PDA

View Full Version : Oh ****, Hudson's good


Pages : [1] 2

doublem23
08-01-2010, 02:52 PM
Murdering the Mets in his first start for Arizona.

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=300801121

WhiteSox5187
08-01-2010, 02:53 PM
We all knew he had potential. I think Hudson is going to be a very good pitcher for awhile, but a few good starts from Jackson makes it worthwhile.

munchman33
08-01-2010, 02:56 PM
He's got NL stuff, he'll probably have a much longer career pitching over there. He was never going to be anything but borderline in the AL.

dagame2005
08-01-2010, 02:56 PM
We all knew he had potential. I think Hudson is going to be a very good pitcher for awhile, but a few good starts from Jackson makes it worthwhile.

That's the key. Is Edwin Jackson going to do enough this season to justify this trade. I really think Hudson is going to be a good pitcher, especially in the National League. I am not a fan of the trade on paper. However, it certainly wouldn't be the first trade that was panned on WSI that turned up roses.

DirtySox
08-01-2010, 02:56 PM
Damn. I had condemned him terrible after his first few starts. It's okay though, the Sox will be paying EJ 15 times more money than Dan, so he will be 15 times better.

California Sox
08-01-2010, 02:59 PM
We all knew he had potential. I think Hudson is going to be a very good pitcher for awhile, but a few good starts from Jackson makes it worthwhile.

Really? I'm concerned that Kenny's unwillingness to develop pitchers (see Gio, Richard, Hudson) are going to force us to have a $50 million rotation, meaning we won't be able to afford to improve other areas of the team. I suppose Sale is the next guy who will get a shot, but he hasn't started a single game in our organization. Super risky strategy, if you ask me.

munchman33
08-01-2010, 03:02 PM
Really? I'm concerned that Kenny's unwillingness to develop pitchers (see Gio, Richard, Hudson) are going to force us to have a $50 million rotation, meaning we won't be able to afford to improve other areas of the team. I suppose Sale is the next guy who will get a shot, but he hasn't started a single game in our organization. Super risky strategy, if you ask me.

No, that's not the strategy at all. It's about picking the right guys to do that with. Danks and Floyd were the right young pitchers to try to develop. Hudson was not, at least not in the organizations eyes. There is a mountain of difference in talent between those two and Hudson. When you realize that, the true strategy becomes clear.

WhiteSox5187
08-01-2010, 03:05 PM
Really? I'm concerned that Kenny's unwillingness to develop pitchers (see Gio, Richard, Hudson) are going to force us to have a $50 million rotation, meaning we won't be able to afford to improve other areas of the team. I suppose Sale is the next guy who will get a shot, but he hasn't started a single game in our organization. Super risky strategy, if you ask me.

Sale has pitched several games in our organization and might be pitching for the big club come September. I think part of Kenny's willingness to trade young pitching is you have two guys in Danks and Floyd who are relatively young and relatively cheap in the rotation and even Peavy is only 30 (all be it, his career is very much in doubt now). If Jackson pitches well down the stretch than you can turn around and trade him and save yourself some salary space. Or you can keep him and hope that Cooper can turn him around permanently.

Daver
08-01-2010, 03:13 PM
Really? I'm concerned that Kenny's unwillingness to develop pitchers (see Gio, Richard, Hudson) are going to force us to have a $50 million rotation, meaning we won't be able to afford to improve other areas of the team. I suppose Sale is the next guy who will get a shot, but he hasn't started a single game in our organization. Super risky strategy, if you ask me.

The White Sox system is not very good at developing players, let alone pitchers.

California Sox
08-01-2010, 03:14 PM
No, that's not the strategy at all. It's about picking the right guys to do that with. Danks and Floyd were the right young pitchers to try to develop. Hudson was not, at least not in the organizations eyes. There is a mountain of difference in talent between those two and Hudson. When you realize that, the true strategy becomes clear.

I get that Kenny wants "impact" players, but off the top of my head we're going to be paying Peavy $15 mil, Buerhle about $13 mil, Danks is going to get a huge raise -- probably at least $6 mil, Floyd's going to make about $5 mil, and EJ $8 mil. That's $47 mil conservatively out of a payroll that's not going to exceed $110 million. That's a recipe for a platoon of Kotsay and Jones at DH. Having one cheaper pitcher at all times saves money and it builds continuity.

These types of deals can have extremely negative consequences. See Haren for Mark Mulder. We all like Peavy, but right now Richard is healthy and has outperformed him for a fraction of the money. It's possible Hudson haunts the same way.

Also, I dispute that Hudson's stuff is that much worse than Floyd's or Jackson's. They both throw much harder than he does, but he has way above average movement on his fastball and a plus change. It all depends on his slider. When his slider's right, he can be pretty devastating. Those guys are a lot straighter than he is. For major league minimum, he's a pretty good pitcher.

DirtySox
08-01-2010, 03:17 PM
I get that Kenny wants "impact" players, but off the top of my head we're going to be paying Peavy $15 mil, Buerhle about $13 mil, Danks is going to get a huge raise -- probably at least $6 mil, Floyd's going to make about $5 mil, and EJ $8 mil. That's $47 mil conservatively out of a payroll that's not going to exceed $110 million. That's a recipe for a platoon of Kotsay and Jones at DH. Having one cheaper pitcher at all times saves money and it builds continuity.

These types of deals can have extremely negative consequences. See Haren for Mark Mulder. We all like Peavy, but right now Richard is healthy and has outperformed him for a fraction of the money. It's possible Hudson haunts the same way.

Also, I dispute that Hudson's stuff is that much worse than Floyd's or Jackson's. They both throw much harder than he does, but he has way above average movement on his fastball and a plus change. It all depends on his slider. When his slider's right, he can be pretty devastating. Those guys are a lot straighter than he is. For major league minimum, he's a pretty good pitcher.

Great post.

KRS1
08-01-2010, 03:19 PM
He's got NL stuff, he'll probably have a much longer career pitching over there. He was never going to be anything but borderline in the AL.

"NL stuff." Another hilarious munchman quote. It's nice to see him have stuff to succeed somewhere, whereas Edwin has exceeded mediocrity/crappiness for about 100 innings in his entire career and was downright miserable in the easy NL.

California Sox
08-01-2010, 03:22 PM
The White Sox system is not very good at developing players, let alone pitchers.

I agree that the Sox don't do a great job developing position players, but their track record with pitching is actually decent, especially the major league staff. (Richard, Hudson, Santos, for example, and you can count Floyd too.) Unfortunately, with Hudson gone, they're aren't a ton of arms left to develop. You've got the high picks from this year, then good arms who are old for their leagues like Buch, Thompson, Rienzo, and Nate Jones. At the higher levels they've got a lot of very marginal pitchers like Harrell, Torres and Shirek.

LoveYourSuit
08-01-2010, 03:25 PM
Hudson's domination of the Mets is equivalent to what he did vs Seatle.

Two very bad offenses.

Brian26
08-01-2010, 03:29 PM
Hudson's domination of the Mets is equivalent to what he did vs Seatle.

Two very bad offenses.

I hope he does well, but I'm not willing to crown him the modern day Tom Seaver after going 8.0 innings against a lineup featuring Angel Pagan hitting in the three-hole.

doublem23
08-01-2010, 03:32 PM
These types of deals can have extremely negative consequences. See Haren for Mark Mulder. We all like Peavy, but right now Richard is healthy and has outperformed him for a fraction of the money. It's possible Hudson haunts the same way.

Nobody would have picked Richard over Peavy at the start of the year, even with the salary discrepancy. If you're going to worry about your pitchers getting hurt, you may as well not even build a starting rotation.

WhiteSox5187
08-01-2010, 03:36 PM
Nobody would have picked Richard over Peavy at the start of the year, even with the salary discrepancy. If you're going to worry about your pitchers getting hurt, you may as well not even build a starting rotation.

I would agree with this, but Peavy WAS coming off of an injury last year and in 2008 threw fifty fewer innings than in 2007 which could be cause for concern (he didn't go on the DL but might have been scratched from a few starts for stiffness or whatever). I still would make that trade every day of the week, but any backup for our pitchers on the farm is now a lot thinner. Hudson and Richard may never be aces, but they certainly appeared to be major league capable pitchers. Our best guy now is Sale who we drafted this year.

Slappy
08-01-2010, 03:36 PM
The White Sox system is not very good at developing players, let alone pitchers.

This just becomes more clear every day.

What needs to change?

Daver
08-01-2010, 03:37 PM
This just becomes more clear every day.

What needs to change?

The organizations philosophy on developing talent.

LoveYourSuit
08-01-2010, 03:40 PM
I hope he does well, but I'm not willing to crown him the modern day Tom Seaver after going 8.0 innings against a lineup featuring Angel Pagan hitting in the three-hole.


Now if goes out there and handles the Braves, Reds, Rockies, or Phillies the same way, now you have a some major headlines.

God bless him, I hope he does good. I am still happy with the move Kenny made.

LoveYourSuit
08-01-2010, 03:42 PM
The organizations philosophy on developing talent.


What is the philosophy issue today?

I think the biggest issues they had in the past was the "safe pick" attitude in every draft. Now, they are starting to get a bit more aggresive.

But as far as teaching and philosophy, I don't know how to gauge that.

California Sox
08-01-2010, 04:05 PM
What is the philosophy issue today?

I think the biggest issues they had in the past was the "safe pick" attitude in every draft. Now, they are starting to get a bit more aggresive.

But as far as teaching and philosophy, I don't know how to gauge that.

I think their philosophy can be best summed up as "get major league value now." They want to draft talent that is fairly close to the major leagues, then either use it themselves or trade it for major league talent within two years. That results in a very thin talent base in the farm system, but can help the major league team. Take a look at the influx of talent the Sox had thanks to the 2008 draft and other deals like Viciedo. That resulted in a very solid 2009 Barons team, which the Sox have largely cashed in on -- Hudson, Ely, DCarter, and Allen have been traded. Viciedo and Beckham are with the Sox. Flowers, JorDanks, and Retherford have disappointed. O'Neill was released. The one player who is still a prospect, but not cashed in is Morel.

Heck, they've already traded a 2009 draftee (Holmberg) and the only reason Mitchell and Thompson weren't in play was that they are hurt.

Clearly, the Sox view minor league inventory that's a couple of years away differently from a lot of teams. They think it is overvalued and they try to cash it in on an asset they think is undervalued -- young major leaguers who have tools but have struggled or impact players with salaries too high for their teams like Rios and Peavy.

munchman33
08-01-2010, 04:16 PM
I get that Kenny wants "impact" players, but off the top of my head we're going to be paying Peavy $15 mil, Buerhle about $13 mil, Danks is going to get a huge raise -- probably at least $6 mil, Floyd's going to make about $5 mil, and EJ $8 mil. That's $47 mil conservatively out of a payroll that's not going to exceed $110 million. That's a recipe for a platoon of Kotsay and Jones at DH. Having one cheaper pitcher at all times saves money and it builds continuity.

These types of deals can have extremely negative consequences. See Haren for Mark Mulder. We all like Peavy, but right now Richard is healthy and has outperformed him for a fraction of the money. It's possible Hudson haunts the same way.

Also, I dispute that Hudson's stuff is that much worse than Floyd's or Jackson's. They both throw much harder than he does, but he has way above average movement on his fastball and a plus change. It all depends on his slider. When his slider's right, he can be pretty devastating. Those guys are a lot straighter than he is. For major league minimum, he's a pretty good pitcher.

Did you just compare Hudson to a young Dan Haren? Good grief...

I don't see how you can dispute his stuff is about three levels behind Gavin and (especially) Danks. The only thing that's coming into my head is you've never seen Gavin or Danks pitch. Hudson's fastball is slower and certainly does not have more movement than Danks cutter. Dank's slider and Gavin's curveball are better pitches than anything Hudson throws, fastball included. Sheesh. This isn't even debatable. Both guys not only have better fastballs, but they've got other pitches BETTER than their fastballs. Hudson's fastball is very average, and it's his best pitch. He's a future junkballer.

"NL stuff." Another hilarious munchman quote. It's nice to see him have stuff to succeed somewhere, whereas Edwin has exceeded mediocrity/crappiness for about 100 innings in his entire career and was downright miserable in the easy NL.

Really? The NL isn't full of guys with average fastballs who throw a bunch of junk up there? :rolleyes: You need talent to pitch in the AL. Lots of it.

Coops4Aces
08-01-2010, 04:24 PM
Really? The NL isn't full of guys with average fastballs who throw a bunch of junk up there? :rolleyes: You need talent to pitch in the AL. Lots of it.

So if the NL is easy, why are Edwin Jackson's numbers so bad?

California Sox
08-01-2010, 04:27 PM
Did you just compare Hudson to a young Dan Haren? Good grief...

I don't see how you can dispute his stuff is about three levels behind Gavin and (especially) Danks. The only thing that's coming into my head is you've never seen Gavin or Danks pitch. Hudson's fastball is slower and certainly does not have more movement than Danks cutter. Dank's slider and Gavin's curveball are better pitches than anything Hudson throws, fastball included. Sheesh. This isn't even debatable. Both guys not only have better fastballs, but they've got other pitches BETTER than their fastballs. Hudson's fastball is very average, and it's his best pitch. He's a future junkballer.



Really? The NL isn't full of guys with average fastballs who throw a bunch of junk up there? :rolleyes:

The Haren trade is similar in that the Cardinals considered Haren to be a low-ceiling fifth starter whose major attraction was cost control. I doubt anyone expected that to turn out the way it did, including the A's.

And I never compared Hudson's stuff to Danks' only Floyd's and Jackson's. The point I'm trying to make is that by not filling the fifth spot with a developing cost-controlled pitcher, the Sox are dooming themselves to a super expensive rotation that will limit their flexibility in 2011 and the future.

Let's both agree that Danks has the best stuff on the team. He knows that too, which is why he hasn't signed a long-term deal with the team. Spending money on guys like Edwin Jackson makes it harder to keep Danks or Konerko or to acquire the left-handed bat the Sox need.

My real comparison is Hudson + a player who makes 7.5 mil vs. Edwin Jackson. Personally, I'd rather have the former.

Huisj
08-01-2010, 04:37 PM
Did you just compare Hudson to a young Dan Haren? Good grief...

I don't see how you can dispute his stuff is about three levels behind Gavin and (especially) Danks. The only thing that's coming into my head is you've never seen Gavin or Danks pitch. Hudson's fastball is slower and certainly does not have more movement than Danks cutter. Dank's slider and Gavin's curveball are better pitches than anything Hudson throws, fastball included. Sheesh. This isn't even debatable. Both guys not only have better fastballs, but they've got other pitches BETTER than their fastballs. Hudson's fastball is very average, and it's his best pitch. He's a future junkballer.



Really? The NL isn't full of guys with average fastballs who throw a bunch of junk up there? :rolleyes: You need talent to pitch in the AL. Lots of it.

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment that Hudson doesn't have a good fastball. He seems to work right in the 92-93 range a lot, and hit a little higher than that today fairly frequently in the bit of that game that I watched. His pitchf/x fastball is at 92.9 mph for the season. That's higher than Floyd's fastball has been through his whole career. It's got some interesting movement to it too with his low arm slot. If he can get his slider to be more consistent and have a bit of downward break (maybe hard to do with his arm slot), his fastball could look pretty good.

TDog
08-01-2010, 04:40 PM
It took three days for the Mets to score against the Giants coming out of the All-Star break. Of course, the Giants have very good starting pitching.

You saw Hudson pitch for the White Sox in three starts that were important because the team is in a pennant race. He did well against the Mariners. The Diamondbacks aren't going to send him down to the minors to develop him. They are going to start him at the major league level and live with his inconsistencies.

The A's had a bad pitcher in Gio Gonzalez at the major league level (with some back and forth to Sacramento) for two seasons before he started pitching well. The White Sox don't have the luxury of developing pitchers at the major league level as the Diamondbacks do, and they haven't had the pitching injuries that forced gave Gonzalez his starting role and pretty much forced the A's to live with his bad performances. The White Sox never wold have hung on to Gonzalez even if they hadn't traded him for Swisher.

mjmcend
08-01-2010, 05:04 PM
Screw his pitching. He went 1-4 with 2 RBIs. Should have made him DH.

munchman33
08-01-2010, 05:11 PM
The Haren trade is similar in that the Cardinals considered Haren to be a low-ceiling fifth starter whose major attraction was cost control. I doubt anyone expected that to turn out the way it did, including the A's.

And I never compared Hudson's stuff to Danks' only Floyd's and Jackson's. The point I'm trying to make is that by not filling the fifth spot with a developing cost-controlled pitcher, the Sox are dooming themselves to a super expensive rotation that will limit their flexibility in 2011 and the future.

Let's both agree that Danks has the best stuff on the team. He knows that too, which is why he hasn't signed a long-term deal with the team. Spending money on guys like Edwin Jackson makes it harder to keep Danks or Konerko or to acquire the left-handed bat the Sox need.

My real comparison is Hudson + a player who makes 7.5 mil vs. Edwin Jackson. Personally, I'd rather have the former.

WHAT???? IF that's true, I'm sure whatever people thought that have been fired. Even if they thought that was his ceiling, they were the ONLY ones. After that trade was made, Beane was boasting the A's would be just as good, and Haren was the only piece in that deal that was gonna play. So Billy thought Haren was an ace.

On the other stuff...I think we're not communicating correctly. The organization's philosophy when it comes to developing pitchers is to develop the ones that have the highest end talent, without regard to the past, and trade away anyone not at that level. Comparing Jackson and Hudson only by salary is completely missing the point. Hudson was never going to stay, he's not the kind of player the organization covets (or can help, it seems). Jackson is.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 05:24 PM
Basically, all Sox "prospects" are busts. Stop overrating these pieces of **** and be happy we manage to get anything remotely useful to the Sox. Acquiring a talent like Edwin Jackson for hot garbage like Dan Hudson, who no team in their right mind would give up anything more than 10 baseballs for, is just an absolute complete steal. We should all be running around and jumping up and down for this highway robbery. Jackson's career numbers are completely irrelevant because Coop is a God who will fix it all in an instant. Oh and payroll don't mean **** because it ain't coming out of your pocket. There is no such thing as a payroll limit. It's all a myth.

KRS1
08-01-2010, 05:34 PM
Really? The NL isn't full of guys with average fastballs who throw a bunch of junk up there? :rolleyes: You need talent to pitch in the AL. Lots of it.

Some people need to take another look at what constitutes an average fastball. MLB average is ~90MPH year in and year out amongst starters. Hudson throws his from 91-95 with really good movement on that two seamer, and I watched him sit at 94 today on his 4-seaemer with ease through the game. It's a nice concept to say different styles do well in different leagues, but fact is, even though I admit the NL is easier to pitch in, success translates and the guy we just traded for has thrown a handful of good games all year in that weak league.

SI1020
08-01-2010, 05:49 PM
I'm on record not thinking all that much of Hudson. Perhaps I should have been more patient with Hudson and more critical of the Sox organization for its abysmal handling of prospects. What I saw in Hudson that made me doubt him was his aiming and nibbling and not aggressively trusting his stuff. Perhaps the Diamondbacks can polish this diamond in the rough.

Slappy
08-01-2010, 06:03 PM
Basically, all Sox "prospects" are busts. Stop overrating these pieces of **** and be happy we manage to get anything remotely useful to the Sox. Acquiring a talent like Edwin Jackson for hot garbage like Dan Hudson, who no team in their right mind would give up anything more than 10 baseballs for, is just an absolute complete steal. We should all be running around and jumping up and down for this highway robbery. Jackson's career numbers are completely irrelevant because Coop is a God who will fix it all in an instant. Oh and payroll don't mean **** because it ain't coming out of your pocket. There is no such thing as a payroll limit. It's all a myth.

Should that be in pink or teal or something?

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 06:06 PM
Should that be in pink or teal or something?
No, I was blind for too long. Now I see the truth. Now I see how awesome this trade is.

P.S: Teal is overrated since most sarcastic comments are obvious anyways.

munchman33
08-01-2010, 06:36 PM
Some people need to take another look at what constitutes an average fastball. MLB average is ~90MPH year in and year out amongst starters. Hudson throws his from 91-95 with really good movement on that two seamer, and I watched him sit at 94 today on his 4-seaemer with ease through the game. It's a nice concept to say different styles do well in different leagues, but fact is, even though I admit the NL is easier to pitch in, success translates and the guy we just traded for has thrown a handful of good games all year in that weak league.

It's a mechanical hitch. For all your talk about knowing Hudson's fastball, you sure seem to downplay how Jackson's got a better one than anyone on our staff (and among the five best in baseball).

