PDA

View Full Version : Oh **** Edwin's Good Too!!


Thome25
08-05-2010, 05:46 AM
Sorry Doub but, it looks like EJ might be good too.

Seven innings pitched, allowing just one run and nine hits while striking out six and walking one against a division rival? CHECK.

Pitched well against AMERICAN LEAGUE competition even though he didn't look to have his best stuff? CHECK.

Looked to have gotten over his control problems by giving up only one walk? (at least for one game.) CHECK.

Discuss.

spawn
08-05-2010, 06:43 AM
Let's hold off on his induction into the HOF for now. Everything you said is true, but it's only one game. It was nice to see him attacking the hitters, and only giving up the one walk. However, just as people were told not to hold off on the praise for Hudson on his start against a weak hitting Mets team, the same can be said of Jackson's start against an injury depleted Tigers offense as well. How about us just enjoying a decent outing by Jackson and hope he has a better go his next start. It was nice seeing him work his way out of jams though, and he did this with his fastball being the only pitch consistently working for him.

hawkjt
08-05-2010, 06:43 AM
Lets see how Edwin does vs the O's on Monday,and then the Tigers again on Saturday...bigger sample size is always good.
So far, so good, Steady as she goes,mate:D:

Now, as far as the Tigers offense, they did have Inge back,and have Miggy(best hitter in the game),Damon,Jackson ect.
Boesch has been great all year,but is in a funk. But this tigers offense has been among the best in the game until a couple weeks ago. They can still be very dangerous. The Sox have done a good job on Cabrera so far...he is very dangerous.
Sox need todays game.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 07:40 AM
And only costing us $10M more than Hudson for 4 years less of guaranteed service!

What a steal! :cool:

I hope Jackson is good during his stay here, but this move still confuses the hell out of me. Oh well, go Sox!

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 07:42 AM
As Doub said, the move still makes little to no sense. He left way, way too many balls up in the zone for my liking, and I can see why, despite his velocity, his fastball has always been teed off on by major league hitters. Threw some good sliders tonight, but I'm not sold on the offspeed stuff.

Also, who the hell were 3/4 of those guys in the Tigers lineup?

DrCrawdad
08-05-2010, 07:45 AM
Also, who the hell were 3/4 of those guys in the Tigers lineup?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FQNdkocpgx8/SHGBlxbEl0I/AAAAAAAACUs/_OZxMstLU_s/s320/logos-toledo.jpg

hawkjt
08-05-2010, 07:51 AM
And only costing us $10M more than Hudson for 4 years less of guaranteed service!

What a steal! :cool:

I hope Jackson is good during his stay here, but this move still confuses the hell out of me. Oh well, go Sox!

You know kenny does not operate focusing on 4 years out.
He wants to win this year. On paper, Jackson gives the Sox a better chance of that.

No one can watch that game and not be awed by Jackson's raw ability.
Unless they refuse to believe their own eyes,due to a dogged belief that they are smarter than professional baseball talent evaluators or are determined to dislike our management.

That Tigers lineup scored 7 vs Torres the day before. They have had one of the better offensive lineups in the league til recently,and with Inge back,they are only missing Guillen and Maggs. Jackson,Boesch,Cabrera,Damon, and Inge have been productive this year...more productive than the Sox offense.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 07:57 AM
No one can watch that game and not be awed by Jackson's raw ability.
Unless they refuse to believe their own eyes,due to a dogged belief that they are smarter than professional baseball talent evaluators or are determined to dislike our management.

I don't think that's right. Jackson's not Sidd Finch. There have been a lot of guys in MLB with his fastball/slider combination. Most have been in the bullpen -- and, might I add, elite bullpen pitchers.

Listen, I'm happy we won, I'm happy he walked one and only allowed one run. But I saw a lot to cringe at last night. He threw a lot of hangers and got away with it all night long.

DumpJerry
08-05-2010, 07:59 AM
Now, as far as the Tigers offense, they did have Inge back,and have Miggy(best hitter in the game),Damon,Jackson ect.
Boesch has been great all year,but is in a funk. But this tigers offense has been among the best in the game until a couple weeks ago. They can still be very dangerous. The Sox have done a good job on Cabrera so far...he is very dangerous.
Sox need todays game.
"Miggy" is not playing much these days.

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:01 AM
Why all of this concern over the difference between EJ and Hudson's salaries?

If you're a season ticket holder then maybe just maybe you should worry about such things.

