, 2013 -> 08:35 AM) The Colon trade was one of the most lopsided trades of the past 10-15 years for the White Sox. Whatever, you trade Rocky Biddle, you auto lose. Honestly, with out looking it up, I don't even remember who else we traded in that deal. EDIT: I looked it up, shame on me for forgetting Jeff Liefer. And El duque?!?!? Edited December 23, 2013 by Rowand44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Even though the Danks trade worked out I still think it was a pretty bizarre and risky trade I wouldn't like to see again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Danks was a better prospect than BMac and LH. I never understood what the Rangers were thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.