Anyway you want to slice it, Hudson is not as talented as Jackson. Not even close. You want to hold a mechanical flaw against him, that's your deal. But no mechanical change is going to make Hudson any better than he already is, which is not all that good.

KRS1
08-01-2010, 06:47 PM
It's a mechanical hitch. For all your talk about knowing Hudson's fastball, you sure seem to downplay how Jackson's got a better one than anyone on our staff (and among the five best in baseball).

Anyway you want to slice it, Hudson is not as talented as Jackson. Not even close. You want to hold a mechanical flaw against him, that's your deal. But no mechanical change is going to make Hudson any better than he already is, which is not all that good.

A mechanical flaw. lol Love it. Yeah, the mechanical flaw that has sent him suck for three and a half of his major league stops and has been fixed for entire 100 innings. If you want to believe that it's a mechanical flaw that causes him to throw a straight fastball and get hammered whenever he has to come into the zone with it because he can't locate anything else over his entire career, go right ahead. BTW, Hudson's start today, his first ever in AZ and his sixth ever would be Edwin's third or fourth best all ****ing season. God forbid a 23 year old pitcher with a plus fastball and change develop beyond his first handful of starts. That's unpossible.

WhiteSox5187
08-01-2010, 06:49 PM
It's a mechanical hitch. For all your talk about knowing Hudson's fastball, you sure seem to downplay how Jackson's got a better one than anyone on our staff (and among the five best in baseball).

Anyway you want to slice it, Hudson is not as talented as Jackson. Not even close. You want to hold a mechanical flaw against him, that's your deal. But no mechanical change is going to make Hudson any better than he already is, which is not all that good.

It's relieving to know that in his 7 years in the majors you have identified a flaw with Jackson that evidently no one else in baseball has even noticed let alone bring to his attention.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 06:52 PM
A mechanical flaw. lol Love it. Yeah, the mechanical flaw that has sent him suck for three and a half of his major league stops and has been fixed for entire 100 innings. If you want to believe that it's a mechanical flaw that causes him to throw a straight fastball and get hammered whenever he has to come into the zone with it because he can't locate anything else over his entire career, go right ahead. BTW, Hudson's start today, his first ever in AZ and his sixth ever would be Edwin's third or fourth best all ****ing season. God forbid a 23 year old pitcher with a plus fastball and change develop beyond his first handful of starts. That's unpossible.
But...but Jackson has the 4th best rated fastball and throws a good slider! Hudson's fastball is complete **** and no one can name what other pitches he throws besides that thing he called "changeup." Come on, get it together. Look at who our pitching coach is. It's Don ****ing Cooper. Jackson will outperform Hudson. I'll bet my life on it. His upside is the ****ing galaxy. Hudson? Pfft, please. Keith Law hates him. He's total garbage.

goon
08-01-2010, 06:53 PM
It's relieving to know that in his 7 years in the majors you have identified a flaw with Jackson that evidently no one else in baseball has even noticed let alone bring to his attention.

There was talk from Kenny Williams that Don Cooper identified something wrong, that could be fixed, with Jackson's current motion.

We shall see.

KRS1
08-01-2010, 06:54 PM
But...but Jackson has the 4th best rated fastball and throws a good slider! Hudson's fastball is complete **** and no one can name what other pitches he throws besides that thing he called "changeup." Come on, get it together. Look at who our pitching coach is. It's Don ****ing Cooper. Jackson will outperform Hudson. I'll bet my life on it. His upside is the ****ing galaxy. Hudson? Pfft, please. Keith Law hates him. He's total garbage.

teal?

Coops4Aces
08-01-2010, 06:54 PM
Really? The NL isn't full of guys with average fastballs who throw a bunch of junk up there? :rolleyes: You need talent to pitch in the AL. Lots of it.

So if the NL is easy, why are Edwin Jackson's numbers so bad?

I'll just assume you have no answer.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 06:55 PM
teal?
Too long of a post to teal. It will hurt the eyes. Besides, teal ruins the sarcasm :redneck

goon
08-01-2010, 06:56 PM
But...but Jackson has the 4th best rated fastball and throws a good slider! Hudson's fastball is complete **** and no one can name what other pitches he throws besides that thing he called "changeup." Come on, get it together. Look at who our pitching coach is. It's Don ****ing Cooper. Jackson will outperform Hudson. I'll bet my life on it. His upside is the ****ing galaxy. Hudson? Pfft, please. Keith Law hates him. He's total garbage.

Do you really need a list of the guys that Don Cooper has helped to become excellent pitchers? Seriously?

I know the "coop will fix him" thing around here is a cliche on this website, but it's a cliche because of the work he's done for this team. He is one of the best pitching coaches in the game, EASILY.

KRS1
08-01-2010, 06:59 PM
Do you really need a list of the guys that Don Cooper has helped to become excellent pitchers? Seriously?

I know the "coop will fix him" thing around here is a cliche on this website, but it's a cliche because of the work he's done for this team. He is one of the best pitching coaches in the game, EASILY.

For every Matt Thornton reclamation vet who works there's a Mike McDougal, David Aardsma, and Andrew Sisco who didn't.

Daver
08-01-2010, 07:01 PM
I think their philosophy can be best summed up as "get major league value now." They want to draft talent that is fairly close to the major leagues, then either use it themselves or trade it for major league talent within two years. That results in a very thin talent base in the farm system, but can help the major league team. Take a look at the influx of talent the Sox had thanks to the 2008 draft and other deals like Viciedo. That resulted in a very solid 2009 Barons team, which the Sox have largely cashed in on -- Hudson, Ely, DCarter, and Allen have been traded. Viciedo and Beckham are with the Sox. Flowers, JorDanks, and Retherford have disappointed. O'Neill was released. The one player who is still a prospect, but not cashed in is Morel.

Heck, they've already traded a 2009 draftee (Holmberg) and the only reason Mitchell and Thompson weren't in play was that they are hurt.

Clearly, the Sox view minor league inventory that's a couple of years away differently from a lot of teams. They think it is overvalued and they try to cash it in on an asset they think is undervalued -- young major leaguers who have tools but have struggled or impact players with salaries too high for their teams like Rios and Peavy.

That scenario does not cover the overall philosophy, which is if you can hit, move them to the next level. The White Sox do not develop players, they develop hitters, they really have no interest in developing all around ball players, they really don't care if a player can't field his position as long as he can hit, Dayan Viciedo and Tyler Flowers went through the minors quickly because of their bats, the fact that both of them are defensive liabilities has no bearing on this.

The philosophy with pitchers is even more dismal.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 07:04 PM
Do you really need a list of the guys that Don Cooper has helped to become excellent pitchers? Seriously?

I know the "coop will fix him" thing around here is a cliche on this website, but it's a cliche because of the work he's done for this team. He is one of the best pitching coaches in the game, EASILY.
Do I think Coop sucks? Hell no, I couldn't be more thankful and be impressed by how he's helped Thornton, Floyd and Danks turn into top pitchers in the league. I sure hope Coop fix Jackson but it's not a sure thing. I am just confused by people saying Jackson will outperform Hudson as if that's a scientifically proven fact. We are in contention now and to bank on Jackson to fix his mechanics and help us down the line IMMEDIATELY is too much of a risk. If we acquired him in the offseason, I'd be happier about it because Coop has time to work with him and Jackson can apply what he learned in offseason and in ST.

goon
08-01-2010, 07:11 PM
For every Matt Thornton reclamation vet who works there's a Mike McDougal, David Aardsma, and Andrew Sisco who didn't.

Or a Gavin Floyd, Jose Contreras, look at where John Danks is in this team, he turned ****ing Esteban Loaiza into a Cy Young Winner.

Dave Duncan hasn't been able to make every pitcher he's worked with an All-Star, he must be overrated too.


You really expect him to turn EVERY pitcher around? It's good thing you don't have the most impossible expectations to reach or anything. Under his tenure the Sox have led the league in Innings and Quality Starts.

KRS1
08-01-2010, 07:14 PM
Or a Gavin Floyd, Jose Contreras, look at where John Danks is in this team, he turned ****ing Esteban Loaiza into a Cy Young Winner.

Dave Duncan hasn't been able to make every pitcher he's worked with an All-Star, he must be overrated too.


You really expect him to turn EVERY pitcher around? It's good thing you don't have the most impossible expectations to reach or anything. Under his tenure the Sox have led the league in Innings and Quality Starts.


No, and that's exactly my point. This mechanical flaw is something we've heard with every pitcher we bring in and it works about half the time.

goon
08-01-2010, 07:18 PM
Do I think Coop sucks? Hell no, I couldn't be more thankful and be impressed by how he's helped Thornton, Floyd and Danks turn into top pitchers in the league. I sure hope Coop fix Jackson but it's not a sure thing. I am just confused by people saying Jackson will outperform Hudson as if that's a scientifically proven fact. We are in contention now and to bank on Jackson to fix his mechanics and help us down the line IMMEDIATELY is too much of a risk. If we acquired him in the offseason, I'd be happier about it because Coop has time to work with him and Jackson can apply what he learned in offseason and in ST.

I'd rather have him than Hudson right now, especially after Peavy went down. It would be one thing if the team could rely on Danks, Buehrle, Peavy and Floyd, but to rely on Garcia to continue to give you good starts AND a rookie?

It would be more risky in my opinion to rely on a guy who is over the hill and a rookie rather than four, in their prime, veterans. Could you imagine if Freddy went down or just hit a wall? Where would the Sox be? The fourth and fifth spots go to Hudson and Harrell? To me it wasn't even a risk, I think he's an upgrade, not sure how he's going to pitch, but it was a deal worth what the Sox gave up.

goon
08-01-2010, 07:24 PM
No, and that's exactly my point. This mechanical flaw is something we've heard with every pitcher we bring in and it works about half the time.

Like who?

I don't seem to recall any move of this size where it was just a simple, "his mechanics are flawed, it can be fixed."

I can think of pitchers that they brought in who did have mechanical issues that they corrected.

I mean you can mention examples of Sisco, Colon, Aardsma, Macdougal, but not sure if the organization cited they had any mechanical issues and they were acquired or signed for near nothing.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 07:29 PM
I'd rather have him than Hudson right now, especially after Peavy went down. It would be one thing if the team could rely on Danks, Buehrle, Peavy and Floyd, but to rely on Garcia to continue to give you good starts AND a rookie?

It would be more risky in my opinion to rely on a guy who is over the hill and a rookie rather than four, in their prime, veterans. Could you imagine if Freddy went down or just hit a wall? Where would the Sox be? The fourth and fifth spots go to Hudson and Harrell? To me it wasn't even a risk, I think he's an upgrade, not sure how he's going to pitch, but it was a deal worth what the Sox gave up.
Considering that Hudson's wildness was NEVER an issue with him when he was pitching in the minors, it may have just been a mental issue. If Coop can fix Jackson, why not Hudson? Double standards much? Yeah I know the upsides are different but people are saying they would be happy with a 5th starter performance from Jackson so why couldn't we have been happy with that from Hudson?

We are expecting Jackson to be a serviceable 5th starter and Hudson can be that too. Personally, I think expecting a guy who's posted a 5.00+ ERA for a full year (2009 second half + 2010 first half) to help you down the road is a HUGE gamble. If it turns out well for us, koodos to Kenny. If it doesn't, get the pitchforks and torches ready.

People keep bringing up Jackson's high upside and admit he's a project. Coop needs time. Jackson needs time. Well too bad because we need a 5th starter NOW. Check out Jackson's monthly ERA splits from 2009, his only good season so far. He literally got progressively worse as the season went on, especially in the second half which ended with a 6.00+ ERA in September. That regression continued into this year and suddenly just because Coop is a magician, Jackson turns into a dependable SP?

minastirith67
08-01-2010, 07:32 PM
The White Sox system is not very good at developing players, let alone pitchers.

Would you consider Don Cooper good at working and developing our pitching staff at the major league level?

BadBobbyJenks
08-01-2010, 07:34 PM
I don't think the Edwin Jackson trade will ever make sense to me.

A. Cavatica
08-01-2010, 07:37 PM
If Coop can fix Jackson, why not Hudson?

Too easy. Hudson doesn't need as much fixing.

California Sox
08-01-2010, 07:40 PM
WHAT???? IF that's true, I'm sure whatever people thought that have been fired. Even if they thought that was his ceiling, they were the ONLY ones. After that trade was made, Beane was boasting the A's would be just as good, and Haren was the only piece in that deal that was gonna play. So Billy thought Haren was an ace.

On the other stuff...I think we're not communicating correctly. The organization's philosophy when it comes to developing pitchers is to develop the ones that have the highest end talent, without regard to the past, and trade away anyone not at that level. Comparing Jackson and Hudson only by salary is completely missing the point. Hudson was never going to stay, he's not the kind of player the organization covets (or can help, it seems). Jackson is.

Although no one's going to argue that Hudson becoming a #1 starter is unlikely, I dispute the notion that Haren had a higher prospect profile at the time of his trade to Oakland than Hudson has now.

Like Hudson, Haren was a college righthander who made it to the majors quickly. As a 21 y.o. Haren sped through the Cardinals system, obliterating the Midwest League and holding his own in the Carolina. Peripherals are about 8 K/9 and a WHIP under 1.10

As a 22 y.o. Haren only pitched in the majors and only a half season (due to injury I believe) and he was 3-7 5.08 with 22bb 43K in 14 starts covering 72.2 innings. That's just over 5 innings a start with a WHIP of 1.46 and a K rate of 5.3.

As a 23 y.o. he started the year in Memphis where he was good, but not exactly dominant. 11-4 4.15 but his peripherals were much better than his ERA. 21 starts 128 innings. He still gave up a fair number of hits, but he struck out 150. Then in the majors 14 appearances, including 5 starts, 3-3 4.50 46 innings he struck out 32 with a 1.36 WHIP.

No one looking at those numbers says, "Instant ace." And he wasn't. He was above average but not a number one for 2 years in Oakland before breaking out in 2007 as a 26 year old.

By comparison Hudson was slightly older when drafted. (March birthday vs. September)

As a 22 y.o. in his first full season Hudson obliterated Low A, like Haren. But he made it all the way to the majors. His minor league numbers are better than Haren's at a similar stage: 14-5 2.32 with a WHIP under 1 and a K-rate of 10.1.

Then he was decent but not great in the majors: 1-1 3.38 1.34 WHIP 6.8 K/9

As a 23 y.o. he started in the minors and again his numbers are as good or better than Haren's. 11-4 3.47. In 93 innings he had 10.4 K/9 IP and a WHIP of 1.2. Throw out one egregious start, his numbers are truly dominant.

Then, he gets called to the majors, and he struggles: 1-1 6.32 in three starts, and the White Sox trade him for a player that, charitably, is no Mark Mulder.

Now, I'm not saying that Hudson will develop as well as Haren. Hindsight is 20/20. But to imply that Haren was a sure thing along the lines of a Prior or Strasberg and that Hudson has shown no glimpses of potential dominance is just not true.

I mean, you say that the Sox only want to develop pitchers that have "highest end" talent, yet they give 5 career starts to a guy who had a minor-league K rate over 10. Exactly how high end does high end have to be? Is there anyone currently in their system who has a high enough ceiling for them to develop?

Meanwhile, Kenny says of 27 y.o. sinkerballing roster-filler, Carlos Torres, "We've got tremendous confidence in this young man, and it's just a matter of giving him the opportunity... We've always looked at him as someone who was part of our equation, and as (Friday's trade) came about, we didn't have to tap into him. We consider him somebody who can come up and do what he needs to do." So go figure.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 07:43 PM
Too easy. Hudson doesn't need as much fixing.
So all those walks and wildness can't be fixed? That's the same issue Jackson has. Don't tell me that Hudson's a naturally crap pitcher with zero stuff who can't locate pitches because his minor league numbers says otherwise. Yeah yeah minor league numbers mean nothing but if he were wild to begin with, he would not have maintained a good K/BB ratio.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 07:47 PM
Although no one's going to argue that Hudson becoming a #1 starter is unlikely, I dispute the notion that Haren had a higher prospect profile at the time of his trade to Oakland than Hudson has now.
Here's a good writeup by Sickels on Haren that supports your point:
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/3/16/798135/prospect-retro-dan-haren

A. Cavatica
08-01-2010, 07:47 PM
So all those walks and wildness can't be fixed? That's the same issue Jackson has. Don't tell me that Hudson's a naturally crap pitcher with zero stuff who can't locate pitches because his minor league numbers says otherwise. Yeah yeah minor league numbers mean nothing but if he were wild to begin with, he would not have maintained a good K/BB ratio.

I didn't say any of that. :scratch:

I said Hudson is less broken than Jackson, and those who are happy to get Jackson because "Coop will fix him" are overlooking the obvious point that it might be easier for Coop to fix Hudson.

California Sox
08-01-2010, 07:48 PM
That scenario does not cover the overall philosophy, which is if you can hit, move them to the next level. The White Sox do not develop players, they develop hitters, they really have no interest in developing all around ball players, they really don't care if a player can't field his position as long as he can hit, Dayan Viciedo and Tyler Flowers went through the minors quickly because of their bats, the fact that both of them are defensive liabilities has no bearing on this.

The philosophy with pitchers is even more dismal.

Here's how I think the hitting thing works with the overall philosophy: They want to move everyone up as fast as possible. Look at Escobar. He fields fine, but can't hit a lick. They moved him up as fast as they could too. They're not patient with anyone, not just bad fielders who can hit.

Every day an asset spends in their minor league system, in their view, is a day that asset is not helping the major league club be better. It's actually a defensible position, but it's going to lead to poor development of marginal prospects.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 07:48 PM
I didn't say any of that. :scratch:

I said Hudson is less broken than Jackson, and those who are happy to get Jackson because "Coop will fix him" are overlooking the obvious point that it might be easier for Coop to fix Hudson.
Wow that just flew right over my head. I should've noticed you were being sarcastic, hahaha......Now I feel like an ass......Anyway, yeah I agree with your point.

goon
08-01-2010, 07:49 PM
Considering that Hudson's wildness was NEVER an issue with him when he was pitching in the minors, it may have just been a mental issue. If Coop can fix Jackson, why not Hudson? Double standards much? Yeah I know the upsides are different but people are saying they would be happy with a 5th starter performance from Jackson so why couldn't we have been happy with that from Hudson?

We are expecting Jackson to be a serviceable 5th starter and Hudson can be that too. Personally, I think expecting a guy who's posted a 5.00+ ERA for a full year (2009 second half + 2010 first half) to help you down the road is a HUGE gamble. If it turns out well for us, koodos to Kenny. If it doesn't, get the pitchforks and torches ready.

People keep bringing up Jackson's high upside and admit he's a project. Coop needs time. Jackson needs time. Well too bad because we need a 5th starter NOW. Check out Jackson's monthly ERA splits from 2009, his only good season so far. He literally got progressively worse as the season went on, especially in the second half which ended with a 6.00+ ERA in September. That regression continued into this year and suddenly just because Coop is a magician, Jackson turns into a dependable SP?


Uhh, never said there was anything WRONG with Hudson. No double standards much? I believe it's more of an issue of talent and experience. The Sox may think Jackson is more talented and he certainly has more experience.

Right, he's having a bad season, no ****.

The Sox would have never got him for Daniel Hudson and Holmberg if he wasn't. The guy has has had TWO really solid seasons, people keep overlooking what he did in 2008. He really broke out and just got tired in September.

I truly believe the Sox were worried about having Freddy Garcia and Daniel Hudson a the back end of the rotation, especially in a race this tight with the schedule they have left. I'm sure they looked at a number of pitchers and this happened to be the best deal available.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 07:56 PM
Uhh, never said there was anything WRONG with Hudson.
By saying you can't trust Hudson down the road, you ARE implying there is something wrong with him. If you thought nothing was wrong with him, why can't you trust him?

The Sox would have never got him for Daniel Hudson and Holmberg if he wasn't. The guy has has had TWO really solid seasons, people keep overlooking what he did in 2008. He really broke out and just got tired in September.
In 2008, he barely ate up innings and he tanked big time in September when the Rays were trying to solidify their playoff berth. In 2009, he also tanked in September which was just another nail in the coffin for the Tigers. But really his arm just got tired I guess, right? If his arm can't hold up for an entire season, we shouldn't be relying on him so late into the season. That's a glaring red flag.

Daver
08-01-2010, 08:11 PM
Here's how I think the hitting thing works with the overall philosophy: They want to move everyone up as fast as possible. Look at Escobar. He fields fine, but can't hit a lick. They moved him up as fast as they could too. They're not patient with anyone, not just bad fielders who can hit.