WTS imo fans should worry about the players not the salaries.....for most of us it isnt our money anyway. Why not do a player for player comparison not a salary for salary comparison?

To me player salary is a moot point. After all, KW and Reinsdorf don't come to my house every week and tell me how much of my own personal budget I have to spend on groceries and gas for my cars etc. so why the hell should we worry about the White Sox finances?

Just give me the best players possible cheap or otherwise.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 08:02 AM
You know kenny does not operate focusing on 4 years out.
He wants to win this year. On paper, Jackson gives the Sox a better chance of that.

No one can watch that game and not be awed by Jackson's raw ability.
Unless they refuse to believe their own eyes,due to a dogged belief that they are smarter than professional baseball talent evaluators or are determined to dislike our management.

That Tigers lineup scored 7 vs Torres the day before. They have had one of the better offensive lineups in the league til recently,and with Inge back,they are only missing Guillen and Maggs. Jackson,Boesch,Cabrera,Damon, and Inge have been productive this year...more productive than the Sox offense.

I'm normally fine with KW's aggressive style as GM, heck I even liked the Swisher, Part 1 deal when it first went down. This trade, though, still leaves me a bit confused; first I am not 100% sure that Jackson is that big of an upgrade in the short-term. Yes, his raw potential was on display last night but he's demonstrated that potential for what? 6 years now? I trust Coop, but even I'm not sure he can turn water in wine this fast. THAT BEING SAID, if Coop works his magic and turns Jackson around for 2011, our pitching staff is insane. Danks, Floyd, Peavy, good Jackson, Buehrle? That's better than most dream rotations people build on their xBoxes.

As for the Tigers lineup last night, for every Cabrera or Damon there was a Alex Avila, Will Rhymes, or Don Kelly. There's a reason the Tigers are sinking like a rock in water; Boesch has hit a wall (seriously, since July 4; 1 month; he's hit .152/.261/.202), Peralta and Inge are OK players, I guess but when they're the 4th and 5th best hitters in your lineup, you have some problems.

And then there's the whole money aspect of the deal. I can't wait for the Sox to cry poor this offseason after cutting him a check for $8.5M.

But hey, he did look good last night. Worked out of some jams and only walked 1, which is going to be the key for his success. So, I guess in 1 start he's already matched the production we got from Hudson's 3. :cool:

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:06 AM
Why all of this concern over the difference between EJ and Hudson's salaries?

If you're a season ticket holder then maybe just maybe you should worry about such things.

WTS imo fans should worry about the players not the salaries.....for most of us it isnt our money anyway. Why not do a player for player comparison not a salary for salary comparison?

To me player salary is a moot point. after all KW and Reinsdorf dont come in and tell me how much of my own personal budget I have to spend on groceries and gas for my cars so why the hell should we worry about thw White Sox finances?

Just give me the best players possible cheap or otherwise.

Because it clearly affects the organization's flexibility now and into the future. Hudson was under team control for the next five years after this one -- two at pre-arbitration, fixed rates. Given his ability, he was a very, very valuable piece going forward.

Edwin Jackson is making over $8 million next season. After that, he gawn. Scott Boras is his agent.

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:09 AM
I'm normally fine with KW's aggressive style as GM, heck I even liked the Swisher, Part 1 deal when it first went down. This trade, though, still leaves me a bit confused; first I am not 100% sure that Jackson is that big of an upgrade in the short-term. Yes, his raw potential was on display last night but he's demonstrated that potential for what? 6 years now? I trust Coop, but even I'm not sure he can turn water in wine this fast. THAT BEING SAID, if Coop works his magic and turns Jackson around for 2011, our pitching staff is insane. Danks, Floyd, Peavy, good Jackson, Buehrle? That's better than most dream rotations people build on their xBoxes.

As for the Tigers lineup last night, for every Cabrera or Damon there was a Alex Avila, Will Rhymes, or Don Kelly. There's a reason the Tigers are sinking like a rock in water; Boesch has hit a wall (seriously, since July 4; 1 month; he's hit .152/.261/.202), Peralta and Inge are OK players, I guess but when they're the 4th and 5th best hitters in your lineup, you have some problems.

And then there's the whole money aspect of the deal. I can't wait for the Sox to cry poor this offseason after cutting him a check for $8.5M.

But hey, he did look good last night. Worked out of some jams and only walked 1, which is going to be the key for his success. So, I guess in 1 start he's already matched the production we got from Hudson's 3. :cool:

Thornton was the same type of player for Seattle. He was a AAAA (yes i typed quadruple "A") player who had a ton of potential but, wasn't realizing it in the time he had.