Every day an asset spends in their minor league system, in their view, is a day that asset is not helping the major league club be better. It's actually a defensible position, but it's going to lead to poor development of marginal prospects.

The point I was trying to make is that the White Sox have no real program to develop players, they would rather spend prospects than develop them. Most prospects are not assets unless you have developed them to a point that could draw interest to them as a possible major league player, the Twins do it well but they seldom trade their talent, and most pitching prospects have almost no value, if your are trading pitching prospects you need to trade more than one or two to get quantifiable value back in return.

goon
08-01-2010, 08:13 PM
By saying you can't trust Hudson down the road, you ARE implying there is something wrong with him. If you thought nothing was wrong with him, why can't you trust him?

Oh, come on. You are arguing two different things. This is what you said:

Considering that Hudson's wildness was NEVER an issue with him when he was pitching in the minors, it may have just been a mental issue. If Coop can fix Jackson, why not Hudson?

I never implied that Hudson had a problem pitching, whether it was mental or physical, whatever. I simply said, I don't think he is as talented as Jackson, you can't make someone more talented (though I wouldn't put it past Don Cooper). It has nothing to do with a pitching coach/pitcher relationship.

You made it into something where he had a problem that needed to be corrected, I just said I don't think he has the talent or experience of Jackson.

Looking at the schedule, the Sox have:

-6 games against the Twins, 3 against the Yankees in August.

-7! games against Boston in September, 3 against the Twins and 3 against the Angels

Do you honestly feel like a rotation of Danks, Buehrle, Floyd, Garcia and Hudson is better than one consisting of Danks, Buehrle, Floyd, Jackson and Garcia? I don't.

And in 2008 he pitched 183 innings, that's quite a few, I don't see that as "barely eating innings" that's a significant amount of pitching. Especially if you consider the year before that he pitched 161 and then 31 MLB innings in 2006.

Last year he was well over 200.

WhiteSox5187
08-01-2010, 08:20 PM
There was talk from Kenny Williams that Don Cooper identified something wrong, that could be fixed, with Jackson's current motion.

We shall see.

Again, I can't believe that of the three teams he's been on in the past eighteen months that no one else has noticed this "mechanical flaw." There might be a mechanical flaw but when you acquire a guy who has been around as long as he has and has been as bad as he has I think there's more going on than just a "mechanical flaw;" it seems to me that a "mechanical flaw" is a way of saying "Yes, he sucks, but we think we can fix him...somehow." There was a mechanical flaw with guys like Sisco and MacDougal too.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 08:31 PM
I never implied that Hudson had a problem pitching, whether it was mental or physical, whatever. I simply said, I don't think he is as talented as Jackson, you can't make someone more talented (though I wouldn't put it past Don Cooper). It has nothing to do with a pitching coach/pitcher relationship.
All right, that was a huge misinterpretation on my part. I just assumed you were basing your mistrust in Hudson on his three starts with us where he showed lack of control. My bad.

Do you honestly feel like a rotation of Danks, Buehrle, Floyd, Garcia and Hudson is better than one consisting of Danks, Buehrle, Floyd, Jackson and Garcia? I don't.
I do. I agree that Jackson is talented but I personally would put just as much faith in Hudson at a far cheaper price. That's where we'll agree to disagree. If Jackson was acquired in the offseason, I'd be more hopeful because by then we would have seen the capabilities of Hudson and put my faith in Coop and Kenny.

And in 2008 he pitched 183 innings, that's quite a few, I don't see that as "barely eating innings" that's a significant amount of pitching. Especially if you consider the year before that he pitched 161 and then 31 MLB innings in 2006.
A guy who eats up a lot of innings pitches at least 200 in 30+ games. 161 and 183 are nothing. That's on the safe side of innings pitched. If you average it out, Jackson pitched around 6 innings per outing in 2008 and about 5.5 in 2007. That's hardly pressing a pitcher too much, unless his name is Stephen Strasburg.

Last year he was well over 200.
And his arm got tired yet again and helped him explode in September. He gets tired after 183 and he gets tired after 200. He will reach either one of these numbers and we better hope his arm better not get ****ing tired again.

goon
08-01-2010, 08:51 PM
Again, I can't believe that of the three teams he's been on in the past eighteen months that no one else has noticed this "mechanical flaw." There might be a mechanical flaw but when you acquire a guy who has been around as long as he has and has been as bad as he has I think there's more going on than just a "mechanical flaw;" it seems to me that a "mechanical flaw" is a way of saying "Yes, he sucks, but we think we can fix him...somehow." There was a mechanical flaw with guys like Sisco and MacDougal too.

Don't remember those guys having problems with their motions. I remember Thornton and Floyd did. With the way MacDougal threw, not sure where to start with a guy like that. He was hideous to watch throw.

doublem23
08-01-2010, 09:07 PM
I don't think the Edwin Jackson trade will ever make sense to me.

Let's see what Coop can do with him.

At the time, the McCarthy/Danks deal didn't make a whole lot of sense, either.

goon
08-01-2010, 09:07 PM
A guy who eats up a lot of innings pitches at least 200 in 30+ games. 161 and 183 are nothing. That's on the safe side of innings pitched. If you average it out, Jackson pitched around 6 innings per outing in 2008 and about 5.5 in 2007. That's hardly pressing a pitcher too much, unless his name is Stephen Strasburg.

183 is a decent amount of innings. For reference this is a list (http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/historical/player_stats.jsp?c_id=mlb&baseballScope=mlb&teamPosCode=all&statType=2&sitSplit=&venueID=&timeSubFrame2=1&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2009&Submit=Submit) of the leaders in innings pitched last year. Over 180 is pretty good for your second full season in the MLB. The 161 was in reference to the fact that he hadn't pitched that many innings before 2008.

doublem23
08-01-2010, 09:09 PM
Again, I can't believe that of the three teams he's been on in the past eighteen months that no one else has noticed this "mechanical flaw." There might be a mechanical flaw but when you acquire a guy who has been around as long as he has and has been as bad as he has I think there's more going on than just a "mechanical flaw;" it seems to me that a "mechanical flaw" is a way of saying "Yes, he sucks, but we think we can fix him...somehow." There was a mechanical flaw with guys like Sisco and MacDougal too.

Well, for the record the Rays and D'backs both suck so it's not entirely out of the question that they didn't notice or didn't know how to correct his flaw.

The Sox found something wrong with Jose Contreras's mechanics while he was in New York with the Yankees. THE YANKEES. The team that can afford anything couldn't spot The Count's mechanical flaws.

In Coop We Trust.

goon
08-01-2010, 09:10 PM
Let's see what Coop can do with him.

At the time, the McCarthy/Danks deal didn't make a whole lot of sense, either.

I'm willing to give the organization the benefit of the doubt. It seems likely they had a list of pitchers, looked at video of these guys at their best and their worst and knew who to go after, talked to Don Cooper about trade targets and made a choice.

goon
08-01-2010, 09:11 PM
Well, for the record the Rays and D'backs both suck so it's not entirely out of the question that they didn't notice or didn't know how to correct his flaw.

The Sox found something wrong with Jose Contreras's mechanics while he was in New York with the Yankees. THE YANKEES. The team that can afford anything couldn't spot The Count's mechanical flaws.

In Coop We Trust.

Matt Thornton was on a Mariners team (not as prolific as the Yankees) for a long period of time and they never saw anything.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 09:17 PM
183 is a decent amount of innings. For reference this is a list (http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/historical/player_stats.jsp?c_id=mlb&baseballScope=mlb&teamPosCode=all&statType=2&sitSplit=&venueID=&timeSubFrame2=1&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2009&Submit=Submit) of the leaders in innings pitched last year. Over 180 is pretty good for your second full season in the MLB. The 161 was in reference to the fact that he hadn't pitched that many innings before 2008.
I did say Jackson was good in 2009 for the most part except in September where he got completely shelled. My argument is that if pitching 183 innings makes your arm tired even after pitching 161 in the previous year, it's a red flag. He showed the same kind of meltdown in 2009 September even after pitching 183 and 161. We traded for this guy because we wanted him to pitch for us down the stretch to get us to postseason. That means he will pitch for us in September and October where for THREE consecutive seasons, he's shown very very mixed results. I'm willing to ignore his first half struggle but I can't overlook this. If those numbers are due to arm fatigue, then I question his ability to pitch well in second half. I don't think he can be trusted based on what we have seen.

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 09:24 PM
Well, for the record the Rays and D'backs both suck so it's not entirely out of the question that they didn't notice or didn't know how to correct his flaw.
I agree that D-backs are in a ****hole right now, but the Rays? They've been running a pretty good ballclub since 2008. They got to World Series once thanks to their young core of pitching. They hardly suck.

The Sox found something wrong with Jose Contreras's mechanics while he was in New York with the Yankees. THE YANKEES. The team that can afford anything couldn't spot The Count's mechanical flaws.
Wasn't Jose's issue more mental than mechanical? According to Wiki (Yes, yes, a very reliable source of information), Jose started dropping his arm with the advice of El Duque. Also, money doesn't buy you everything.

JB98
08-01-2010, 09:26 PM
When I saw that Hudson pitched well today, I knew this thread was gonna happen. As if anything has changed because of this one start.

It's still the same Dan Hudson who was with the Sox. He's a decent prospect who will develop into a middle-of-the-rotation starter and have a respectable MLB career.

I like Hudson, but I'm not going to cry, curse KW's name and shake my fists at skies above every time Dan wins a game for Arizona.

WhiteSox5187
08-01-2010, 09:34 PM
Well, for the record the Rays and D'backs both suck so it's not entirely out of the question that they didn't notice or didn't know how to correct his flaw.

The Sox found something wrong with Jose Contreras's mechanics while he was in New York with the Yankees. THE YANKEES. The team that can afford anything couldn't spot The Count's mechanical flaws.

In Coop We Trust.

The Rays won the pennant when he was there. And the Tigers went down to the wire last year when he was there.

doublem23
08-01-2010, 09:35 PM
I agree that D-backs are in a ****hole right now, but the Rays? They've been running a pretty good ballclub since 2008. They got to World Series once thanks to their young core of pitching. They hardly suck.

Well his first two years in Tampa, they were awful. His only decent season there resulted in a World Series trip.

Baron
08-01-2010, 09:51 PM
When I saw that Hudson pitched well today, I knew this thread was gonna happen. As if anything has changed because of this one start.

It's still the same Dan Hudson who was with the Sox. He's a decent prospect who will develop into a middle-of-the-rotation starter and have a respectable MLB career.

I like Hudson, but I'm not going to cry, curse KW's name and shake my fists at skies above every time Dan wins a game for Arizona.

Exactly I saw the score on my phone and I knew there was a thread about how Kenny screwed up and Hudson is a beast up already. Your post is 100 percent correct and he was playing the Mets.....Not the Yankees guys

Pablo_Honey
08-01-2010, 09:56 PM
Well his first two years in Tampa, they were awful. His only decent season there resulted in a World Series trip.
Rays may have sucked until 2008 but they brought up a handful of guys and had success with them like Longo and Crawford. Teams like the Pirates and the Royals have proven that drafting high every year doesn't mean the team will get better soon. The Rays turned the busts in the likeness of Pena, Howell and Balfour into quality Major Leaguers. They are no slouch at developing talents, IMHO.

balke
08-01-2010, 11:13 PM
Wasn't Jose's issue more mental than mechanical? According to Wiki (Yes, yes, a very reliable source of information), Jose started dropping his arm with the advice of El Duque. Also, money doesn't buy you everything.

He was tipping his pitches when he got to the Sox. He wiggled his glove when he threw a certain pitch. The Sox made him wiggle all the time to throw the other team off and it worked almost immediately.

Patrick134
08-01-2010, 11:16 PM
Why is everybody judging a trade after 1 start ? Does anyone remember when Kip Wells started 9-3 for the Pirates ? Chill.

balke
08-01-2010, 11:26 PM
Why is everybody judging a trade after 1 start ? Does anyone remember when Kip Wells started 9-3 for the Pirates ? Chill.


I'm not. I do think Hudson is good though. I'm going to wait about 5 starts before I make any kind of judgement. I expect Jackson to give some good starts and some bad starts. I think Hudson will be fairly consistant. He was a good prospect and will probably be a good pitcher.

if the Sox saw something they liked - this could still be a great move.

Everyone seems to want this one to fail though. kinda like the John Ely updates everytime he has a good start.

BadBobbyJenks
08-02-2010, 12:38 AM
Let's see what Coop can do with him.

At the time, the McCarthy/Danks deal didn't make a whole lot of sense, either.

True, but Edwin makes 8 million dollars, it baffles me KW could make this deal without the Nats being officially a part of the trade.

hawkjt
08-02-2010, 01:26 AM
True, but Edwin makes 8 million dollars, it baffles me KW could make this deal without the Nats being officially a part of the trade.


Jackson is making 4.6 million this year. 8 million next year. The Sox can always trade him in the offseason if he is too expensive. There will be takers.

When you look at Jackson's record last year in Sept, take away the Sox hammering him twice and he is 3-1. Sox knew he was tipping pitches last year and hammered him. Otherwise he was decent in Sept. We will see how he performs the next 3 months ...then can make an informed discussion on the trade.

Craig Grebeck
08-02-2010, 08:10 AM
He's got NL stuff, he'll probably have a much longer career pitching over there. He was never going to be anything but borderline in the AL.
This is a very convenient excuse. If Daniel Hudson has NL stuff, I'm not sure what to call Edwin Jackson's command. Mexican League? California Penal?

Thome25
08-02-2010, 08:19 AM
I get that Kenny wants "impact" players, but off the top of my head we're going to be paying Peavy $15 mil, Buerhle about $13 mil, Danks is going to get a huge raise -- probably at least $6 mil, Floyd's going to make about $5 mil, and EJ $8 mil. That's $47 mil conservatively out of a payroll that's not going to exceed $110 million. That's a recipe for a platoon of Kotsay and Jones at DH. Having one cheaper pitcher at all times saves money and it builds continuity.

These types of deals can have extremely negative consequences. See Haren for Mark Mulder. We all like Peavy, but right now Richard is healthy and has outperformed him for a fraction of the money. It's possible Hudson haunts the same way.

Also, I dispute that Hudson's stuff is that much worse than Floyd's or Jackson's. They both throw much harder than he does, but he has way above average movement on his fastball and a plus change. It all depends on his slider. When his slider's right, he can be pretty devastating. Those guys are a lot straighter than he is. For major league minimum, he's a pretty good pitcher.

I think if the Sox miss the playoffs or flame-out in the early rounds of the playoffs, you're definitely going to see one of those starters get traded.

EJ may get traded again in the offseason if not, IMO if Danks again rejects the multi-year deals that KW has been rumored to have been offering him, you may see him get traded.

When pitchers reject the White Sox multi-year contract offers, KW is almost sure to trade them at some point preferably selling high in the process.

munchman33
08-02-2010, 08:19 AM
This is a very convenient excuse. If Daniel Hudson has NL stuff, I'm not sure what to call Edwin Jackson's command. Mexican League? California Penal?

Fixable is the word you were looking for.

Craig Grebeck
08-02-2010, 08:42 AM
Fixable is the word you were looking for.
Why is that fixable? We have over 800 innings of evidence that says Edwin Jackson just might be a not-so-good pitcher. Teams have picked him up and said the same thing: we can corral him. Well, maybe you can't. Having the fourth most valuable fastball in baseball is irrelevant when you can't strike anyone out.

I know you're in love with Keith Law's wrong-headed and confusing evaluations, but Daniel Hudson is regarded by many to be a possible mid-rotation starter. His problem, oddly enough, is related to his mechanics. His pitches flatten out, and at times he gets his fastball up in the zone. His motion is, as of now, not repeatable. Minor tweaks can fix that, as can a plain old infusion of confidence.

seventyseven
08-02-2010, 09:11 AM
I get that Kenny wants "impact" players, but off the top of my head we're going to be paying Peavy $15 mil, Buerhle about $13 mil, Danks is going to get a huge raise -- probably at least $6 mil, Floyd's going to make about $5 mil, and EJ $8 mil. That's $47 mil conservatively out of a payroll that's not going to exceed $110 million. That's a recipe for a platoon of Kotsay and Jones at DH. Having one cheaper pitcher at all times saves money and it builds continuity.

These types of deals can have extremely negative consequences. See Haren for Mark Mulder. We all like Peavy, but right now Richard is healthy and has outperformed him for a fraction of the money. It's possible Hudson haunts the same way.

Also, I dispute that Hudson's stuff is that much worse than Floyd's or Jackson's. They both throw much harder than he does, but he has way above average movement on his fastball and a plus change. It all depends on his slider. When his slider's right, he can be pretty devastating. Those guys are a lot straighter than he is. For major league minimum, he's a pretty good pitcher.

Stopped reading there. Hard to perform when you're hurt.

And how many Cy Young's has Clayton Richard won?

Tragg
08-02-2010, 09:19 AM
The White Sox system is not very good at developing players, let alone pitchers.

They developed Hudson pretty well. A bigger problem is that the field manager is a poor talent evaluator and this organization has no patience in turning capable minor league players into major leaguers.

Hudson showed a lot of promise with the Sox but they preferrd the mediocre veteran with a bad contract.

russ99
08-02-2010, 09:22 AM
I get that Kenny wants "impact" players, but off the top of my head we're going to be paying Peavy $15 mil, Buerhle about $13 mil, Danks is going to get a huge raise -- probably at least $6 mil, Floyd's going to make about $5 mil, and EJ $8 mil. That's $47 mil conservatively out of a payroll that's not going to exceed $110 million. That's a recipe for a platoon of Kotsay and Jones at DH. Having one cheaper pitcher at all times saves money and it builds continuity.

These types of deals can have extremely negative consequences. See Haren for Mark Mulder. We all like Peavy, but right now Richard is healthy and has outperformed him for a fraction of the money. It's possible Hudson haunts the same way.

Also, I dispute that Hudson's stuff is that much worse than Floyd's or Jackson's. They both throw much harder than he does, but he has way above average movement on his fastball and a plus change. It all depends on his slider. When his slider's right, he can be pretty devastating. Those guys are a lot straighter than he is. For major league minimum, he's a pretty good pitcher.

I disagree with that assessment.

Kenny values pitching, specificially proven pitching. I feel much more confident in the Sox's chances in 2011 with 5 major league starters, not with 4 and hope Freddy holds it together and/or a kid steps up.

Pitching wins titles. So what if we only have $10-12M to spend after everyone gets their raises and the free agents decide to stay or leave. BTW, the only way Danks gets $6M is if he goes to arbitration. I have him penciled in at $5-5.5.

The Sox have prospects on the hitting side who should be able to step in and contribute, and avoid a Kotsay/Jones situation, especially considering that neither will be re-signed.

rdivaldi
08-02-2010, 09:59 AM
Much ado about nothing. Good for Hudson, he's a good kid with a good arm. However, we'll see how he does as he goes through the league a second and third time around. The hyperventilating over Ely proved to be unwarranted, I think it's pretty safe to assume the same here. The D'Backs don't exactly have a stellar record of producing arms either.

areilly
08-02-2010, 10:21 AM
Pitching wins titles. So what if we only have $10-12M to spend after everyone gets their raises and the free agents decide to stay or leave.

I think this statement pretty drastically oversimplifies things.

khan
08-02-2010, 10:21 AM
Kenny values pitching, specificially proven pitching.
Really? So Danks and Floyd and Jenks and MacDougal and Aardsma and Adkins and Shingo and Thornton and many, many others were "proven" to be good at the MLB level when KW acquired them?

I really think you're trying to see things that really aren't here. Especially a pitcher like Jackson, who has "proven" that he sucks.


I feel much more confident in the Sox's chances in 2011 with 5 major league starters, not with 4 and hope Freddy holds it together and/or a kid steps up.
1. Unfortunately, Jackson is hardly a major league starter. His career WHIP is 1.5. His ERA+ is 94. Much of his numbers were "racked up" in the little-boy NL. In sum, he's sucked at baseball.

2. Freddy isn't under contract for 2011, is he? If this is the case, then this still means Sale or Torres [READ: unproven starters] + 3 "proven" starters [2 if Peavey isn't ready] + Jackson + Jackson's obese contract.