KW and Coop obviously see that same type of project in EJ......they wanna try to make him better they same way they did with Thornton and Jenks etc. etc. etc.

If they can do with EJ what they did with those guys, then EJ's potential is 1000x times higher than that of Hudson.

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:12 AM
Because it clearly affects the organization's flexibility now and into the future. Hudson was under team control for the next five years after this one -- two at pre-arbitration, fixed rates. Given his ability, he was a very, very valuable piece going forward.

Edwin Jackson is making over $8 million next season. After that, he gawn. Scott Boras is his agent.

The White Sox have proven time and again that despite budget concerns they will put the best players on the field regardless of salary.

This should be the least of our concerns. Let KW Reinsdorf and the White Sox financial department worry about the books.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 08:13 AM
Thornton was the same type of player for Seattle. He was a AAAA (yes i typed quadruple "A") player who had a ton of potential but, wasn't realizing it in the time he had.

KW and Coop obviously see that same type of project in EJ......they wanna try to make him better they same way they did with Thornton and Jenks etc. etc. etc.

If they can do with EJ what they did with those guys, then EJ's potential is 1000x times higher than that of Hudson.

That's a fair point, but Thornton had only been in 1 organization and didn't cost anything; if he had flamed out, oh no, we lost Joe Borchard and $400,000.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:13 AM
Thornton was the same type of player for Seattle. He was a AAAA (yes i typed quadruple "A") player who had a ton of potential but, wasn't realizing it in the time he had.

KW and Coop obviously see that same type of project in EJ......they wanna try to make him better they same way they did with Thornton and Jenks etc. etc. etc.

If they can do with EJ what they did with those guys, then EJ's potential is 1000x times higher than that of Hudson.
If Edwin was a relief pitcher, he would more than likely be a very good one. The essential difference here is that Thornton came in return for Joe Borchard and Bobby Jenks was picked up after he lit his arm on fire and drank his way out of the Angels organization (mods: in no way do I hold that against Bobby, rather, the Angels were idiots and did not reach out to him and give him time to recoup).

Jackson came in return for our number one prospect. And 1000x?

Sad
08-05-2010, 08:14 AM
"Miggy" is not playing much these days.

it's "Cabby" according to Rod Allen...

:chunks

...almost as bad as "Cubby"...

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:14 AM
The White Sox have proven time and again that despite budget concerns they will put the best players on the field regardless of salary.

This should be the least of our concerns. Let KW Reinsdorf and the White Sox financial department worry about the books.
No. That's stupid. They've proven time and time again they refuse to bring pitchers up and develop them, while also spending valuable resources on guys like Mark Teahen.

That's company line bull****. Take off the rose-colored sunglasses and look at what Hudson offers.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 08:16 AM
The White Sox have proven time and again that despite budget concerns they will put the best players on the field regardless of salary.

This should be the least of our concerns. Let KW Reinsdorf and the White Sox financial department worry about the books.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh?

http://static.foxsports.com/fe/images/MLB/Headshots/140x170/5846.jpg

Look, if you don't want to deal with the whole money side of theses transacations, more power to you, but don't tell people what they should and shouldn't be interested in, to say that budget concerns are something Sox fans shouldn't be interested in is to have not paid attention to the Sox for the past, what? 10 years?

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:17 AM
That's a fair point, but Thornton had only been in 1 organization and didn't cost anything; if he had flamed out, oh no, we lost Joe Borchard and $400,000.

That's part of problem. We as White Sox fans have a tendency to overvalue our farm system.

It's as if we think that every player coming from the farm system was a member of the '27 Yankees.

We're not trading the Babe Ruths and the Cy Youngs of the world here people. They're our own mediocre prospects who almost always turn into garbage for the team they're traded to anyway.

When was the last time KW traded an MVP or Cy Young award winner? Heck he hasn't even traded players who amount to a quarter of that.

Hudson will fall into the same category and EJ may very well help us to a division title and in the playoffs.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:18 AM
Look, if you don't want to deal with the whole money side of theses transacations, more power to you, but don't tell people what they should and shouldn't be interested in, to say that budget concerns are something Sox fans shouldn't be interested in is to have not paid attention to the Sox for the past, what? 10 years?
Sounds about right. Sheesh.

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:18 AM
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh?