Pitching wins titles. So what if we only have $10-12M to spend after everyone gets their raises and the free agents decide to stay or leave. BTW, the only way Danks gets $6M is if he goes to arbitration. I have him penciled in at $5-5.5.
So, your plan is to use "$10-12M" to acquire:
1. A LH bat of at-least MLB starter quality. [Kotsay doesn't qualify]
2. A closer
3. A RH setup man
4. Possibly a 1B/cleanup hitter
5. A STARTING catcher
6. A SP, if Peavy isn't ready or if Jackson continues to suck at baseball.
7. A LOOGY
8. A long man in the 'pen
9. A bench.
10. A starting 3B, if Grandpa Omar retires and WHEN Morel is shipped out for another pile of ****.
11. Did I miss anything?

"$10-12M" won't fill many of these holes.

The Sox have prospects on the hitting side who should be able to step in and contribute, and avoid a Kotsay/Jones situation, especially considering that neither will be re-signed.
Who are these magical prospects that are leading Charlotte and Birmingham to glory, and will soon be RAKING in Chicago? Especially from the LH side?

munchman33
08-02-2010, 10:43 AM
Why is that fixable? We have over 800 innings of evidence that says Edwin Jackson just might be a not-so-good pitcher. Teams have picked him up and said the same thing: we can corral him. Well, maybe you can't. Having the fourth most valuable fastball in baseball is irrelevant when you can't strike anyone out.

I know you're in love with Keith Law's wrong-headed and confusing evaluations, but Daniel Hudson is regarded by many to be a possible mid-rotation starter. His problem, oddly enough, is related to his mechanics. His pitches flatten out, and at times he gets his fastball up in the zone. His motion is, as of now, not repeatable. Minor tweaks can fix that, as can a plain old infusion of confidence.

Jackson hasn't been bad his whole time in the majors, he's thrown plenty of good innings and had more than half a season where he was just plain elite.

Hudson's mechanics are the way they are BECAUSE of the White Sox. They altered his delivery to increase his velocity. It worked, but it's also what's causing his four seamer to be flat and hittable. It's either this or go back to being in the 87-90 range. This is why I keep saying Hudson's fastball is not that good.

Coops4Aces
08-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Jackson hasn't been bad his whole time in the majors, he's thrown plenty of good innings and had more than half a season where he was just plain elite.

Hudson's mechanics are the way they are BECAUSE of the White Sox. They altered his delivery to increase his velocity. It worked, but it's also what's causing his four seamer to be flat and hittable. It's either this or go back to being in the 87-90 range. This is why I keep saying Hudson's fastball is not that good.

I hope you're right munch. The Sox will win this division if Edwin posts an ERA ~4.25 or better

balke
08-02-2010, 11:06 AM
I really think you're trying to see things that really aren't here. Especially a pitcher like Jackson, who has "proven" that he sucks.

1. Unfortunately, Jackson is hardly a major league starter. His career WHIP is 1.5. His ERA+ is 94. Much of his numbers were "racked up" in the little-boy NL. In sum, he's sucked at baseball.

Gavin Floyd's WHIP was over 1.8 when acquired. But the Sox knew he had a dominant curve.

Jackson has a fastball that is good and a slider which is above average.

The more I read up on him - I see he's produced a ton of ground balls this year in AZ. he went from somewhere in the 30% range to 50%.

I think that means with a better defense - he can produce more outs. And if he is tipping his pitches - that could be huge. I also wouldn't be surprised to see him pickup a cut fastball like John Danks did.

So yes, I'm with you that this trade is bad right now. But, I do like the potential here. They might have seen a bad ERA due to bad IF defense. And they might have seen a tipping of pitches. This bad pitcher might end up like Gavin did - a bad pitcher turned great. Wait and see.

If it flops - I'll be more upset than anyone. I was really big on Hudson. He'd be under control for a long time. Jackson does have ace potential though.

And no - he's not too old. If Loaiza can change like he did - anything is possible.

voodoochile
08-02-2010, 11:16 AM
I get that Kenny wants "impact" players, but off the top of my head we're going to be paying Peavy $15 mil, Buerhle about $13 mil, Danks is going to get a huge raise -- probably at least $6 mil, Floyd's going to make about $5 mil, and EJ $8 mil. That's $47 mil conservatively out of a payroll that's not going to exceed $110 million. That's a recipe for a platoon of Kotsay and Jones at DH. Having one cheaper pitcher at all times saves money and it builds continuity.

These types of deals can have extremely negative consequences. See Haren for Mark Mulder. We all like Peavy, but right now Richard is healthy and has outperformed him for a fraction of the money. It's possible Hudson haunts the same way.

Also, I dispute that Hudson's stuff is that much worse than Floyd's or Jackson's. They both throw much harder than he does, but he has way above average movement on his fastball and a plus change. It all depends on his slider. When his slider's right, he can be pretty devastating. Those guys are a lot straighter than he is. For major league minimum, he's a pretty good pitcher.

Okay and the flip side of that is...

The Sox are set at 7 of the 8 field positions with little or no raise:

C - AJ comes back probably for $15/3 with Castro's option picked up - same price or slightly lower
1B - PK if he can be had for the same or slightly lower price - if not Viciedo takes over for a huge savings
2B - Beckham - same price
SS Alexei - same price
3B - Teahen gets a small raise I imagine Omar is back for a reasonable one year deal too +2M
LF - Pierre small raise +2M
CF - Same price
RF - TCQ - raise, but how much I don't know. +2M

RP:
Thornton - same price 7/8th
Santos - same price - takes over for Putz 7/8th - closer?
Threets - same price LOOGY and long
Linebrink - same price long and mopup
Pena - same price or reasonable raise 6th and long or takes over for Santos if Santos becomes closer
BBJ - expect him back, but raise will be a few million at most +2M
Sale - much cheaper than Bobby.
Other cheap options include: Torres, Harrell, Nunez

Off the books:
Putz - (3M)
Kotsay - (1.5M)
Freddy - (1-3M)

So - if PK comes back the payroll is going to go up slightly but it probably will be possible as I have to believe the Sox are having a good attendance year, there is the possibility of even more money from playoffs and ST renewals should be solid this off season. In addition if he comes back it solves 90% of the DH issue because he and Tank can split time.

3 bench positions are already filled with the 3B platoon, Castro and Lillibridge. The Sox need an OF who can platoon at the various postions (though Lillibeast can already cover CF at least). Danks? Morel? FA signing?

In short I don't think this team is anywhere near in the financial problem people think.

Craig Grebeck
08-02-2010, 11:19 AM
Jackson hasn't been bad his whole time in the majors, he's thrown plenty of good innings and had more than half a season where he was just plain elite.

Hudson's mechanics are the way they are BECAUSE of the White Sox. They altered his delivery to increase his velocity. It worked, but it's also what's causing his four seamer to be flat and hittable. It's either this or go back to being in the 87-90 range. This is why I keep saying Hudson's fastball is not that good.

120 innings is a prayer in the grand scheme.

khan
08-02-2010, 11:20 AM
Gavin Floyd's WHIP was over 1.8 when acquired. But the Sox knew he had a dominant curve.
Stop. Just stop.

Gavin Floyd was a TOP PROSPECT. He was drafted 4th OVERALL, ahead of some bum named Mark Teixeira. Floyd was considered one of the top prospects in all of baseball, as well as for the phillies.

Edwin Jackson was drafted in the 5th Round, and was NEVER considered a top prospect.

Floyd failed with his FIRST franchise, and was brought in during the offseason; Jackson has failed FOUR TIMES before coming here, and has to be fixed right away, DURING a playoff race.

These two players and their situations are NOTHING ALIKE. No offense, but let's stop this nonsense of comparing ACTUAL top prospects to Edwin Jackson.


Jackson has a fastball that is good and a slider which is above average.

The more I read up on him - I see he's produced a ton of ground balls this year in AZ. he went from somewhere in the 30% range to 50%.
IF Jackson can hit 98 MPH on the gun, why can't he strike guys out? Especially in the little boy NL, where there are basically free outs to be had?

I think that means with a better defense - he can produce more outs.[B] And if he is tipping his pitches - that could be huge. I also wouldn't be surprised to see him pickup a cut fastball like John Danks did.
Again: There have been 4 other franchises that tried to "fix" Edwin Jackson, and all have failed. IF the tipping issue was known by the SOX, then other franchises have known this, too; I state this because he's been around for a long time for a LOT of organizations.

Therefore, one has to wonder IF Jackson is "fixable" after so many others have failed to "fix" him.


So yes, I'm with you that this trade is bad right now. But, I do like the potential here. They might have seen a bad ERA due to bad IF defense. And they might have seen a tipping of pitches. This bad pitcher might end up like Gavin did - a bad pitcher turned great. Wait and see.
Again, these two situations are NOTHING alike.

If it flops - I'll be more upset than anyone. I was really big on Hudson. He'd be under control for a long time. Jackson does have ace potential though.
I think you should get ready to be upset.

And no - he's not too old. If Loaiza can change like he did - anything is possible.
Loaiza was much cheaper than Edwin Jackson.

russ99
08-02-2010, 11:29 AM
Stop. Just stop.

Gavin Floyd was a TOP PROSPECT. He was drafted 4th OVERALL, ahead of some bum named Mark Teixeira. Floyd was considered one of the top prospects in all of baseball, as well as for the phillies.

Edwin Jackson was drafted in the 5th Round, and was NEVER considered a top prospect.

Floyd failed with his FIRST franchise, and was brought in during the offseason; Jackson has failed FOUR TIMES before coming here, and has to be fixed right away, DURING a playoff race. [BTW, Jackson has FAILED when he's been in playoff races in the past.]

These two players and their situations are NOTHING ALIKE. No offense, but let's stop this nonsense of comparing ACTUAL top prospects to Edwin Jackson.

IF Jackson can hit 98 MPH on the gun, why can't he strike guys out? Especially in the little boy NL, where there are basically free outs to be had?

Again: There have been 4 other franchises that tried to "fix" Edwin Jackson, and all have failed. IF the tipping issue was known by the SOX, then other franchises have known this, too; I state this because he's been around for a long time for a LOT of organizations.

Therefore, one has to wonder IF Jackson is "fixable" after so many others have failed to "fix" him.

Again, these two situations are NOTHING alike.

I think you should get ready to be upset.

Loaiza was much cheaper than Edwin Jackson.

Let's see the guy pitch for us before you deem that he "sucks", "is bad at baseball", "in the little boy NL" and all the other bad assumptions you're making about a pitcher you've never seen pitch.

If you have sour grapes because of Hudson, that's fine - but you're making some wild accusations about Jackson's viability based on 3 months of NL baseball with an awful team who's coaches were fired.

The truth is that Edwin Jackson had a damn fine first half in Detroit last season against the "Big Boy" AL. So that's enough proof for me that he has a chance to succeed with the Sox, especially with our pitching coach.

And as far as salary is concerned, we're paying partial salary of $5M this year, which is peanuts. If he proves he's up to the task, $8M will be money worth spending next year. If not, the Sox can deal him in the offseason like Detroit did last year.

Craig Grebeck
08-02-2010, 11:34 AM
Let's see the guy pitch for us before you deem that he "sucks", "is bad at baseball", "in the little boy NL" and all the other bad assumptions you're making about a pitcher you've never seen pitch.

If you have sour grapes because of Hudson, that's fine - but you're making some wild accusations about Jackson's viability based on 3 months of NL baseball with an awful team who's coaches were fired.

The truth is that Edwin Jackson had a damn fine first half in Detroit last season against the "Big Boy" AL. So that's enough proof for me that he has a chance to succeed with the Sox, especially with our pitching coach.

And as far as salary is concerned, we're paying partial salary of $5M this year, which is peanuts. If he proves he's up to the task, $8M will be money worth spending next year. If not, the Sox can deal him in the offseason like Detroit did last year.
And should we deal him, the loss in our investment will be dreadful. We won't get a guy like Hudson back.

balke
08-02-2010, 11:41 AM
IF Jackson can hit 98 MPH on the gun, why can't he strike guys out? Especially in the little boy NL, where there are basically free outs to be had?
him.


His 104 K's are 8 less than Floyd - the Sox' K leader. If you wanna complain about something - complain about 60 walks.


I wanna see Jackson keep the ball low and in the zone. Sox have gone through this before with Garland - who was dominant if he kept the ball low and threw strikes.

Hitmen77
08-02-2010, 11:43 AM
Okay and the flip side of that is...

The Sox are set at 7 of the 8 field positions with little or no raise:

C - AJ comes back probably for $15/3 with Castro's option picked up - same price or slightly lower
1B - PK if he can be had for the same or slightly lower price - if not Viciedo takes over for a huge savings
2B - Beckham - same price
SS Alexei - same price
3B - Teahen gets a small raise I imagine Omar is back for a reasonable one year deal too +2M
LF - Pierre small raise +2M
CF - Same price
RF - TCQ - raise, but how much I don't know. +2M

RP:
Thornton - same price 7/8th
Santos - same price - takes over for Putz 7/8th - closer?
Threets - same price LOOGY and long
Linebrink - same price long and mopup
Pena - same price or reasonable raise 6th and long or takes over for Santos if Santos becomes closer
BBJ - expect him back, but raise will be a few million at most +2M
Sale - much cheaper than Bobby.
Other cheap options include: Torres, Harrell, Nunez

Off the books:
Putz - (3M)
Kotsay - (1.5M)
Freddy - (1-3M)

So - if PK comes back the payroll is going to go up slightly but it probably will be possible as I have to believe the Sox are having a good attendance year, there is the possibility of even more money from playoffs and ST renewals should be solid this off season. In addition if he comes back it solves 90% of the DH issue because he and Tank can split time.

3 bench positions are already filled with the 3B platoon, Castro and Lillibridge. The Sox need an OF who can platoon at the various postions (though Lillibeast can already cover CF at least). Danks? Morel? FA signing?

In short I don't think this team is anywhere near in the financial problem people think.

It might not be a problem for 2011 for all we know. But, it IS a legitimate question for fans to be asking each other. Last winter we were told that the Sox were bumping up against their payroll limit and this limited their options for getting that final bat for our lineup. The retort at the time was "what are KW and OG supposed to do? They only have so much money to spend". If the retort now is "money isn't a problem and fans shouldn't question payroll moves", then that's inconsistent.

By the way, CF isn't going to be the same. Rios gets a $2.25 million raise next year. As does Floyd. The Sox have to pay Pierre $2 million more. Peavy and Teahen are getting another $1 million each. Plus raises for Quentin and Danks and then add in $8.3 million for Jackson that wasn't there before. That right there is a pretty significant jump in payroll.....and that's before dealing with any issues with Jenks, Putz, or finally getting that missing bat in our lineup.

Also, I don't think the Sox have Sale targeted as a reliever after this year. For all I know, they thought having Sale waiting in the wings made Hudson all that much more expendable.

khan
08-02-2010, 11:47 AM
The Sox are set at 7 of the 8 field positions with little or no raise
Isn't this a bit speculative?

However, I'll play along with your numbers, for argument's sake.
C - AJ comes back probably for $15/3 with Castro's option picked up - same price or slightly lower
I wouldn't want AJ back for 3 years. And is $5M/per really worth it for a guy who has sucked in his contract year?

1B - PK if he can be had for the same or slightly lower price - if not Viciedo takes over for a huge savings
Viciedo's abject lack of walks suggests to me that he's nowhere near being ready to be an everyday player. He looks like he'll slump tremendously, once other teams bother to scout him.

2B - Beckham - same price
SS Alexei - same price
RF - TCQ - raise, but how much I don't know. +2M
RP:
Thornton - same price 7/8th
Santos - same price - takes over for Putz 7/8th - closer?
Threets - same price LOOGY and long
Linebrink - same price long and mopup
Agreed with all of these, based on Cots.

3B - Teahen gets a small raise I imagine Omar is back for a reasonable one year deal too +2M
Teahen by himself gets a $1.75M bump, according to Cots. I don't know if Grandpa Omar will have anything left next year.

LF - Pierre small raise +2M
I believe this is more like $3.5M, based on the reduced amount of LAD money coming here.

CF - Same price
More like +$2.3M, according to Cot's


Pena - same price or reasonable raise 6th and long or takes over for Santos if Santos becomes closer
Pena is due for Arb, so maybe +$2M or so.

BBJ - expect him back, but raise will be a few million at most +2M
Sale - much cheaper than Bobby.
Other cheap options include: Torres, Harrell, Nunez

Off the books:
Putz - (3M)
Kotsay - (1.5M)
Freddy - (1-3M)

So - if PK comes back the payroll is going to go up slightly but it probably will be possible as I have to believe the Sox are having a good attendance year, there is the possibility of even more money from playoffs and ST renewals should be solid this off season. In addition if he comes back it solves 90% of the DH issue because he and Tank can split time.

In short I don't think this team is anywhere near in the financial problem people think.

Start with the Cot's figure of $75M ALREADY committed to Peavy, Buerhle, Rios, Pierre, Jackson, Linebrink, Teahen, Viciedo, Ramirez, and Thornton. If we use your calculations, or what I have from Cots:

+$7M or so for the catchers
+$2M for Quentin in arb
+$3.5M for Pierre
+$2.3M for Rios
+$2M for Pena in arb
+$2M for Danks in arb
+$3.75M for Teahen and Vizquel

This leaves the team at $97.58M for the aforementioned 19 players, NOT including:

1. Re-signing PK or acquiring a 1B,
2. NO LH bat/DH acquired,
3. Viciedo, his stone glove, and his utter lack of walks starting at 1B,
4. No RH setup man to replace Putz
5. No bench included in the $97.5M figure
6. Salary figures for a few of the minimum salary guys are not included in the $97.5M figure of committed money for 2011. [i.e. Beckham, Santos, Lillibridge, and others]


In other words, this would look like a mediocre team, given the money spent.

asindc
08-02-2010, 11:48 AM
It might not be a problem for 2011 for all we know. But, it IS a legitimate question for fans to be asking each other. Last winter we were told that the Sox were bumping up against their payroll limit and this limited their options for getting that final bat for our lineup. The retort at the time was "what are KW and OG supposed to do? They only have so much money to spend". If the retort now is "money isn't a problem and fans shouldn't question payroll moves", then that's inconsistent.

By the way, CF isn't going to be the same. Rios gets a $2.25 million raise next year. As does Floyd. The Sox have to pay Pierre $2 million more. Peavy and Teahen are getting another $1 million each. Plus raises for Quentin and Danks and then add in $8.3 million for Jackson that wasn't there before. That right there is a pretty significant jump in payroll.....and that's before dealing with any issues with Jenks, Putz, or finally getting that missing bat in our lineup.

Also, I don't think the Sox have Sale targeted as a reliever after this year. For all I know, they thought having Sale waiting in the wings made Hudson all that much more expendable.

The difference between the offseason and now is that the Sox were coming off a disappointing losing season in which attendance significantly dropped during the second half, as opposed to the first half of this season which ended up being the exact opposite of that. If the first half of this season had ended the way the second half of last season did, then I don't think the Sox would be saying that the have payroll flexibility, even if they did not consider themselves sellers.

konerko 14
08-02-2010, 11:53 AM
I've got confidence in Coop to turn Jackson around and help this team down the stretch.

khan
08-02-2010, 11:56 AM
Let's see the guy pitch for us before you deem that he "sucks", "is bad at baseball", "in the little boy NL" and all the other bad assumptions you're making about a pitcher you've never seen pitch.
We've ALL seen him pitch [with the rays, with the tigers, and elsewhere]. I've also seen his numbers. A 1.5 WHIP in the NL is a bad number. A ERA+ of 94 is a bad number. And bad numbers are good indications of bad players.

http://stats.chron.com/mlb/playerstats.asp?id=7241

If you have sour grapes because of Hudson, that's fine - but you're making some wild accusations about Jackson's viability based on 3 months of NL baseball with an awful team who's coaches were fired.
This is ridiculous. I base my view on the OVERWHELMING evidence over the course of his ENTIRE CAREER that he sucks. Unless, by some chance, you think that a WHIP of 1.5 is good?

By the way, what evidence do you have that Edwin Jackson is good?

The truth is that Edwin Jackson had a damn fine first half in Detroit last season against the "Big Boy" AL. So that's enough proof for me that he has a chance to succeed with the Sox, especially with our pitching coach.
1. Blind squirrel, meet a nut.

2. He ALSO **** his pants in the playoff chase in the 2nd half, both with Detroit, and with the rays.

khan
08-02-2010, 12:05 PM
His 104 K's are 8 less than Floyd - the Sox' K leader. If you wanna complain about something - complain about 60 walks.
Again, Jackson got more or less free outs pitching to the opposing pitcher in the NL. So his K totals should be MUCH higher for a player with his fastball.

And yes, his 60 Walks, his obese contract, the fact that he's sucked, and his agent means that not only is he likely to suck, but he won't re-sign here even IF he figures it out.