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/ 8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5Ojf/2wBDAQoKCg0MDRoPDxo3JR8lNzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzf/wAARCAC4AJcDASIAAhEBAxEB/8QAHAAAAgMBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAABQYABAcDAgEI/8QAQRAAAgEDAwIEAwUECQMEAwAAAQIDAAQRBRIhBjETQVFhFCJ xIzKBkaEHFWKxJDNCUnKSwfDxFoLRJTRDU1Sy4f/EABkBAAMBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAgMEBf/EACERAAICAwEAAgMBAAAAAAAAAAABAhEDEiExBEETIlEy/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwCqtjMlruTIbHehE+tT2bNFOST5Gngyqtq QwGMVmnVcsbXQx61y62zVM9fvZ5ptwLYqrqd5PnO5sZ9a66WIS nODXvU7eMp8nbHarjdikkMWlt41gm6Q52+tD4NP/pUu5Nxc8Y86AWOvPZSeDKDtHYk1o3RqJeAzvtI8q2lHZcIjLVi NrHTF0x8Tw1Vc55obaQy6fPgjHuK1nqy6tbO1IOC54CikGSPxy zMvB5FKcEoUwS2kXY9SMluFZifLvVeKV5LhUt0aWRmwqIpZj+A oPdSxWkgM0jpFnDBBlj9B6019H9R300T2ugQWWmRlRvmyWupfY OwxntwAB/OuLB8epX9HTklGEdV6G7aLWrVFWbS7tSwyoMZBP4VQvdbe2m8K 5gmt5ByUlQqceuCKHdYaHe+EJr6W5eWTkmaTe351V0zUpdX0S4 0W9lSWe2i8W3Dq25Ag52Nk44HIGAfrXa5Jco5bBvUOoPdnwwxw fKq9nZotvkjnHFVACZfmyaNRWry2/wAhxxWU0zSDX2KeqwDxiR5UZ0CZlg2Y4qnd2Ej3BUhjk0Z02xS FACDnHnWifKJku8F3qCLMu6gyinS90ubUpjHbrnHnXz/ou4t4w75b2p2kSKUUzxNgcVKJ6hpphkwFwfOpTsDVru7HwpyfK sy6gn8W+2oc0bv9WJt8ISaWiTJOZGXuaiEeWyvsu2ENx33HB8q L2qFiUn7jsKrWNyiptAqtqV4+4NE20ip2bdGsopRO2saN8Sym3 XMnbA86e+moZtJ0xEK42Lzmkjp/WALxFuiAc43HzrUJrq0l07CspyvrXTHiOb7ETVtXa+vXZgdikg ZFVjM7r9mvAHerc0UBmYDB+amCy0iN7TcO2M1lF7t2byjok0ZR rckst+VYnauNtX+n7s2N0sm9YyD/AFrf2RXzq208DUMIO2RQ+xkSOQmYBwDymcGqquGTdux/6s/aAuo6ZDo+mgSJHjffTptdj6KvfHuefYUA0O9k0/Wra+htoL64jO4LcAqrtg4/3imHom26Z1y+aCbTPh51hUq8bsQSOCcE9zwfrTPf9F6Vb3Ecoz 4QyeTy3nyT5d658mVp0jaGLZWZpqusyvdN8VpOlQMckrawtGB+ IfvX3TtbRF8Ng2fKr3X2l2kRt72xnR2lJSSJUIwcZzkjn/eKBWFkUIducjtWsGpQtmc46yoPQn4qTfjHvXS/d44CB2A71xguEiTA71U1G73KdvesFexrzUbuipLcOGkwSe+adN SntRZsI0Tt3rD7DVprWYckZNMza0ZbUgzN28jVTbTIjEDdTzr8 W2wZ5/s1K5zmF3yDn6mpVxlwlp2UdQjktbgxvwD2qs0wRcL3ojrhmkk3 tE6qPMigb9zTXg5KnwMaRIsmS3cV51MxpKCMEnvQiOVkbKsQfa vTO0hyxJqqQrZdt1R5lPmOaOpe3awhY8kdqVY5Sjgg059NPFOq hzn1pbUiaKfjXMeGZec5NOfTmtRyWZjc4YDkGqd9YJJsS3jaSR +FRFJZj7Ad6PdPfs21GXE9/Ktgjc+GRvk/EA4H4n8Kcf18Kcr9Evqu1+LlDW6b5C4woxk54/1pav0vYAljd24iMRJVTCqsc+rYyR6c4redR6b0vTI7VIbEXVxP N4fjzneUG1mLBfug/LgccZzVC9sre5tBFPGj47b1BwfasM+Vwas0xY9jOf2crFBqT3k 7iMKNq+9aFqup3E8tuul+AZirHfKxCoBx3HnSvfdJqGd7GR4WP fZyhP8ApSvJ+9bW/MW+OYrhQqtj/isOzlZsnoqL/VUl3KE+Me3lCzn54iTztOQc/T/eaCSXapHhKY7TTZ9UJs9TufhfFcMjriQK/bLeo5IOO3fnGKD9SdNaroDg39uTAxwlzF80Un0b19jg+1dUItR pnNN2wYLk9ycVyMpdiD2r5BA11JsXOaMRdPSGLfzn3p0kTbAF4 qhc1VS8kxtzwKJajZyw5SRT7EUFdGRzkVSpiLqTkr3/AFqVWgOTipTpDs2XqqOyWJki2ufRRk1leoQGOVsxsoPqMVt+n6 NBI5luP1NDerNEsZbZyoQn1FTsrodMxPHPFdRDKU3KjEfSrN3C ttcvHxgHimfpywW+td4HAODWunLIsSRuzyCPrWv/ALL/ANnVxf2MWr6tctb2knzQwRgeJIvqSeFB8vP6UJ0XoKTVNfTxgY 9OQh7hh3x/dHue36+VbramMRrDFGscUSBUQeQHYfTAocR2SxsbDS4/C061VDjmTGWP1Y813BYjnj2FeDIoGcjHlXiW5iij3uwA8qAOWo RmS32HOc7gQOx/44pUYp8VLCceKnLRnuv1H+vamA6sJJAiAgHk7h5UA1rRo+pcG4 tJV2Z8GaJtsqL7N/p2rLLhWRdLhNxKepXi2Vu7vME4+4MfMKSILGXVJrvUbKH+jhWW NgP66Q8fL6gevmT7U52XScNzELLU5l1IQymRZ5kK7UAwA/Pz/TgZ75pns9NRnQRjbAg+ReBkdh27edRiwau2OeXbhmXwNwdRSJY 2HhYB+op9tVkNkYJMPG4w8UihlcY7EHvRBLGOSEybQGYkg4/irxNHskg+b+sBbHoBjP8AOugyM71joyPTZ31HS0/oBYeLDklrcny57p6Hy7H1rtFIkcJV9u3tx3p7WVfG2OA6NhGUj O4E4P8AMUqdSaAdNd/CJaBvmjPfj0/37VzZo+M1xteMzvqKSI3AAAxQC7toyhZSKO6hEJmfJwQTQWSB2 kIzgeVbQ8M58YOtIvtO3AqUas7LamW71KboSZrcd8JoiFf6YoR rTSrCwBJBHahsFxNaj7oOKo6z1AEG1zx51zyj20bwa8Ym6pbS/vAFgcMe4rXOgNKh+EjBxkjtWaT6hBckFcGtR/ZYLi6jkuNn9Fi+z3Hzc+Q+g7/UVrjm2qZOSCTtMcQUt2VY12oOw9T617F6Enc9uCP0Nc9RhYsWQ 9u3tQfVJJIx8THjCnc/t6/yIrUzCR1EzXYgDd2BOPIYNekmW7lMr7vhIzsjVfvTt7e1J1tep E174tyY4VYK0qjLCPbkKB5k7gPwouvUJ+OTSenLNGv41X4q5vH JjtN3ZSF7uf7oIxjk8EATAbPkt08S/VfExlbdOyD3PrXJpbu8iyFSCEsMKG5wPLPvSzoHUUGpzR22oRO l3LJPseOJ1ikjiOPEw53KCflwcnIovfanILu0ijidYmcfMQMEY fjv3+XPbGCPegC/FGkpMC7Vt4SN4Hedvf2z5VeiYIWyR8i7nPq2OAPYD+dK8vUNpD dGxtriJryM7pYFYbhyPy7jP1FUrjq3TbmRrG01FDIY3mkkVGMa InLMXxtI4xkE80ANRlKWRQgBBF396XJNXiW4uHEg8RFSFQewYg lj9AOT9KWD1pcwXUoCXSwgRrCkrpvuHkPyoExhcryQSSoIzzwQ 1zrV9e9Si31OW2YrIYo0tl2xqCeRk8kAg8n096TYUP8ADOXlUu SPlU/N3G6TjPvhavarcAww2rKX8afwhx2Y8jH+/Ogul3Iu0WZTnxrgt9EXgD+VV+u4b7VNMuIdMjcSxzh0kG4YKuM ncBhTlQRnH1pSipRaYLjFDqfS/h5nlhP3uSKTkuCHKOOQa0Hqa7d0R5VcGWJC7MnHibFLgEcH5ie RxWcON90xB49amC1jTNJwTSaCkcxZflqVXgbwjjualQ02xcQ6v PFKCWOB7Uo9QGHLbRmrcF740JIbtQy7IkkIY5+tRji0zWc00Ct Piae8gt42CNNKsYZhwNxAyfzr9LdNPZ2mkWthYoVXTn+FuEYYZ ZVyHLD34bPmGBr88WNgHn35Ix2x5VrGha5H1HcH4C8gt+p4Y1h nhujiDVkUcZI5Eg8mHI9x23jJXRk4PVSHy9uggfwwGHZsjsfpS