By the way, fixing a "tipping" issue won't fix a control issue.

I wanna see Jackson keep the ball low and in the zone. Sox have gone through this before with Garland - who was dominant if he kept the ball low and threw strikes.
As do I. I will cheer Edwin Jackson, as I do ALL SOX players. The evidence that he sucks at baseball is overwhelming, however.

hawkjt
08-02-2010, 12:09 PM
Jeeezzz, being a Sox fan must be a constant source of frustration and negativity for some of these ''die-hard'' Sox fans.

Jackson has won 30 games vs the AL the last three years...Hudson has won 2. I like our chances better with Jackson.

areilly
08-02-2010, 12:12 PM
Jackson has won 30 games vs the AL the last three years...Hudson has won 2. I like our chances better with Jackson.

Wins! Well, I'm sold.

khan
08-02-2010, 12:12 PM
Jeeezzz, being a Sox fan must be a constant source of frustration and negativity for some of these ''die-hard'' Sox fans.

Jackson has won 30 games vs the AL the last three years...Hudson has won 2. I like our chances better with Jackson.
1. Watching KW make questionable and expensive moves is frustrating. [Watch how he'll cry poor next offseason after spending a ****-ton of cash on a marginal player with Boras as his agent.]

2. Wins are a poor way to judge a pitcher. Wins are a team metric, really.

spawn
08-02-2010, 12:15 PM
Jeeezzz, being a Sox fan must be a constant source of frustration and negativity for some of these ''die-hard'' Sox fans.

Jackson has won 30 games vs the AL the last three years...Hudson has won 2. I like our chances better with Jackson.

The thing that irritates me are the proclamations that a player "sucks at baseball". If you disagree with the trade, fine. If you think he's not worth the money that he's being paid, ok. He'll, even if you believe Hudson will be a better pitcher in the long run, that I can understand. But to say he sucks at baseball is waaaaaay over the top. I suck at baseball.of that, there is no doubt. Jackson has had some success at the major league level. That's proof he doesn't suck at baseball.

munchman33
08-02-2010, 12:15 PM
120 innings is a prayer in the grand scheme.

He's thrown fewer bad innings since then, and you seem to be basing your hatred on that. Unless you mean to count his innings prior to being good, which would be just plain biased considering Jackson was rushed and learning to pitch at the MLB level.

doublem23
08-02-2010, 12:15 PM
2. Wins are a poor way to judge a pitcher. Wins are a team metric, really.

Especially if you fail to note that Jackson got his 30 wins in 66 starts, while Hudson got his 2 in 5.

doublem23
08-02-2010, 12:17 PM
The thing that irritates me are the proclamations that a player "sucks at baseball". If you disagree with the trade, fine. If you think he's not worth the money that he's being paid, ok. He'll, even if you believe Hudson will be a better pitcher in the long run, that I can understand. But to say he sucks at baseball is waaaaaay over the top. I suck at baseball.of that, there is no doubt. Jackson has had some success at the major league level. That's proof he doesn't suck at baseball.

I doubt anybody seriously thinks when we proclaim "Edwin Jackson sucks at baseball" that we're comparing him to the general population. Does anyone actually need to be told he's being compared to the average MLB player?

spawn
08-02-2010, 12:20 PM
I doubt anybody seriously thinks when we proclaim "Edwin Jackson sucks at baseball" that we're comparing him to the general population. Does anyone actually need to be told he's being compared to the average MLB player?

I know what he means. I was being as overly dramatic as the OP. I didn't think that needed an explanation. :shrug:

munchman33
08-02-2010, 12:21 PM
I doubt anybody seriously thinks when we proclaim "Edwin Jackson sucks at baseball" that we're comparing him to the general population. Does anyone actually need to be told he's being compared to the average MLB player?

You could tell me and I still wouldn't believe it. He's more talented than most players, has had more success than a lot of players, and isn't very far removed from being absolutely dominant within our division. When I think of words to describe someone like that, "sucks" doesn't come to mind. At all.

Craig Grebeck
08-02-2010, 12:26 PM
He's thrown fewer bad innings since then, and you seem to be basing your hatred on that. Unless you mean to count his innings prior to being good, which would be just plain biased considering Jackson was rushed and learning to pitch at the MLB level.
1. What hatred?
2. What does "fewer bad innings since then" mean? He's been awful since midseason 2009.

Yes, he was "learning to pitch." For about 500 innings. It appears he may not have learned much.

Craig Grebeck
08-02-2010, 12:27 PM
You could tell me and I still wouldn't believe it. He's more talented than most players, has had more success than a lot of players, and isn't very far removed from being absolutely dominant within our division. When I think of words to describe someone like that, "sucks" doesn't come to mind. At all.
You hate Javier Vazquez -- who, by any metric, has been a far superior pitcher to Edwin Jackson. You constantly said he "sucked."

doublem23
08-02-2010, 12:28 PM
You could tell me and I still wouldn't believe it. He's more talented than most players, has had more success than a lot of players, and isn't very far removed from being absolutely dominant within our division. When I think of words to describe someone like that, "sucks" doesn't come to mind. At all.

Well that's all opinion, but if we're comparing MLB players to everyday people, then they're all great, Hall of Fame worthy players. Hell, Mark Kotsay hitting above .200 puts him in the top 1 percentile of the top 1 percentile of the top 1 percentile of all Americans. That's rare air.

voodoochile
08-02-2010, 12:38 PM
It might not be a problem for 2011 for all we know. But, it IS a legitimate question for fans to be asking each other. Last winter we were told that the Sox were bumping up against their payroll limit and this limited their options for getting that final bat for our lineup. The retort at the time was "what are KW and OG supposed to do? They only have so much money to spend". If the retort now is "money isn't a problem and fans shouldn't question payroll moves", then that's inconsistent.

By the way, CF isn't going to be the same. Rios gets a $2.25 million raise next year. As does Floyd. The Sox have to pay Pierre $2 million more. Peavy and Teahen are getting another $1 million each. Plus raises for Quentin and Danks and then add in $8.3 million for Jackson that wasn't there before. That right there is a pretty significant jump in payroll.....and that's before dealing with any issues with Jenks, Putz, or finally getting that missing bat in our lineup.

Also, I don't think the Sox have Sale targeted as a reliever after this year. For all I know, they thought having Sale waiting in the wings made Hudson all that much more expendable.

The post I replied to set the SP salary, so I wasn't addressing it. That's why I didn't take into account Danks or Floyd.

Say for example though that the Sox sign Putz for 3/$15 and trade Bobby then move Santos into Putz's old job. That would be a net savings of $5M over Bobby getting a raise to $9M. They might even be able to go cheaper if they move Santos to closer and sign another set up man.

If Morel is close to ready they can even skip re-signing Omar (oh I included a small raise for Omar in my breakdown). I admit I didn't factor in the Rios raise, but I also believe that there will be more money to spend next year - closer to 2006 levels given the success the team has had and the fact the SP will all be returning next year already.

The team could even go radical if they manage to "fix" Jackson and offer up the Danks brothers for a monster bat and then resign Freddy to be the 5th starter - I admit that's a very radical suggestion and I expect to get hammered for it, but certainly there are possibilities.

voodoochile
08-02-2010, 12:44 PM
+$7M or so for the catchers
+$2M for Quentin in arb
+$3.5M for Pierre
+$2.3M for Rios
+$2M for Pena in arb
+$2M for Danks in arb
+$3.75M for Teahen and Vizquel


You're reaching on some of this, IMO.



Why is this such a huge bump? I think it will be a net wash at most.
Agreed
Don't know how much money isn't coming back since we don't actually know the number I was going off the reported deal of $3M this year and $5M next.
Didn't check before, you are correct
What? For a middle reliever? He won't get $3.5M no chance. I expect he'll sign a 3 year deal for about $6M total.
Agreed
If Vizquel will cost $3M the Sox will walk away and bring up Morel or let Viciedo platoon with Teahen.

I think you overestimated by at least $10M in terms of raises.

Edit: And again, that's not factoring in the possibility of trading Bobby and the loss of money paid to Kotsay and Putz.

munchman33
08-02-2010, 12:53 PM
1. What hatred?
2. What does "fewer bad innings since then" mean? He's been awful since midseason 2009.

Yes, he was "learning to pitch." For about 500 innings. It appears he may not have learned much.

But he was league average in 2008 and arguably among the best pitchers in baseball the first half of last year. Your sample size is a lot smaller than mine, unless you're including his part time work as a rookie and first full season, when he wasn't prepared.

You hate Javier Vazquez -- who, by any metric, has been a far superior pitcher to Edwin Jackson. You constantly said he "sucked."

You leave my irrational Javy hatred out of this!

khan
08-02-2010, 12:54 PM
[/LIST]You're reaching on some of this, IMO.



Why is this such a huge bump? I think it will be a net wash at most.
Don't know how much money isn't coming back since we don't actually know the number I was going off the reported deal of $3M this year and $5M next.
Didn't check before, you are correct
What? For a middle reliever? He won't get $3.5M no chance. I expect he'll sign a 3 year deal for about $6M total.
Agreed
If Vizquel will cost $3M the Sox will walk away and bring up Morel or let Viciedo platoon with Teahen.
I think you overestimated by at least $10M in terms of raises.
1. You stated that you'd want AJ back @ 3/$15M, and a small bump up for Castro, hence $5M [AJ] + $2M [Castro] = $7M for the catchers.

4. If Linebrink is @ $5M and Pena goes to arb, I don't think that $3.5M is all that unlikely. The arbiter has to look at other middle relievers and compare their performances. Pena's performance has outstripped Linebrink. Of course, I could be inaccurate here as well, but not to the tune of $10M.

6. The $3.75M is $1.75M to Teahen, and your $2M figure for Vizquel.


In general, I think you misunderstand. The version of the SOX payroll that I have for 2011 from Cot's already has it @ $75M for the players that are contracted for 2011. It does NOT count players that are not under contract for 2011.

Therefore, there is NO "subtraction" from disincluding Vizquel, or ANY player. The $75M figure already subtracts the pending FAs and/or Arb players down from this season's ~$105M figure.

I took Cot's numbers, and added your suggestions or corrected you where Cots had the information. We therefore arrived at $97.5M for 19 or so players. If we're off on the numbers, it's not anywhere near $10M off, assuming Cots is correct.


So, you START with the $75M figure, and add:


+$7M or so for the catchers
+$2M for Quentin in arb
+$3.5M for Pierre
+$2.3M for Rios
+$2M for Pena in arb
+$2M for Danks in arb
+$3.75M for Teahen and Vizquel
This leaves the SOX payroll at $97.5M for 2011 [still missing a few players to round out the 25 man roster], and a really ****ty-looking team on paper.

Craig Grebeck
08-02-2010, 12:55 PM
But he was league average in 2008 and arguably among the best pitchers in baseball the first half of last year. Your sample size is a lot smaller than mine, unless you're including his part time work as a rookie and first full season, when he wasn't prepared.

We're still dealing with one league average season and one-half of a great season. If we erase what he did prior to 2007, which I'm okay with, I still don't see much to work with.

What do you think of his five starts since the no-no?

voodoochile
08-02-2010, 01:18 PM
1. You stated that you'd want AJ back @ 3/$15M, and a small bump up for Castro, hence $5M [AJ] + $2M [Castro] = $7M for the catchers.

4. If Linebrink is @ $5M and Pena goes to arb, I don't think that $3.5M is all that unlikely. The arbiter has to look at other middle relievers and compare their performances. Pena's performance has outstripped Linebrink. Of course, I could be inaccurate here as well, but not to the tune of $10M.

6. The $3.75M is $1.75M to Teahen, and your $2M figure for Vizquel.


In general, I think you misunderstand. The version of the SOX payroll that I have for 2011 from Cot's already has it @ $75M for the players that are contracted for 2011. It does NOT count players that are not under contract for 2011.

Therefore, there is NO "subtraction" from disincluding Vizquel, or ANY player. The $75M figure already subtracts the pending FAs and/or Arb players down from this season's ~$105M figure.

I took Cot's numbers, and added your suggestions or corrected you where Cots had the information. We therefore arrived at $97.5M for 19 or so players. If we're off on the numbers, it's not anywhere near $10M off, assuming Cots is correct.


So, you START with the $75M figure, and add:


+$7M or so for the catchers
+$2M for Quentin in arb
+$3.5M for Pierre
+$2.3M for Rios
+$2M for Pena in arb
+$2M for Danks in arb
+$3.75M for Teahen and Vizquel

This leaves the SOX payroll at $97.5M for 2011 [still missing a few players to round out the 25 man roster], and a really ****ty-looking team on paper.

Ah okay, I misunderstood. I do think there are ways to get around some of this (like trading Bobby) as I mentioned. I also expect payroll to go up next year and wouldn't be surprised to see it closer to $125M when all is said and done - like in 2006.

khan
08-02-2010, 01:37 PM
Ah okay, I misunderstood. I do think there are ways to get around some of this (like trading Bobby) as I mentioned. I also expect payroll to go up next year and wouldn't be surprised to see it closer to $125M when all is said and done - like in 2006.
And you may very well be right. But this is the big gambit:

Can Edwin Jackson figure it out quickly enough to help this team win the division and advance in the playoffs this year, AND is HE the lynchpin that will be A reason for the SOX to win in 2010?

or

Will he continue to suck?


If Jackson miraculously becomes a better pitcher OVERNIGHT [again, Floyd and others were acquired in the offseason, and had months for "Coop to fix" them], then this was an OK trade. If Jackson continues to suck, then this was a dumb, moronic, booger-picking trade which may lead to the payroll being $95M instead of $125M in 2011, due to having missed the playoffs in 2010.


For my part, I don't think much of Jackson [he being a failed OF converted to pitching] nor him becoming the lynchpin in winning in 2010. Beyond that, sometimes the best move is the one that isn't made.

voodoochile
08-02-2010, 01:46 PM
And you may very well be right. But this is the big gambit:

Can Edwin Jackson figure it out quickly enough to help this team win the division and advance in the playoffs this year, AND is HE the lynchpin that will be A reason for the SOX to win in 2010?

or

Will he continue to suck?


If Jackson miraculously becomes a better pitcher OVERNIGHT [again, Floyd and others were acquired in the offseason, and had months for "Coop to fix" them], then this was an OK trade. If Jackson continues to suck, then this was a dumb, moronic, booger-picking trade which may lead to the payroll being $95M instead of $125M in 2011, due to having missed the playoffs in 2010.


For my part, I don't think much of Jackson [he being a failed OF converted to pitching] nor him becoming the lynchpin in winning in 2010. Beyond that, sometimes the best move is the one that isn't made.

He doesn't have to be the linchpin, just an adequate 5th starter.

munchman33
08-02-2010, 02:58 PM
We're still dealing with one league average season and one-half of a great season. If we erase what he did prior to 2007, which I'm okay with, I still don't see much to work with.

What do you think of his five starts since the no-no?

His five starts since the no-no? Terrible. He had absolutely no control of his pitches. The five previous starts? He had a 2.11 ERA and allowed no homeruns (because he located well). His problem has been control, but his walks aren't crazy. When his control is off, he's getting too much of the plate and is taken yard. But this is a very fixable problem. He gets it for stretches and then loses it. He needs better coaching. He reminds me a lot of Contreras in that regard.

WhiteSox5187
08-02-2010, 03:15 PM
The thing that irritates me are the proclamations that a player "sucks at baseball". If you disagree with the trade, fine. If you think he's not worth the money that he's being paid, ok. He'll, even if you believe Hudson will be a better pitcher in the long run, that I can understand. But to say he sucks at baseball is waaaaaay over the top. I suck at baseball.of that, there is no doubt. Jackson has had some success at the major league level. That's proof he doesn't suck at baseball.

I'll take this one step further, any guy who has made it to the big league level let alone with the ability to stick around for what, eight years, obviously does not "suck at baseball." Oh sure, he might suck in the majors and might be bad at the major league level - maybe it's because I played but I hate seeing that "This guy who is one of 1200 people in the world to be playing major league baseball sucks at baseball." He might not be very good comparatively but he does not suck at baseball. I suck at baseball (and I have several teammates to back that assertion up!)

doublem23
08-02-2010, 03:20 PM
I guess I was wrong. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2578845&postcount=116)

Craig Grebeck
08-02-2010, 03:38 PM
His five starts since the no-no? Terrible. He had absolutely no control of his pitches. The five previous starts? He had a 2.11 ERA and allowed no homeruns (because he located well). His problem has been control, but his walks aren't crazy. When his control is off, he's getting too much of the plate and is taken yard. But this is a very fixable problem. He gets it for stretches and then loses it. He needs better coaching. He reminds me a lot of Contreras in that regard.
I would submit that his problem in the last five starts has been fatigue. We may finally be on the wrong end of a damaged goods (or in this case, damaged mediocrity) deal.

Pablo_Honey
08-02-2010, 03:53 PM
I would submit that his problem in the last five starts has been fatigue. We may finally be on the wrong end of a damaged goods (or in this case, damaged mediocrity) deal.
If it is indeed fatigue, I might just hate this deal even more, if that were even possible. As I brought it up a few times before, Jackson has some ridiculous September splits. Jackson so far pitched THREE consecutive seasons of 6.00+ ERA in September, starting from 2007 (To be fair, 2007 was his first full time season but he was improving ever so slightly from his dreadful start and posted 2.45 ERA in August). I don't know why that's the case but I'd assume it's due to his arm being tired. Or he suffers from the same thing Javier Vazquez does.

munchman33
08-02-2010, 03:59 PM
I would submit that his problem in the last five starts has been fatigue. We may finally be on the wrong end of a damaged goods (or in this case, damaged mediocrity) deal.

His velocity hasn't suffered though, and that's the most obvious tell of a dead/tired arm, followed by lack of movement. Jackson's problem is control, not movement or velocity. That makes it tough for me to see fatigue as the culprit.

cws05champ
08-07-2010, 08:26 AM
Hudson, 7 2/3 3 hits. 1ER, 2 walks, 4 K's vs San Diego last night.

So far since we traded him : 15 2/3 IP, 6 hits, 2ER, 3 walks, 8 K's just sayin....

Craig Grebeck
08-07-2010, 10:24 AM
Hudson, 7 2/3 3 hits. 1ER, 2 walks, 4 K's vs San Diego last night.

So far since we traded him : 15 2/3 IP, 6 hits, 2ER, 3 walks, 8 K's just sayin....
It's worth noting. Getting traded probably took some pressure off of him and allowed him to be fearless about attacking the zone.

Someone call him a pansy and get it over with.

I, for one, am disdainful of this deal still. Ugh.

Dibbs
08-07-2010, 10:31 AM
This is a deal I will never understand. Especially due to the fact that Kenny didn't add a bat that would be necessary to compete for a World Series. I just don't understand why we would take on an inferior pitcher for $8 million more. I still think Kenny got burned and never wanted Jackson. Hopefully Coop continues to fix'em.

DirtySox
08-07-2010, 10:38 AM
This is a deal I will never understand. Especially due to the fact that Kenny didn't add a bat that would be necessary to compete for a World Series. I just don't understand why we would take on an inferior pitcher for $8 million more. I still think Kenny got burned and never wanted Jackson. Hopefully Coop continues to fix'em.

I'm not sure if he was burned, but I still really dislike this trade. Kenny overpaid for a mediocre pitcher who is due a substantial chunk of money next year. Even if Coop fixes him, Edwin is out the door after next year with Boras as his agent. Not a fan at all.

VMSNS
08-07-2010, 10:56 AM
This is a deal I will never understand. Especially due to the fact that Kenny didn't add a bat that would be necessary to compete for a World Series. I just don't understand why we would take on an inferior pitcher for $8 million more. I still think Kenny got burned and never wanted Jackson. Hopefully Coop continues to fix'em.

Mike Rizzo was on the Score a few days ago, and went on record saying that there was never any mention of Jackson (or trading for Jackson) in his negotiations with Kenny. None at all.

Hudson was traded because clearly the Sox didn't think a young kid like him would be as effective down the stretch with a playoff contending team, whereas Jackson has some playoff experience, is still young, and has explosive stuff (better than Hudson's, IMO). This was a move meant to affect THIS and NEXT year, because I can guarantee you that if the Sox weren't in contention this year, they don't make the move.

It's also pretty clear that Coop/the Sox saw something in Jackson's delivery that they could fix, and now they're doing that. Think about it. JR has said that he likes going after guys that have something to prove and have a chip on their shoulder. The move for Jackson is perfectly in line with this philosophy because he's a guy that has really great stuff, but is coming off a bad second half last season and a poor first half this season. There's no question that the talent is there.

Basically, it comes down to this: The White Sox want to win the World Series this year. Hudson did not pitch well for us at all, and the Sox clearly weren't confident in his abilities for the rest of this season and in the playoffs. They traded for Jackson, who gives us a better chance of winning this year. IMO, it's that simple.

goon
08-07-2010, 11:13 AM
It's worth noting. Getting traded probably took some pressure off of him and allowed him to be fearless about attacking the zone.

Someone call him a pansy and get it over with.

I, for one, am disdainful of this deal still. Ugh.

It's also definitely worth noting that the Padres and Mets have horrible lineups.

Craig Grebeck
08-07-2010, 11:27 AM
It's also definitely worth noting that the Padres and Mets have horrible lineups.
They are major league hitters. He is getting them out, and doing quite well.

It's worth noting that Edwin Jackson was having one of the worst seasons in the NL pitching in the most pitcher-friendly division in baseball. Just saying.

Brian26
08-07-2010, 11:47 AM
They are major league hitters. He is getting them out, and doing quite well.

It's worth noting that Edwin Jackson was having one of the worst seasons in the NL pitching in the most pitcher-friendly division in baseball. Just saying.

I'm not sure I like the trade long-term, but there's something about Jackson (numbers aside) that makes him attractive in a pennant race and possible post-season. It's hard to quantify, but his "stuff" is good enough, in the right situation, to take over a game or a series in a Jose Contreras 2005 or Josh Beckett 2003 type of way.

As a Sox fan, I hope the trade works out. It's tough to watch Richard and Hudson do well in the NL, but it is what it is. Kenny's trying to win now.

If there's a silver-lining, there may be a little more respect for the Sox farm system from other GMs seeing as Richard and Hudson haven't been total dogs like some recent prospects KW has traded.

Craig Grebeck
08-07-2010, 11:50 AM
I'm not sure I like the trade long-term, but there's something about Jackson (numbers aside) that makes him attractive in a pennant race and possible post-season. It's hard to quantify, but his "stuff" is good enough, in the right situation, to take over a game or a series in a Jose Contreras 2005 or Josh Beckett 2003 type of way.

As a Sox fan, I hope the trade works out. It's tough to watch Richard and Hudson do well in the NL, but it is what it is. Kenny's trying to win now.

If there's a silver-lining, there may be a little more respect for the Sox farm system from other GMs seeing as Richard and Hudson haven't been total dogs like some recent prospects KW has traded.
Add Gonzalez to the list of good performers.

Rdy2PlayBall
08-07-2010, 02:16 PM
Hudson, 7 2/3 3 hits. 1ER, 2 walks, 4 K's vs San Diego last night.

So far since we traded him : 15 2/3 IP, 6 hits, 2ER, 3 walks, 8 K's just sayin....He's in the NL. Look what the NL did to Vasquez...

Brian26
08-07-2010, 02:16 PM
Add Gonzalez to the list of good performers.

Yeah, Gio's been doing well, although it took him longer to reach that point. I just watched This Week in Baseball on my dvr, which focused on the A's young pitching.

guillensdisciple
08-07-2010, 02:20 PM
NL makes Richard and Hudson look good. AL gives them a 4.5 ERA.

Who has better upside and better "stuff"? Jackson by a long shot.

Let Coop do his magic.

Rdy2PlayBall
08-07-2010, 02:44 PM
NL makes Richard and Hudson look good. AL gives them a 4.5 ERA.

Who has better upside and better "stuff"? Jackson by a long shot.

Let Coop do his magic.I agree. Jackson could make this staff the best in baseball if Coop can fix him. A 1-5 that could win at least 15 games... that would be fun.

Dibbs
08-07-2010, 02:46 PM
NL makes Richard and Hudson look good. AL gives them a 4.5 ERA.

Who has better upside and better "stuff"? Jackson by a long shot.

Let Coop do his magic.


NL made Jackson look like a child with his 5.16 ERA. What does your calculation put that at in the AL?

Rdy2PlayBall
08-07-2010, 02:50 PM
NL made Jackson look like a child with his 5.16 ERA. What does your calculation put that at in the AL?Maybe he pitches better for teams who have a shot at something? He was good with Detroit... in the AL, they should have won the the division as well.

asindc
08-07-2010, 02:50 PM
Mike Rizzo was on the Score a few days ago, and went on record saying that there was never any mention of Jackson (or trading for Jackson) in his negotiations with Kenny. None at all.

Hudson was traded because clearly the Sox didn't think a young kid like him would be as effective down the stretch with a playoff contending team, whereas Jackson has some playoff experience, is still young, and has explosive stuff (better than Hudson's, IMO). This was a move meant to affect THIS and NEXT year, because I can guarantee you that if the Sox weren't in contention this year, they don't make the move.

It's also pretty clear that Coop/the Sox saw something in Jackson's delivery that they could fix, and now they're doing that. Think about it. JR has said that he likes going after guys that have something to prove and have a chip on their shoulder. The move for Jackson is perfectly in line with this philosophy because he's a guy that has really great stuff, but is coming off a bad second half last season and a poor first half this season. There's no question that the talent is there.

Basically, it comes down to this: The White Sox want to win the World Series this year. Hudson did not pitch well for us at all, and the Sox clearly weren't confident in his abilities for the rest of this season and in the playoffs. They traded for Jackson, who gives us a better chance of winning this year. IMO, it's that simple.

No, no, no, VMSNS, you don't get it. It is much easier to just believe a baseless, unsubstantiated rumor that was never followed up on and has been repudiated by one of the principals to the alleged proposed transaction. Why do you insist on believing the best when it's backed by evidence when you can believe the worst that's backed by... well, why does it have to be backed up by anything?

guillensdisciple
08-07-2010, 02:52 PM
NL made Jackson look like a child with his 5.16 ERA. What does your calculation put that at in the AL?

Below is my answer.

Maybe he pitches better for teams who have a shot at something? He was good with Detroit... in the AL, they should have won the the division as well.

He has succeeded here. He has done something right.

Craig Grebeck
08-07-2010, 03:32 PM
No, no, no, VMSNS, you don't get it. It is much easier to just believe a baseless, unsubstantiated rumor that was never followed up on and has been repudiated by one of the principals to the alleged proposed transaction. Why do you insist on believing the best when it's backed by evidence when you can believe the worst that's backed by... well, why does it have to be backed up by anything?
To be fair, Rizzo is going to repudiate anything that makes him look like a total hack -- which the rumor does. I don't necessarily believe it, as I find it hard to believe the GMs involved wouldn't just go for a three-way deal.
Below is my answer.



He has succeeded here. He has done something right.
Define: here. Do you mean "here" as in Chicago -- one start -- or do you mean "here" as the American League, which is a tenuous (at best) position to defend?

He's in the NL. Look what the NL did to Vasquez...
What?
NL makes Richard and Hudson look good. AL gives them a 4.5 ERA.

Who has better upside and better "stuff"? Jackson by a long shot.

Let Coop do his magic.
He does, of course, have better "stuff," but at what point does upside become wasted potential? A guy with his track record and numbers should have commanded much less than Daniel Hudson.

Maybe he pitches better for teams who have a shot at something? He was good with Detroit... in the AL, they should have won the the division as well.

His awful career numbers in September disagree with this premise.

asindc
08-07-2010, 03:51 PM
To be fair, Rizzo is going to repudiate anything that makes him look like a total hack -- which the rumor does. I don't necessarily believe it, as I find it hard to believe the GMs involved wouldn't just go for a three-way deal.

And this is also why I never believed it, though I agree it is a bit self-serving from Rizzo, even if he is telling the truth. For the record, I'm only slightly in favor of this move, only because it is a "win now" move and I don't believe Hudson would have given the Sox more or even the same that Jackson will this year. The deal is a bad one if you believe Hudson's ceiling is higher than 4th starter two years from now. The deal is a good one if you believe Hudson's ceiling is 5th starter or long reliever. I think the Sox believe the latter, which is why they would pay Jackson more money for less time. It is a gamble. Whether it is worth taking is probably based on the Sox' ability to get Jackson to establish some consistency.

guillensdisciple
08-07-2010, 04:03 PM
To be fair, Rizzo is going to repudiate anything that makes him look like a total hack -- which the rumor does. I don't necessarily believe it, as I find it hard to believe the GMs involved wouldn't just go for a three-way deal.

Define: here. Do you mean "here" as in Chicago -- one start -- or do you mean "here" as the American League, which is a tenuous (at best) position to defend?


What?

He does, of course, have better "stuff," but at what point does upside become wasted potential? A guy with his track record and numbers should have commanded much less than Daniel Hudson.


His awful career numbers in September disagree with this premise.

No no no, I meant here as in the A.L. He had that break out last year and pitched well until the end of the year. Obviously, there is something that needs to be tuned with him, but I trust Coop to take the job.

The same could be said about Hudson and his short stint over there. However, Richard is definitely a success over there. I hope Peavy makes up for him- so far San Diego definitely took that trade in a landslide.

rdivaldi
08-07-2010, 05:13 PM
I hope Peavy makes up for him- so far San Diego definitely took that trade in a landslide.

Considering the other 3 players that they got have flopped, I wouldn't consider it a landslide by any means.

Craig Grebeck
08-07-2010, 05:20 PM
Considering the other 3 players that they got have flopped, I wouldn't consider it a landslide by any means.
When they're getting better performance out of Clayton Richard at league minimum than we're getting/got out of Peavy at his salary, it's still a landslide.

cards press box
08-07-2010, 10:41 PM
When they're getting better performance out of Clayton Richard at league minimum than we're getting/got out of Peavy at his salary, it's still a landslide.

At the time that KW made the deal, I liked it for the Sox. It may still work out.

doublem23
08-08-2010, 04:17 AM
When they're getting better performance out of Clayton Richard at league minimum than we're getting/got out of Peavy at his salary, it's still a landslide.

:rolling:

Nobody in the history of the world would ever not pull the trigger on a trade that involves you recieving Jake Peavy for a deal centered around Clayton Richard. To call it a landslide the other way is PURE COMIC GENIUS.

:rolling:

BTW, perhaps we should give the guy more than a year before we start making broad, stupid, generalizations about that deal? Clayton Richard since July:

6 G, 35.1 IP, 47 H, 25 R, 15 BB, 32 K, 6.11 ERA
.320/.388/.442 Opponent Slash

Craig Grebeck
08-08-2010, 08:02 AM
:rolling:

Nobody in the history of the world would ever not pull the trigger on a trade that involves you recieving Jake Peavy for a deal centered around Clayton Richard. To call it a landslide the other way is PURE COMIC GENIUS.

:rolling:

BTW, perhaps we should give the guy more than a year before we start making broad, stupid, generalizations about that deal? Clayton Richard since July:

6 G, 35.1 IP, 47 H, 25 R, 15 BB, 32 K, 6.11 ERA
.320/.388/.442 Opponent Slash
I know, I know. It's hilarious. Dubs, your analysis leaves much to be desired. Then again, you recently called a twenty-four year old southpaw with an ERA of 3.51 in 141 innings "bad."

There were many people who questioned the trade at the time. This isn't crazy revisionist thinking -- so far we've gotten one serious injury and one hundred and seven innings from Jake.

doublem23
08-08-2010, 08:34 AM
I know, I know. It's hilarious. Dubs, your analysis leaves much to be desired. Then again, you recently called a twenty-four year old southpaw with an ERA of 3.51 in 141 innings "bad."

There were many people who questioned the trade at the time. This isn't crazy revisionist thinking -- so far we've gotten one serious injury and one hundred and seven innings from Jake.

A serious freak injury. I know Peavy's health record has been southbound recently, but it's still Jake Peavy for scraps.

I know it's maybe the more "economically friendly" thing to horde your young pitchers and wait for them all to develop, but that's just not the way the Sox have operated in the KW era, for right or wrong. If you want a rotation made 3/5 of Gonzalez, Hudson, and Richard, more power to you, but have you noticed how teams that persistently thrust young guys into their pitching staffs, uh, suck? Teams trying to win don't have the luxury of going through growing pains of waiting for guys to figure out how to pitch in the big leagues.

Bottom line is the Sox aren't sitting 16 games over .500 and in first place right now if they went into the season with those 3 guys in their rotation.

Craig Grebeck
08-08-2010, 08:38 AM
A serious freak injury. I know Peavy's health record has been southbound recently, but it's still Jake Peavy for scraps.

I know it's maybe the more "economically friendly" thing to horde your young pitchers and wait for them all to develop, but that's just not the way the Sox have operated in the KW era, for right or wrong. If you want a rotation made 3/5 of Gonzalez, Hudson, and Richard, more power to you, but have you noticed how teams that persistently thrust young guys into their pitching staffs, uh, suck? Teams trying to win don't have the luxury of going through growing pains of waiting for guys to figure out how to pitch in the big leagues.

Bottom line is the Sox aren't sitting 16 games over .500 and in first place right now if they went into the season with those 3 guys in their rotation.
I was in favor of dealing Gonzalez for Swisher. I understand what you're saying, though it would be nice to have the depth so guys like Torres and Harrell don't get starts in a pennant race.

cws05champ
08-08-2010, 10:50 AM
I was in favor of dealing Gonzalez for Swisher. I understand what you're saying, though it would be nice to have the depth so guys like Torres and Harrell don't get starts in a pennant race.
I didn't like the Gio for Swisher trade but it was more palatable to lose him for me than Richard and Hudson. I really thought Ricahrd was the one guy in the Peavy deal that I didn't want to lose. I have said it before...you still do that deal everyday of the week to get a guy like Peavy, so I understand.

I'll never understand the Hudson/Jackson deal. I have no problem getting Jackson, but not for Hudson at this point. I think you could have got Jackson for someone other than Hudson...I really think Hudson will come back to bite the Sox.

khan
08-09-2010, 10:34 AM
I still hate this trade. Considering that Jackson hasn't been good, is expensive, has an agent that doesn't work well with KW, the BEST KW could get out of this trade is a rental for a year-plus. Beyond that, Jackson hasn't exactly been good this year, and has sucked ass in previous division races.

This kind of reminds me of how KW dumped Chad Bradford a decade ago, even though Bradford acquitted himself fairly well as a youngster. Is it possible that KW is the GM-equivalent of Dusty Baker, in that he HATES young players? I still don't get this trade.

cards press box
08-09-2010, 11:29 AM
This kind of reminds me of how KW dumped Chad Bradford a decade ago, even though Bradford acquitted himself fairly well as a youngster. Is it possible that KW is the GM-equivalent of Dusty Baker, in that he HATES young players? I still don't get this trade.

KW didn't dump Bradford. He dealt him to Oakland for Miguel Olivo, a good hitting catcher who is still in the majors.

It's true that KW didn't keep Olivo but instead dealt him (with Jeremy Reed, who is actually back in the Sox system and Mike Morse) to Seattle for Freddy Garcia. All Freddy did was anchor a pitching staff that won the World Series.

Anytime that KW can trade a Bradford and a couple of minor leaguers who, at most, will spend some time as bench players in the majors for a Freddy Garcia in his prime, he should do it.

munchman33
08-09-2010, 11:44 AM
I didn't like the Gio for Swisher trade but it was more palatable to lose him for me than Richard and Hudson. I really thought Ricahrd was the one guy in the Peavy deal that I didn't want to lose. I have said it before...you still do that deal everyday of the week to get a guy like Peavy, so I understand.

I'll never understand the Hudson/Jackson deal. I have no problem getting Jackson, but not for Hudson at this point. I think you could have got Jackson for someone other than Hudson...I really think Hudson will come back to bite the Sox.

I don't get this mode of logic at all. There are cases on both sides. I "understand" that people preferred Hudson because he was younger, cheaper, and under contract longer. But there isn't a scout on the entire planet that would call Hudson more talented than Edwin Jackson. That's the other side of the coin. And if you can't at least "understand" that point of view, you're really not bringing anything to the discussion but incredible bias.

voodoochile
08-09-2010, 11:44 AM
I still hate this trade. Considering that Jackson hasn't been good, is expensive, has an agent that doesn't work well with KW, the BEST KW could get out of this trade is a rental for a year-plus. Beyond that, Jackson hasn't exactly been good this year, and has sucked ass in previous division races.

This kind of reminds me of how KW dumped Chad Bradford a decade ago, even though Bradford acquitted himself fairly well as a youngster. Is it possible that KW is the GM-equivalent of Dusty Baker, in that he HATES young players? I still don't get this trade.

But remember, Jackson is only 26 so when you talk about "previous years" you are talking about a young, inexperienced pitcher. He's now on a veteran experienced team and an especially experienced pitching staff who have mostly been through this before and working with one of the best pitching coaches in baseball.

If he's going to figure it out, now might well be the time.

And I don't think KW hates young players. I can reproduce the number of young players he's acquired and added to the big league roster in the last 3 years if you'd like, but I imagine you know them.

KW only cares about the big league team winning. If he sees a trade that will impact the season (and possibly next) for the better, he's going to pull the trigger.

The Sox are set 1-5 for all of this season and next with one of (if not) the best rotations in MLB. That's a tremendous luxury in today's game.

People talk about the Yankee and Twinkee offneses as being stable and good top to bottom. Well they talk about the Sox pitching staff the same way.

LoveYourSuit
08-09-2010, 11:44 AM
KW didn't dump Bradford. He dealt him to Oakland for Miguel Olivo, a good hitting catcher who is still in the majors.

It's true that KW didn't keep Olivo but instead dealt him (with Jeremy Reed, who is actually back in the Sox system and Mike Morse) to Seattle for Freddy Garcia. All Freddy did was anchor a pitching staff that won the World Series.

Anytime that KW can trade a Bradford and a couple of minor leaguers who, at most, will spend some time as bench players in the majors for a Freddy Garcia in his prime, he should do it.


That Freddy Garcia trade by Kenny might go down as his signature trade during his tenure here.

LoveYourSuit
08-09-2010, 11:46 AM
The Sox are set 1-5 for all of this season and next with one of (if not) the best rotations in MLB. That's a tremendous luxury in today's game.

People talk about the Yankee and Twinkee offneses as being stable and good top to bottom. Well they talk about the Sox pitching staff the same way.


With a healthy Peavy, 1-5 will be the best rotations in the game next season.

I still think Peavy is the #1 (ACE) guy. When you can throw Buehrle as your #4 and Jackson as your #5 :o:

balke
08-09-2010, 12:02 PM
The Royals Farm System thread I just started reminded me of how rich the Sox farm system was considered to be around 2002.

2002: Borchard/Rauch/Malone/Crede - all rated above Peavy and all but Crede were rated higher than Morneau. I remember Royce Ring was talked about a lot too as a future solid MLB player. Ginter was somewhere around that time period too. As was THE Jeremy Reed and Sweeney.

Prospects are gambles.

I think Hudson is different and will actually be very good. I'm not really worried about it though - as Jackson was the safer bet to produce now. And I trust in Coop.

Dibbs
08-09-2010, 12:05 PM
With a healthy Peavy, 1-5 will be the best rotations in the game next season.

I still think Peavy is the #1 (ACE) guy. When you can throw Buehrle as your #4 and Jackson as your #5 :o:


I agree, but Peavy, Danks, Floyd and Buehrle have nothing to do with Jackson and Hudson. I don't think Edwin Jackson over Hudson makes it any better 1-5. Especially next year. It could possibly even be a big downgrade in the 5 spot.

balke
08-09-2010, 12:07 PM
I agree, but Peavy, Danks, Floyd and Buehrle have nothing to do with Jackson and Hudson. I don't think Edwin Jackson over Hudson makes it any better 1-5. Especially next year. It could possibly even be a big downgrade in the 5 spot.

I think from what the Sox saw in his outings - Hudson wasn't showing that he was going to come out firing down the stretch for the Sox. I think the Sox were more worried about the stretch than next year(s)

Craig Grebeck
08-09-2010, 12:11 PM
I don't get this mode of logic at all. There are cases on both sides. I "understand" that people preferred Hudson because he was younger, cheaper, and under contract longer. But there isn't a scout on the entire planet that would call Hudson more talented than Edwin Jackson. That's the other side of the coin. And if you can't at least "understand" that point of view, you're really not bringing anything to the discussion but incredible bias.
Talent and performance sometimes diverge -- Jackson is a perfect example.
With a healthy Peavy, 1-5 will be the best rotations in the game next season.

I still think Peavy is the #1 (ACE) guy. When you can throw Buehrle as your #4 and Jackson as your #5 :o:
Jake Peavy may be ready to go, but he may never be fully healthy again.

balke
08-09-2010, 12:20 PM
Talent and performance sometimes diverge -- Jackson is a perfect example.