drkgiB3SBhICCM/Nn6f77V6u+ows62Wph9H1IDDW2o/dfHnHKvDClbqVrma1nLSLkjCkMDnJAqmSijp9xA+oWvzq6POsj c8H7o5z6Y/SmDoMJaaTczX0qRSpeztfyzNjZJnHzk9uOR65OPOq/S+jaBpcMdzrMxadhnaMsVz6Afzq/qtz0yl2LvTNHM18o+Se47JxwcYySPLPakuACtZvrnUtWuNStLv U7BIJbbTIJERg5DsZZHYAFwuMYXucrnHarbX13Lq+qX0NnPBK8 xW1e7+yRESPZGcYJblmYgADPc+VUpH1O8aQ+JOTIxZ9oI3E9yc d/KuMNpdQOwlOyN1YbAOc8Utgo8hEbQY7C9lWBvh2iaW1+0di3LM WYDhm5Kg8+bDtVC9uPiEvTdXTBLm2jg8OKJIQkSHgLndtTcOR3 J4Ge1E7nT5Y2+dEjDDhFofqNiAxm+KtrW0giV2nZBI5LYyAv8A ZAJx6k/Xg6FHK1FxLZTSXIW4ub0+JdNOviny2rj2AHl3+nHK7EqKlzKqN lkAljGNu0EADHA44qraSTtBp7RPH8TeSFEeNeygnLbRxkDHHvV m3s83t208kh2wxhzPKWOTlsnPY4C/nSbpDSthrpvqW00oRrqEuWj3NFGFJLdsHjy/8U4dM6mdRvI103VIVRpvEuBFexlmHcjZyw/5rNNM631bp4mPQ54oI95Z2MKO03bAYkZwPIUVl/aTp2rR7OrulbC+fHFzaEwzA+oPJ/JhVrwljN1/ZT3WnPPJGu7xGk8RnAIA4xj1P+lZHcxmCQnPem4dTdKtJ4dj09 fzTuGWN7/UGlWEkY3BeRkDz/WlHVCWlOzJBPGKl+jvlHbTGElydxGAKlUYlubdg5UrmpSb/jL1f2izFI0DMoJxXORi8hbNMFzpELzkruH0rkdDQcnfilaJBVt dNG3eq0qbJN24hgcjHHvRxdIgDffORQvUovCuZI+4U9z5jFEP9 McpfqkMdj1/q81rDpOsJaaxYl1UJqEXiMmTjIfvn3OaM9QzWMFpHZaVbLHabs FIwexOTz3/AOKzVh6KCc1odpBLJo1myTLIZFN28ecOCcLH+B2yDA9Qatt+Er wsw+DOyq77I8DBYE7h5HPp71eOmWyzD+kC4d/uos2z8m7E0S0CSJVEc8TNZy8hdn2kTee38e6/iPQsAs3hOyNIbiKQblicAxyj1U+Te1FBYpiJbNjEn7wt5RzsZq kyz3W34l8Y5LbdpwMdzTUbnSZIjb3SSwqp/q5AxMR/hb09jQ/UbUQlAkiyQsrbJVP3gR6+op0Aj6hqtjp05imlxIDkIvzFfQfWv cl5rV2qX2lR2psZk+98jTRMvB3KrgnJGRkY7cUpdUaWdH1+a0c v4R2ss8xLFsqCe3c5JoZL4S4DRBlPIZ+5H0ooAxfXljDDDYxwN cC3JwZMqUbzOQQck9wOO1DZtQkeLwEVY4sk7FHc++Tkn61SLBX +zGFY42j9KMWPSutakiyJamCJv/kmO0Y9cd/0pcXougZ5B618ijknfbGpYj9KdIuibK3QfHaj40g7pGNq/wDk/pRaw0C1k+xiIjh/upxn/wA0nIKM6+0tpAcbT2z60c0ODx33yAHPbNPVz0Hp80BJkfI7fOa oWegw2VykQlGzOOTmsfkN6fqdXxFD8lz8A+rWsTKAiAnzwKlae NF074RSyoT61K54Ysqj6d8/kfHlK6Mte6Hi8OMV8uL8mEqj4PtS18ex/s/rX0ahjuv612UeOdJpb4yMVkIGau6nCxtLa7Y/eHhufccj9P5UP/eH8NfX1F3hMPOwnOD61S4xM4EZyArfnitL6ZlS40/SRLAiolg8aMDyGSVdwb1B3L7rg+prNQTjJx+FOXQl/I7ppwuB8/iqsTHGBt8XcP8AujwR/EPSrEjRYNHhn+1jeeGckHfD547ZB4P5Zq3IdXsYWXwEu7duQuN rZ9dp8/oT9K76C7FSpYjHkKPyRlkxvkHGOGz/ADoGIDdYWUkhg1GNTIp2nxAY5EPoQcGvTpYXUDTWF94ajLmMHK k49PWjWtaQJwS0EVwvZlZFDY9PQ/Tis61LQIVuZJNHL208fzGFTgMPVR5jPBHcfllMDrqenWOp2Ep1 CZo2J3Ry8EofXn9aRbDSZbx0SWZUjZseIAXJHqo4/DtTDFZmaRI9QPit/dfOA30//lF47BLQGXwwojBYsB5DnNZ7UOhQtIxpvUMsFspaKOUoJJACxAP fjgVrVtLD+7Fcy/ORzmscN8plMwGGZi2fqavjqW6EXhB8LQ1YBLqa9eJ5PBA78UG0 7XtQjmChto9q4S34mP2nJ968LdRKewFFAPEOuXRhXdcHkc1ye/3Nktk+uaT2vwezmoL8D+2aKHY6DVpmGwznH1qUlDUCGyHNSimI pnTNQ/8AxX/KoNLv8f8AtpPyrU7rqHR4gVCoceYqu3UWkkcKhyfXtVE2Zp+7b/ztpPyr4dPvx3tZAPpWpRa/o4GWSPnjHHFeLzqPR2hYIik4/OmLYzIRSxKPGjZT6keVddMvZ7G8hv7fIaJ1YEnzBz/v6mjWp6ta3UE8AiwHBw3ofKvNhow1Lpm4vrRoY5dNkc3fiOFzE ygoR6ncrLgf3l/BtUEXZrXR+sWeqo1zZkiNjnw27xnzU/SnccgV+ev2Z6qbHXQpl2Qzqyup7Fl5B/LNb7Y3CzwhlYH6Gmij3cW5dCEbaT5jFIuuaVPBfLcF9yngSbdp VvLOOMHt5eQOeMaCMedLPV1nM9k8kcspZcEKpwoGRngcHj1zQ/B0K15La6lbfawBJ0GNwXDZ9TQvVbo/9NXLhN8zwGLaB3Y/Ln9c19j+QPjjnj2ruscZtNkmCu/hfKsvsb4jLv3fdgZ+Gkx9K9DTrw8i1kI/w1qy21iEwVHbnBrxey2NlbbwgPpyKvhnszK5LK6RTutpQB/DVKQSIT9k/wDlNaE3U+nOSGjIxx2rlLrmjsudoz/hp6i/IIGZP/rf/LUzIRwhx9KfP3zpDR4wM+61WXUdMBOAB/201ENxLy39xvyqU8LqOl/2gv8AlqUah+QQmlZiSSfzr7G5J5NcjXSKNnYBBzSLotg4GS1cm mNWk02ZkyTg+wqlPA0TfMaLFqeTKwzgmu6yA7WYYDCqgGa6ocp sPl2oCqLtg83xCpC+GMgKsO6t5EY7/St66SvJFjiVpA4ZAQw7OCAQR9QRX55gYxSLgjv+tap0Fq0nwsM Ly7nZ5Htye4C/MyfruH/d7UFI2ZG3oG9a8zjKZChmA4BGRmq+nz+NApxg4rpcTCJck496d jMpkDGSTxPvlznjzyc0ndR63Ot/JDA+IovlHPcjv+uadOpp10+41C4BHD7ox/E3IH6/pWcJYtqF6kZJAJ+ZqzX9ZMnbo8trt1x9tj8ar3Gs3M0ex5GK/Wta0vorQl05PFhi3kcsx5NIfXPTlrpjeLZAKAcMoOQfehTixvG 0KYmbvmp4x9arnjzr5V2TSLPjH1rn4z5+8a5eVTFOwpFlJnP9o 1K4KSKlFhSPJzRHShlxxmqlzAbeZkPl2on08UFxiTGD61EnSLj 10OOmafHJBvk9O1A+qrCKOIvGOR6Cmq0liWLCkcil3qmQPGVXJ 4rmxyex05IpREoZ8q+4bPGc1BkMB2qxCS0ixqhZ2ICqoyST5DF dRyHABxzinbo6+ntZDCYysw2XlmHXG515x9HXI47049Gfs9tdN hj1HquASXTfNFYOPkj88yDzb+HsPP0HLrVm/wCqbLX4wkCBlgZ14CEfcc/TBP4UWMf7a9NnLJDIu0qeEb7y5GcH3Gf0qvq2pHG3glvQ9qr3N 9HqMKX0SANKmZ9pyEdfldc/4gfwwfOgc8++bPfy70pOil4JvXV8ZNRhtFIJUCSQj1xhc/hn8xQvSQWu89gDVbV5y/UV8ZME+KQMDsB2/TFH+nIrdomdiN2efahxbjSM4uslsONOwiwDn6mlvqItPbncxPf zqzdakLeVo2bKj7poPdXnxDFdwxXLGLjLp3TkpRFBxhyPSvPNE 75I4pMkDmqZeP2rqTONqjhzUzXffH7V8LK3CjOaYjkoLHipVqO MxnJGalFgHL9LK4mLYU12sBYQ4OEB+tSpTMk2E01G0UcOn51wu 3srlSGKf5qlSpUUmaOcmugxNLs5pljQBmY4Cg5LHtge/Naj0p0pY9LsL2SGOTVscH7wt8+S/wAfqfLsPMmVKphDoYvL35FadzuJ+Vc9qBa3LBN07qMlxyI3Qj6 5wP8A9sZqVKn7NPoD9A3013MbCadP/UVaSJQcCO4UY28/3lGPqFokzfbHjjNSpRMUCzfdHWMujnUmjX4iVSzN5nBIz+lZyh NrdvGHI8u/cVKlWvDKZ3ltLa4w0rj15avdvY6crjLJ/mFSpSa6TuyxdaLpdymdwz7PQxum7LfxK2303VKlA1JliPpjTWU Euc/4q+N0xp6nKyv+D1KlA7Z2XpyxYfNK/wDmFSpUqaDZn//Z