So is Gavin Floyd.

Jake Peavy may be ready to go, but he may never be fully healthy again.

This is a scary possibility. I don't think there's solid evidence to back it up until he actually has a tendon or ligament tear in his arm. His two injuries so far seem pretty random. If a third one pops up I'll take on your belief. For now - all I see is 2 unrelated injuries. Injuries are part of the game - and something Sox fans have been blessed lately not to be used to.

khan
08-09-2010, 12:20 PM
But remember, Jackson is only 26 so when you talk about "previous years" you are talking about a young, inexperienced pitcher. He's now on a veteran experienced team and an especially experienced pitching staff who have mostly been through this before and working with one of the best pitching coaches in baseball.

If he's going to figure it out, now might well be the time.
Here's hoping that he will. If he DOES figure it out, enjoy Edwin Jackson while you can, because he'll be gone for the next big contract.

And I don't think KW hates young players. I can reproduce the number of young players he's acquired and added to the big league roster in the last 3 years if you'd like, but I imagine you know them.
So why trade away damn near each and every youngster, save for Beckham? Cheap ballplayers that are under a team's control enable a GM to be more aggressive in FA, after all.

It also helps to have more depth than Harrell and Torres, as others here have said.

KW only cares about the big league team winning. If he sees a trade that will impact the season (and possibly next) for the better, he's going to pull the trigger.

The Sox are set 1-5 for all of this season and next with one of (if not) the best rotations in MLB. That's a tremendous luxury in today's game.

People talk about the Yankee and Twinkee offneses as being stable and good top to bottom. Well they talk about the Sox pitching staff the same way.
Two things:

1. For $50M+ for a pitching staff, they'd BETTER be one of the best rotations in MLB. Because the offense may not be as good in coming years, due to the SOX's admitted budgetary constraints.

2. Based on Hudson's results pitching in the little-boy NL, the SOX might have had the solid 1-5 that fans crave. Based on Jackson's results in the little-boy NL [and his pants-crapping routine in the Big Boy AL in previous seasons], this isn't a trade that made ANY sense.

Craig Grebeck
08-09-2010, 12:22 PM
So is Gavin Floyd.

That's not a very good comparison. We also dealt a breaking-down starting pitcher for Gavin -- and he came gift-wrapped with one of the best LHP prospects in the minors.

cws05champ
08-09-2010, 12:23 PM
I don't get this mode of logic at all. There are cases on both sides. I "understand" that people preferred Hudson because he was younger, cheaper, and under contract longer. But there isn't a scout on the entire planet that would call Hudson more talented than Edwin Jackson. That's the other side of the coin. And if you can't at least "understand" that point of view, you're really not bringing anything to the discussion but incredible bias.

If read my whole last post you would "understand" that I wasn't comparing Jackson to Hudson. I said " I'll never understand the Hudson/Jackson deal AND I have no problem getting Jackson, but not for Hudson at this point."

I "understand" that Jackson has higher upside, but he hasn't performed consistently to his talent level. And Hudson was young and controllable for 6 years which would help divert $ in the next few years to other resources needed.

But thank you once again for mis-understanding my post and trying to belittle me.

khan
08-09-2010, 12:25 PM
So is Gavin Floyd.
Comparing a #4 overall pick [floyd] to a 5th round pick [jackson] is silly.

Comparing a guy who came to his 2nd MLB organization [Floyd] to a guy who has failed in 4 other stops [Jackson] is silly.

Comparing a failed OF [Jackson] to a guy who has been a SP from the very start of his career [Floyd] is silly.

Comparing a guy who is on a very reasonable contract for a few years [Floyd] to a guy who has an obese contract for only one more year, and is represented by a greedy agent [Jackson] is silly.


Really, these two guys couldn't be much more dissimilar, in my view.

balke
08-09-2010, 12:28 PM
2. Based on Hudson's results pitching in the little-boy NL, the SOX might have had the solid 1-5 that fans crave. Based on Jackson's results in the little-boy NL [and his pants-crapping routine in the Big Boy AL in previous seasons], this isn't a trade that made ANY sense.

Hudson came up and walked 11 batters in 15 IP. I don't think that's something the Sox were looking for the next 2 months. Garcia has been pitching well above what was expected of him this season. I think the Sox wanted to find a player they could count on for IP and who was more experienced going down the stretch.

I'm not in love with the trade either - but if Jackson does well in his first 5 starts - I'm going to have to think Coop really did see something worth working with. And Jackson having the better arm - this would be a deal that is better for this year. If KW kept Hudson and he was still walking people and sporting a 6+ ERA - it would be a big fail on his part in terms of helping this team get better down the stretch.

khan
08-09-2010, 12:31 PM
Hudson came up and walked 11 batters in 15 IP. I don't think that's something the Sox were looking for the next 2 months.

Yes, 15 IP will tell you EVERYTHING about a pitcher's future performance, right?

I'm not in love with the trade either - but if Jackson does well in his first 5 starts - I'm going to have to think Coop really did see something worth working with. And Jackson having the better arm - this would be a deal that is better for this year. If KW kept Hudson and he was still walking people and sporting a 6+ ERA - it would be a big fail on his part in terms of helping this team get better down the stretch.
Nor am I.

In general, I don't think much of trade-deadline deals. But THIS trade deadline deal just doesn't scream, "WORLD SERIES-BOUND" to me. GOOD teams don't add a craptacular SP like Edwin Jackson, and try to sell it to their fans as the "missing link" to a championship.

In any case, KW failed to address certain [obvious] holes in the team this past offseason, IMO. The lion's share of GM's work happens in the offseason, not DURING the season.

balke
08-09-2010, 12:32 PM
Comparing a #4 overall pick [floyd] to a 5th round pick [jackson] is silly.

Comparing a guy who came to his 2nd MLB organization [Floyd] to a guy who has failed in 4 other stops [Jackson] is silly.

Comparing a failed OF [Jackson] to a guy who has been a SP from the very start of his career [Floyd] is silly.

Comparing a guy who is on a very reasonable contract for a few years [Floyd] to a guy who has an obese contract for only one more year, and is represented by a greedy agent [Jackson] is silly.


Really, these two guys couldn't be much more dissimilar, in my view.

For his short statement my answer was 100% correct.

If you want a comparison that is closer in terms of expectations and talent - see Jon Garland.

PS Jackson was rated the #4 overall talent in the minors his 2nd season for the Dodgers - Higher than Kazmir/Greinke/Rios/Sizemore/Fielder/Hamels/ and even Gavin Floyd.

and was a selected all-star.

Craig Grebeck
08-09-2010, 12:34 PM
For his short statement my answer was 100% correct.

If you want a comparison that is closer in terms of expectations and talent - see Jon Garland.
Sample size matters a great deal in these situations.

munchman33
08-09-2010, 01:32 PM
If read my whole last post you would "understand" that I wasn't comparing Jackson to Hudson. I said " I'll never understand the Hudson/Jackson deal AND I have no problem getting Jackson, but not for Hudson at this point."

I "understand" that Jackson has higher upside, but he hasn't performed consistently to his talent level. And Hudson was young and controllable for 6 years which would help divert $ in the next few years to other resources needed.

But thank you once again for mis-understanding my post and trying to belittle me.

If you understand something, you shouldn't say you don't. That's confusing. What you meant to say is you disagree with it, but "understand" their reasoning. Saying you don't understand it when you obviously do is an attempt to "belittle" the other side of the argument.

munchman33
08-09-2010, 01:33 PM
Talent and performance sometimes diverge -- Jackson is a perfect example.


Is he? He's been elite, if only in flashes.

voodoochile
08-09-2010, 01:37 PM
If you understand something, you shouldn't say you don't. That's confusing. What you meant to say is you disagree with it, but "understand" their reasoning. Saying you don't understand it when you obviously do is an attempt to "belittle" the other side of the argument.

Okay, so it's an argument about semantics, perhaps we can let it go now before it turns into a full fledged flame war.

Not singling Munch out here, just using his post for tracking purposes. It takes two to fight.

Pablo_Honey
08-09-2010, 01:45 PM
Not singling Munch out here, just using his post for tracking purposes. It takes two to fight.
Add one more and we have a party.:cool:

Back on topic, I think people, myself included, will need to step back and see how this trade unfolds for now. As I've been told many times in the past, Kenny's made some questionable moves that turned out nicely for us. We can argue about the pros and cons of this trade but I've changed my mind that this trade may not be as bad as it seems. Unless Kenny and the D-backs' GM come out publicly and describe the details of the trade, we won't know whether or not we overpaid or not.

Craig Grebeck
08-09-2010, 03:21 PM
Is he? He's been elite, if only in flashes.
I think you answered your own question.

wsgdf
08-09-2010, 03:36 PM
Comparing a failed OF [Jackson] to a guy who has been a SP from the very start of his career [Floyd] is silly.



I mentioned this in the Jackson thread as well. I don't understand the failed outfielder talk.

He's never been an OF at any pro level that I can see, and he's been a pro since he was 17.

He was one of the best prospects in baseball and the jewel of the Dodgers system by about 19 if I remember correctly- as a pitcher. I think that's why the Floyd comparison has merit.

Craig Grebeck
08-09-2010, 03:39 PM
I mentioned this in the Jackson thread as well. I don't understand the failed outfielder talk.

He's never been an OF at any pro level that I can see, and he's been a pro since he was 17.

He was one of the best prospects in baseball and the jewel of the Dodgers system by about 19 if I remember correctly- as a pitcher. I think that's why the Floyd comparison has merit.
The problem is that Floyd had less than 200 innings under his belt when he "figured it out" in 2008. Jackson, as everyone knows, has pitched a lot more.

balke
08-09-2010, 03:49 PM
The problem is that Floyd had less than 200 innings under his belt when he "figured it out" in 2008. Jackson, as everyone knows, has pitched a lot more.

You are also assuming the teams Jackson went to had pitching coaches who knew what to look for and what to correct and how to help.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5440276


The Dbacks got him to pitch lower in the zone - induce more groundballs - and to throw more sliders. That helped - now Cooper helps refine him more - and its possible he can put it all together. Age and draft position doesn't mean he can't turn things around now. Loaiza was 30 I believe when he turned his career into something.

wsgdf
08-09-2010, 03:57 PM
The problem is that Floyd had less than 200 innings under his belt when he "figured it out" in 2008. Jackson, as everyone knows, has pitched a lot more.

True, but I'm still not convinced that Jackson didn't already figure something out last year.

Floyd and Jackson had EXTREMELY similar age 25 seasons - Jackson's may have been a little better.

At age 26 Floyd maintained and maybe improved a little.

Jackson's age 26 season isn't finished yet. Early on his ERA was destroyed by a 2 inning 10 ER outing in Colorado and a 4 inning 8 ER outing at Wrigley.

Remove those and his ERA's right at 4.

Sure, I know you can't remove every bad pitcher's bad starts, etc. etc... but those two are pretty extreme.

I'd say he still has time to put up a respectable age 26 season and show that last season was his turnaround year.

Craig Grebeck
08-09-2010, 05:13 PM
You are also assuming the teams Jackson went to had pitching coaches who knew what to look for and what to correct and how to help.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5440276


The Dbacks got him to pitch lower in the zone - induce more groundballs - and to throw more sliders. That helped - now Cooper helps refine him more - and its possible he can put it all together. Age and draft position doesn't mean he can't turn things around now. Loaiza was 30 I believe when he turned his career into something.
It didn't help. He had one of (if not the worst) ERA among qualifying pitchers in the national league.

cws05champ
08-09-2010, 05:24 PM
If you understand something, you shouldn't say you don't. That's confusing. What you meant to say is you disagree with it, but "understand" their reasoning. Saying you don't understand it when you obviously do is an attempt to "belittle" the other side of the argument.

:rolleyes:

balke
08-09-2010, 07:05 PM
It didn't help. He had one of (if not the worst) ERA among qualifying pitchers in the national league.

Get the ball on the ground - get a D behind him that can turn a grounder into an out. Generate more power and control by keeping a strong base on the back leg. It seems simple enough - and should produce results. I guess tonight will be part of seeing whether or not it works. I said 5 starts to evaluate.

Craig Grebeck
08-09-2010, 07:23 PM
Get the ball on the ground - get a D behind him that can turn a grounder into an out. Generate more power and control by keeping a strong base on the back leg. It seems simple enough - and should produce results. I guess tonight will be part of seeing whether or not it works. I said 5 starts to evaluate.
You implied that Arizona was getting good production out of him.

balke
08-09-2010, 07:45 PM
You implied that Arizona was getting good production out of him.

I more so implied that he had changed for the better. Inducing groundballs is a good thing for a slider pitcher. It went up 20%. Beyond that - I don't know how many of those runs come from a crappy defense. Also - I'm not sure if the back leg thing might correct his control enough that he's not walking so many batters.

it seems like this year that's been the major problem - 60+ walks. Haven't seen many yet but I'm not judging for 3 more starts.

Coops4Aces
08-11-2010, 10:39 PM
Is the NL just that bad? :scratch:

DirtySox
08-11-2010, 11:01 PM
Hudson: 7.0 IP 7 H 2 ER 1 BB 9 SO

I still hate this trade.

Dibbs
08-12-2010, 12:55 AM
I think this is the worst trade I have seen Kenny make. "Freddy stinks, so let's trade Hudson to improve the team" seems to be the argument Kenny and many WSIers are making. Does not compute. At least Jackson has pitched well. Albeit, $8million more expensive.

JermaineDye05
08-12-2010, 02:47 AM
Is the NL just that bad? :scratch:

Hudson: 7.0 IP 7 H 2 ER 1 BB 9 SO

I still hate this trade.

I think Hudson is benefiting from a weaker league AND a no-pressure situation.

I still think he'll continue to pitch well for the D-Backs.

The reason he was replaced ultimately IMO was because he didn't show the ability to pitch well when the pressure was on. Granted it was only 3 starts and the one start against Seattle was good, but then again that is Seattle.

Jackson has pitched well in his two starts for the Sox and his control has been far better than what it was in his past couple of starts with the D-Backs. Also remember that Jackson has pitched in the AL before and done good enough, last year he was an allstar after a great first half.

I think Jackson's upside is a little better than Hudson given the stuff. If Coop can in fact "fix him", then I think the trade will be worth it.

Our rotation would be INSANE next year if Peavy returns healthy which is a big IF. Jackson is good insurance for next year as you don't have to rely on more than one rookie at the back end of the rotation. I say more than one because I think the Sox would like to stretch Sale out to a starter next season to possibly fill out the fifth spot if Peavy is not ready.

Craig Grebeck
08-12-2010, 06:55 AM
I think Hudson is benefiting from a weaker league AND a no-pressure situation.

I still think he'll continue to pitch well for the D-Backs.

The reason he was replaced ultimately IMO was because he didn't show the ability to pitch well when the pressure was on. Granted it was only 3 starts and the one start against Seattle was good, but then again that is Seattle.

Jackson has pitched well in his two starts for the Sox and his control has been far better than what it was in his past couple of starts with the D-Backs. Also remember that Jackson has pitched in the AL before and done good enough, last year he was an allstar after a great first half.

I think Jackson's upside is a little better than Hudson given the stuff. If Coop can in fact "fix him", then I think the trade will be worth it.

Our rotation would be INSANE next year if Peavy returns healthy which is a big IF. Jackson is good insurance for next year as you don't have to rely on more than one rookie at the back end of the rotation. I say more than one because I think the Sox would like to stretch Sale out to a starter next season to possibly fill out the fifth spot if Peavy is not ready.
Sale will more than likely start his season in A+ ball as a starter.

sox1970
08-17-2010, 11:27 PM
Hudson struck out 10 and didn't walk anyone. He lost, but had a quality start.

Good thing we gave him up for this great pennant run. :clap:

A. Cavatica
08-17-2010, 11:27 PM
Hudson tonight: 7 IP 9 H 3 R 3 ER 0 BB 10 SO

Narrowly outpitched by Bronson Arroyo.

JermaineDye05
08-17-2010, 11:46 PM
Hudson struck out 10 and didn't walk anyone. He lost, but had a quality start.

Good thing we gave him up for this great pennant run. :clap:

Yeah, I'm sure we'd still be in first place if we held onto him.

:rolleyes:

We haven't fallen out of it because of Edwin Jackson nor because we don't have Daniel Hudson.

We've lost because our bullpen has hit a wall and the offense has been slumping horribly.

Pablo_Honey
08-18-2010, 12:03 AM
We haven't fallen out of it because of Edwin Jackson nor because we don't have Daniel Hudson.

We've lost because our bullpen has hit a wall and the offense has been slumping horribly.
This. This is the truth people need to realize. Trust me, I hated the Jackson trade on Day 1, hated it even more on Day 2, and wanted to cry on Day 3, but DAYUM! Coop worked his magic with Jackson and he's been everything and more we could have asked for. Considering his stuff, I only have higher hopes for him. This team's sinking because offense can't score enough runs to back up starters and help the bullpen relax once in a while. The offense keeps forcing Ozzie to trot Thornton, Putz and Jenks out there every game. The pen has been solid up until now but something happened to them and now they are sucking. When all they have is one run to work with, you have this disaster.

LoveYourSuit
08-18-2010, 12:13 AM
Hudson struck out 10 and didn't walk anyone. He lost, but had a quality start.

Good thing we gave him up for this great pennant run. :clap:


How did that stretch run pick up of that bum Alex Rios work out?

sox1970
08-18-2010, 09:30 AM
Yeah, I'm sure we'd still be in first place if we held onto him.

:rolleyes:

We haven't fallen out of it because of Edwin Jackson nor because we don't have Daniel Hudson.

We've lost because our bullpen has hit a wall and the offense has been slumping horribly.

I know that. I've watched the games.

Just unfortunate that the Sox got Edwin Jackson specifically to bolster the rotation for the rest of this season, and now Hudson will be a good pitcher for Arizona the next 6 years, while the Sox will watch the playoffs on TV.

And yes, I know we'll have Jackson next year too. Great.

kittle42
08-18-2010, 12:56 PM
and now Hudson will be a good pitcher for Arizona the next 6 years

Well, now this most certainly is far, far, far from a guarantee.

khan
08-18-2010, 01:17 PM
Well, now this most certainly is far, far, far from a guarantee.

Well we DO have one guarantee, and one virtual guarantee:

A. Edwin Jackson will cost $8.35M next season, which is MUCH, MUCH more than what Daniel Hudson will make for the next SIX SEASONS.

B. Edwin Jackson's agent is Scott Boras. Assuming that Edwin Jackson performs well, Edwin Jackson is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to re-sign here.


In sum, KW traded away what looks to be a cheap, young, MLB-quality SP under team control for many years for a resurgent but EXPENSIVE SP that that is virtually a lock to leave this team in a year or so.

SCCWS
08-18-2010, 01:23 PM
This. This team's sinking because offense can't score enough runs to back up starters and help the bullpen relax once in a while. The offense keeps forcing Ozzie to trot Thornton, Putz and Jenks out there every game. The pen has been solid up until now but something happened to them and now they are sucking. When all they have is one run to work with, you have this disaster.

Huh?? The White Sox rank 7th in AL overrall in Batting as well as in most offensive categories. They rank 7th in AL overall in Pitching as well as in most categories. They are an average team both hitting and pitching. They score 4.5 runs per game and allow 4. Teams like Minnesota, Tampa, Oakland, Boston and Texas all have 2 or more starting pitchers ranked higher than Danks and Floyd.

It could also be said White Sox starters have not been able to hold opponents to back up the hitters.

Pablo_Honey
08-18-2010, 04:59 PM
Huh?? The White Sox rank 7th in AL overrall in Batting as well as in most offensive categories. They rank 7th in AL overall in Pitching as well as in most categories. They are an average team both hitting and pitching.
The rotation got off to a slow start and has been solid since catching momentum, aside from Freddy who's falling apart. It would have been even better with Peavy, but without Peavy's injury, Jackson may not be here so that's a moot point.

Anyway, it's always great to analyze teams with "overall" numbers, isn't it? It shows EVERYTHING about the pitching staff. Seriously man, do you believe in what you are saying? I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but based on what I've seen, the "overall" rank of a pitching staff includes both the rotation and the pen. This means it includes the craptacular performances by Linebrink, Pena, Williams and Jenks. That skews numbers and doesn't take into account by how good our starting pitching has been, namely Floyd and Danks. Buehrle is Buehrle, and Jackson has been lights out. Freddy is the only one that's ****ting the bed but he was great up until now.

They score 4.5 runs per game and allow 4.
4 runs per game is GOOD. 4.5 per game is AVERAGE/BAD. And again, this is a silly argument because it takes the pen's struggles into account. It doesn't tell people who good or bad our starting pitchers have been. Most teams can make postseason if their staff can only limit to 4 runs per game anyway. Teams that can get away with only 4.5 per game are the ones with EXTREMELY good pitching like San Diego (who, btw, pitches in one of the best pitcher's park and boasts a bad offense centered around A-Gon)

Teams like Minnesota, Tampa, Oakland, Boston and Texas all have 2 or more starting pitchers ranked higher than Danks and Floyd.
So, just because some teams have 2 or 3 guys that are better than our 2 or 3 guys, suddenly our rotation is ****? Minnesota's rotation is hardly better than ours and Boston's rotation has been worse than ours. That only leaves the Tampa, Oakland and Texas. Only three teams clearly better than ours, and that's with Peavy struggling and getting injured and Freddy as our 5th starter. That's good. Not the best but good.

It could also be said White Sox starters have not been able to hold opponents to back up the hitters.
Do you honestly expect our starters to hold the opposing team to less than 2 runs every outing? When a starter can give you 6+ innings of 3-4 run ball every time, your offense should be able to work with that. The problem is, this team's offense is just content with giving the team one run lead and then our tired pen comes in blows the whole **** up. We need better offense. Same can't be said for our starting pitching aside from Freddy.

SCCWS
08-18-2010, 09:54 PM
Pablo: You have seen our 2 best starters the last 2 nights. The Twins ate them up. You think we have better starting pitching than Boston??? Their top 3 starters have better era and records than the WS top 3. Buccholz (2.36)and Lester(2.80) have much better era than Danks at 3.33. Sorry but White Sox have average starting pitching right now. Maybe next year w Jackson and Peavy that changes.

Pablo_Honey
08-18-2010, 10:32 PM
Pablo: You have seen our 2 best starters the last 2 nights. The Twins ate them up.
Two games. Two ****ING games. Hey didn't you hear? Floyd was July's pitcher of the month. But of course, what he did tonight invalidates his status as a top pitcher. This team as a whole is sinking, I'll give you that. But guess what kept us in the race in the first place? Starting pitching. Our ridiculous hot stretch was largely due to our starters pitching so well. Let's not jump off the ****ing bridge because of a rough stretch. If our pitchers keep struggling, I'll gladly load a shotgun and put myself out of misery. Happy?

You think we have better starting pitching than Boston??? Their top 3 starters have better era and records than the WS top 3. Buccholz (2.36)and Lester(2.80) have much better era than Danks at 3.33.
Aside from Buchholz and Lester, their rotation has been shaky:

Buchholz > Floyd
Lester > Danks
Daisuke = Buehrle
Lackey < Jackson
Beckett/Wakefield =< Garcia

I don't think we are clearly better than Red Sox but our rotation is just as good as theirs. Yes, they have two aces but their backend rotation is just a complete mess. At least we only have to worry about Garcia.

Sorry but White Sox have average starting pitching right now. Maybe next year w Jackson and Peavy that changes.
Our rotation is not average. Aside from a few rough stretches here and there, our rotation is top 5 in this league. Our offense, on the other hand, is average. It's the same ol' feast or famine despite the fact we overhauled this lineup. Our bullpen was great until the BAD Jenks showed up, and our setup guys had to pitch out of their roles.

cards press box
08-18-2010, 10:51 PM
Hudson tonight: 7 IP 9 H 3 R 3 ER 0 BB 10 SO

Narrowly outpitched by Bronson Arroyo.

Much has been made (and rightly so) of Don Cooper making some adjustments and getting far more from Edwin Jackson than Arizona did. Hudson seems to be doing a whole lot better in the NL than he did this year with the Sox. Here is my question: did Arizona's coaches tinker with Hudson's mechanics and/or is Hudson dominating the NL in his first go around the league. John Ely dominated the NL first time around the league, too, but that ended and Ely went back to AAA.

Two more questions about Hudson: (1) while everyone assumes that he will sail through the next six years w/Arizona, can we just assume that will be the case? Hudson's delivery across his body concerned me, as it seemed to make him more prone to arm injury. I wonder if the Sox had the same concern. (2) Did the Sox feel that Jackson (even if he is only here for two years) has greater upside than Hudson?

If Jackson leaves after 2011 for free agency, he very well might be a type A free agent. Given his salary for next year, I suspect that the Sox either sign him after 2011 or offer him salary arbitration and take the two draft picks if he leaves.

SCCWS
08-19-2010, 07:37 AM
Two games. Two ****ING games. Hey didn't you hear? Floyd was July's pitcher of the month. But of course, what he did tonight invalidates his status as a top pitcher. This team as a whole is sinking, .

No not at all. He had a great July. Kotsay had had a great August. But the season is April to Sept and players have their ups and downs. Floyd is 8-10 over the April to August time frame. Floyd's era is 3.97. Last year he was 11-11 w a 4.06 era. He is a .500 pitcher for 2 straight years.

Buehrle is Buehrle as you say. He is a little better than a .500 pitcher for the last 5 years. He will probably end up a 14-12 guy at this stage of his career. Combine him and Floyd and you have 2 .500 pitchers.

Hitmen77
08-19-2010, 11:09 AM
Well we DO have one guarantee, and one virtual guarantee:

A. Edwin Jackson will cost $8.35M next season, which is MUCH, MUCH more than what Daniel Hudson will make for the next SIX SEASONS.

B. Edwin Jackson's agent is Scott Boras. Assuming that Edwin Jackson performs well, Edwin Jackson is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to re-sign here.


In sum, KW traded away what looks to be a cheap, young, MLB-quality SP under team control for many years for a resurgent but EXPENSIVE SP that that is virtually a lock to leave this team in a year or so.

As far as 2011 is concerned, if I was looking at the pitching rotation in a total vacuum, I would take having Jackson over Hudson in the rotation.

But there is the salary issue to consider. If KW and JR for some reason came out and said "Jackson's salary doesn't matter, we're going to work on building a team for 2011 just the same as if we were paying Hudson", then certainly I'd be happy with us having traded Hudson for Jackson for next year.

But one does have to wonder about how many holes the Sox will leave in next year's lineup because they don't have any more room in the payroll after spending $8.3 million for Jackson vs. league minimum for Hudson. If we're going to go through the same **** again next year (great rotation, but holes in the lineup) and if the ~$8 million makes the difference in not filling those holes, then this was a bad trade.

As far as post 2011. Let's face it, Jackson has Boras as an agent. If he's anywhere close to good next year for us, he's gone for 2012.

Is Hudson guaranteed to succeed? No. But at some point, the Sox are going to have to get some more young, cheap pitchers in our rotation if we're going to be competitive again. We're not the Yankees or Red Sox. This team can't spend $50 million of payroll on just the rotation and then expect to have enough to pay for the rest of our lineup (especially considering the lack of talent in our minor league system).

GoSox2K3
08-24-2010, 08:23 AM
Another excellent outing for Hudson vs. Colorado on Sunday:

7 IP, 4 H, 0 R, 2 BB, 9 K

That's 5 starts in a row where he's gone at least 7 innings and he's given up a grand total of 7 runs in those 5 starts.

But, on the bright side, Edwin Jackson gets to eat up $8 million of our payroll next year.

hawkjt
08-24-2010, 08:59 AM
Too bad he could not handle the AL or pennant pressure. Throwing in the NL is like pitching in triple A ball almost...as the Sox showed by going 15-3 vs NL.

Dibbs
08-24-2010, 09:12 AM
I really think Kenny messed this one up, bad.

0o0o0
08-24-2010, 11:14 AM
Too bad he could not handle the AL or pennant pressure. Throwing in the NL is like pitching in triple A ball almost...as the Sox showed by going 15-3 vs NL.
???
He made a whopping 3 starts in the AL, one of those 3 being a fine outing...

VMSNS
08-24-2010, 12:00 PM
I really think Kenny messed this one up, bad.

In the long term? Perhaps, but the jury is still out on that. As it's been said, Hudson is pitching in the NL and on a low-pressure team, and hasn't been seen by the vast majority of hitters yet. While he is dominating right now, it's a little unrealistic to expect him to keep this up throughout the next 6 years.

In the short term? Kenny absolutely made the right move. Jackson gives us a better chance at winning this season and next season that Hudson does. Hands down, no contest. The only issue here is the dollars.

spawn
08-24-2010, 12:23 PM
???
He made a whopping 3 starts in the AL, one of those 3 being a fine outing...

That one was against one of if not the worst offenses in the AL. The other two, he had problems getting the ball over the plate consistently. I'm glad Hudson is doing well, but I didn't want him in the rotation down the stretch.

Craig Grebeck
08-24-2010, 12:26 PM
Too bad he could not handle the AL or pennant pressure. Throwing in the NL is like pitching in triple A ball almost...as the Sox showed by going 15-3 vs NL.
Unless you're Edwin Jackson, where pitching in the NL is like pitching in some crazy-advanced, Playstation mode where every team is the 1927 Yankees.

Domeshot17
08-24-2010, 12:27 PM
Too bad he could not handle the AL or pennant pressure. Throwing in the NL is like pitching in triple A ball almost...as the Sox showed by going 15-3 vs NL.

I like Edwin Jackson so this isn't really harping, but comeon, the bulk of that was against terrible NL Clubs. We took care of a good Atlanta team, but we basically faced the worst of the worst.

Chez
08-24-2010, 12:28 PM
In the long term? Perhaps, but the jury is still out on that. As it's been said, Hudson is pitching in the NL and on a low-pressure team, and hasn't been seen by the vast majority of hitters yet. While he is dominating right now, it's a little unrealistic to expect him to keep this up throughout the next 6 years.

In the short term? Kenny absolutely made the right move. Jackson gives us a better chance at winning this season and next season that Hudson does. Hands down, no contest. The only issue here is the dollars.

But isn't that a big part of the analysis? If the Sox are operating with some sort of internal salary cap or range (i.e a budget), then Jackson's $8m per year may prevent them from fixing a hole for next year. So Jackson may get you 5 more wins in 2011 than would have Hudson, but the player you might have been able to obtain with the extra $7.5m might have gotten you back those 5 wins and then some.

johnnyg83
08-24-2010, 12:47 PM
Unless you're Edwin Jackson, where pitching in the NL is like pitching in some crazy-advanced, Playstation mode where every team is the 1927 Yankees.

Amen. Jackson played on the same team, same league, same division and had an ERA of more than 5.00. Apples to apples.

KRS1
08-24-2010, 12:53 PM
GMSzdgz2ZLs

ghostface36
08-24-2010, 01:23 PM
I like Edwin Jackson so this isn't really harping, but comeon, the bulk of that was against terrible NL Clubs. We took care of a good Atlanta team, but we basically faced the worst of the worst.
most of the NL teams are bad thats the thing
is anyone surprised hudsons doing good in arizona??

Hitmen77
09-03-2010, 09:16 AM
Hudson has been named NL Rookie of the Month:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20100902&content_id=14215596&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Also, he had another good outing at San Francisco on Saturday:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=300828126

Of course, Jackson has been great for us too. If everyone's healthy (Jake), I look forward to next year's rotation of Peavy-Buehrle-Jackson-Danks-Floyd with Chris Sale waiting in the wings. But you have to tip your cap to Hudson. He's been great and I don't believe it's just because NL = AAAA.

balke
09-03-2010, 10:21 AM
Hudson has been named NL Rookie of the Month:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20100902&content_id=14215596&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Also, he had another good outing at San Francisco on Saturday:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=300828126

Of course, Jackson has been great for us too. If everyone's healthy (Jake), I look forward to next year's rotation of Peavy-Buehrle-Jackson-Danks-Floyd with Chris Sale waiting in the wings. But you have to tip your cap to Hudson. He's been great and I don't believe it's just because NL = AAAA.



Giving talent to get talent is the best recipe for a GM. Leaves the door open for future negotiations. Sox got what looks like the better more pricey talent - Dbacks got a great deal on very good talent.

khan
09-03-2010, 11:05 AM
Giving talent to get talent is the best recipe for a GM. Leaves the door open for future negotiations. Sox got what looks like the better more pricey talent - Dbacks got a great deal on very good talent.

I hear what you're saying, but KW already had a solid relationship with Arizona. He really didn't have to do much more to solidify his trading abilities to/from Arizona. Hell, has KW bothered to trade with anyone else lately? [j/k]

Regardless of how [surprisingly] well Jackson has performed hereto fore, I still don't like the trade because of Jackson's contract and agent. [And the pre-existing investment in SPs/the makeup of the club going forward.]

I maintain that Hudson would have been fine here as the 4th/5th SP. KW had a good contingency plan for the starting rotation going into the season, but he lost faith in his own plan.

Craig Grebeck
09-03-2010, 11:10 AM
Still not a fan of the deal, unless we shed some serious albatross-y salary this winter. Too bad Peavy's hurt.

Domeshot17
09-03-2010, 11:10 AM
I hear what you're saying, but KW already had a solid relationship with Arizona. He really didn't have to do much more to solidify his trading abilities to/from Arizona. Hell, has KW bothered to trade with anyone else lately? [j/k]

Regardless of how [surprisingly] well Jackson has performed hereto fore, I still don't like the trade because of Jackson's contract and agent. [And the pre-existing investment in SPs/the makeup of the club going forward.]

I maintain that Hudson would have been fine here as the 4th/5th SP. KW had a good contingency plan for the starting rotation going into the season, but he lost faith in his own plan.

I wonder how much changes when a new GM is brought in. Does Kenny have the relationship with the team or the GM, or maybe Both?

Craig Grebeck
09-03-2010, 11:15 AM
I wonder how much changes when a new GM is brought in. Does Kenny have the relationship with the team or the GM, or maybe Both?
I would imagine the new GM is rather fond of Kenny now.

khan
09-03-2010, 11:16 AM
I wonder how much changes when a new GM is brought in. Does Kenny have the relationship with the team or the GM, or maybe Both?

I don't know, but this tendency to trade mainly with Arizona, and to pick up LAD's leftovers is a notable trend.

Craig Grebeck
09-03-2010, 11:20 AM
I don't know, but this tendency to trade mainly with Arizona, and to pick up LAD's leftovers is a notable trend.
How?

cards press box
09-03-2010, 11:20 AM
Still not a fan of the deal, unless we shed some serious albatross-y salary this winter. Too bad Peavy's hurt.

Peavy is a question mark, to be sure, but the doctors expect him to make a full recovery. The great unknown, I suppose, is what effect the surgery will have on his stuff. If the lat muscle reattaches and he has the same range of motion as before, I don't see why his stuff won't be there. But, as I said, we'll see.

I have a question -- what albatrossy salary do you want to see the Sox move, if they can?

Craig Grebeck
09-03-2010, 11:28 AM
Peavy is a question mark, to be sure, but the doctors expect him to make a full recovery. The great unknown, I suppose, is what effect the surgery will have on his stuff. If the lat muscle reattaches and he has the same range of motion as before, I don't see why his stuff won't be there. But, as I said, we'll see.

I have a question -- what albatrossy salary do you want to see the Sox move, if they can?
It's not so much about moving guys who are especially overpaid -- as moving Jake is not possible -- it's about being unafraid of letting guys walk if they refuse to take less money. Jenks, for one, is a guy that must be non-tendered. I'm also ready to let Quentin float away. If Konerko's trying to cash in, I have no problem letting him walk. A.J. must take a significant paycut. Putz can go. Same for Kotsay. Et cetera.

None of these guys are albatrosses -- but letting them go opens up a lot of money. Essentially, I think the core of this team (Rios, Floyd, Danks, Jackson, Beckham, Ramirez, Buehrle, and I guess Peavy) is so good that we can have some significant turnover and still compete.

khan
09-03-2010, 11:32 AM
Still not a fan of the deal, unless we shed some serious albatross-y salary this winter. Too bad Peavy's hurt.
Here, I'll play along, even though this isn't my view:

But there's no salary cap in baseball, and despite decades of behavior to the contrary, the SOX CLEARLY are going to spend $200M+ next season, because they have more money than God. The deadspin articles about teams that are nothing like the SOX CLEARLY proves this! So why trifle with some imaginary budget, that CLEARLY doesn't exist?

Jackson's doing great! Who cares if Boras is his agent, that Jackson's only under contract for 1 more year, that the SOX already have committed ~$50M to the 5 SPs? So what if Danks isn't locked up?

How?
5 of the 25 man roster on 8/31 are from either LAD or Arizona prior to coming here:

Pierre/Jones/Ramirez [LAD]
Pena/Quentin [Arizona]

Also, none of the additions to the 25 man roster [except for Sale] are from anywhere other than the NLW, unless I'm missing someone. Does KW not bother to scout anywhere other than near his place in AZ?

Again, I don't know if it's a big deal or not, just that it bears watching going forward. As the 90s-era Indians get up in age, KW will have to find other FA fetishes to pursue, I guess...

SoxSpeed22
09-03-2010, 11:35 AM
I have a question -- what albatrossy salary do you want to see the Sox move, if they can?They have decisions to make regarding their pen. I expect a New York team, or possibly the Phillies, to throw a lot of money at Thornton this offseason. There's also arbitration cases for Bobby and Johnny.
AJ is probably gone, so that's about $6 million freed up. They probably need to spend some of it on another catcher. Fortunately, Linebrink is pitching better going into the end of the season, so he might have some value. The Cubs could use some experience in their pen. Even if the Sox have to eat some of the salary, that could work. Those are the only ones I can think of.

DirtySox
09-03-2010, 11:45 AM
They have decisions to make regarding their pen. I expect a New York team, or possibly the Phillies, to throw a lot of money at Thornton this offseason. There's also arbitration cases for Bobby and Johnny.
AJ is probably gone, so that's about $6 million freed up. They probably need to spend some of it on another catcher. Fortunately, Linebrink is pitching better going into the end of the season, so he might have some value. The Cubs could use some experience in their pen. Even if the Sox have to eat some of the salary, that could work. Those are the only ones I can think of.

Thornton's option for next year will be picked up no question.

doublem23
09-03-2010, 11:51 AM
Thornton's option for next year will be picked up no question.

I'm just assuming he probably meant Putz.

SoxSpeed22
09-03-2010, 11:52 AM
I'm just assuming he probably meant Putz.Got those two mixed up. In Putz's case, it won't be the Mets, but probably the Phillies.

KMcMahon817
09-03-2010, 12:56 PM
Still not a fan of the deal, unless we shed some serious albatross-y salary this winter. Too bad Peavy's hurt.

You should be. Jackson has been great. Unless the Sox cry poor in the offseason, there is no reason why you shouldn't love this deal. Edwin is really, really good.

Craig Grebeck
09-03-2010, 12:59 PM
You should be. Jackson has been great. Unless the Sox cry poor in the offseason, there is no reason why you shouldn't love this deal. Edwin is really, really good.
And so is Daniel Hudson. When haven't we cried poor in the offseason?

JermaineDye05
09-03-2010, 01:06 PM
And so is Daniel Hudson. When haven't we cried poor in the offseason?

Well, he's really really good in the NL when the pressure is off of him. His pitching when we really needed him to step up was mediocre at best.

DirtySox
09-03-2010, 01:11 PM
Well, he's really really good in the NL when the pressure is off of him. His pitching when we really needed him to step up was mediocre at best.

And Edwin was really really bad in the NL. Kenny easily overpaid. Giving up a top prospect (lol long reliever) for an expensive, poorly performing pitcher in the NL when AZ was in salary dump mode was foolish.

Craig Grebeck
09-03-2010, 01:15 PM
Well, he's really really good in the NL when the pressure is off of him. His pitching when we really needed him to step up was mediocre at best.
Funny, we're citing strength of schedule in Jackson's favor when he's faced...Cleveland, Baltimore, and Detroit. Give me a break.

oeo
09-03-2010, 01:17 PM
Can't we wait more than a month to see how this turns out? Obviously both guys are pitching WAY above their heads right now. I didn't like Jackson's contract, but if he's pitching well, he will be well worth it. Or who knows, everyone seems to love Jackson's arm, maybe Kenny can flip him for someone better than Hudson.

As for Hudson, let's see where his career goes, it won't be this good.

oeo
09-03-2010, 01:19 PM
Funny, we're citing strength of schedule in Jackson's favor when he's faced...Cleveland, Baltimore, and Detroit. Give me a break.

Hudson faced KC, Seattle, and Oakland. He couldn't get the ball over the plate, even in that Seattle start he was very fortunate. Good for him that he's pitching well, but he wasn't for us, and I don't think you can be so sure that he would be doing it now either. Considering our bullpen problems, Jackson has been a godsend.