Look, if you don't want to deal with the whole money side of theses transacations, more power to you, but don't tell people what they should and shouldn't be interested in, to say that budget concerns are something Sox fans shouldn't be interested in is to have not paid attention to the Sox for the past, what? 10 years?

It's just my opinion boss......if you don't like it you don't have to agree with it. I'm not "telling" anyone anything.

For every Kotsay there's 10 more players that KW was shrewd in acquiring. Players like that aren't the norm they're the exception.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:20 AM
That's part of problem. We as White Sox fans have a tendency to overvalue our farm system.

It's as if we think that every player coming from the farm system was a member of the '27 Yankees.

We're not trading the Babe Ruths and the Cy Youngs of the world here people. They're our own mediocre prospects who almost always turn into garbage for the team they're traded to anyway.

When was the last time KW traded an MVP or Cy Yong award winner? Heck he hasn't even traded players to amount to a quarter of that.

Hudson will fall into the same category and EJ may very well help us to a division title and in the playoffs.
1. Stop exaggerating.
2. Just because a player does not win an MVP or Cy "Yong" award does not mean they are expendable. Gio Gonzalez, Clayton Richard, and Ryan Sweeney say hello -- they've certainly amounted more than their returns thus far.
3. Try objectivity once. Just once.

Edit: Chris Young was traded away, though I loved Vazquez when he was here. He's turned into a good player. Chris Carter will be up soon, and could be a monster. And, of course, Nick Swisher was traded for tenths of pennies on the dollar, and we all know how solid he's been this season.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 08:20 AM
Hudson will fall into the same category and EJ may very well help us to a division title and in the playoffs.

And where do you get off talking like that's a fact? If you like Jackson and the trade, that's fine, but don't talk about him like we picked up Roy Halladay or another proven veteran. The guy's got a track record 800 innings long of sustained mediocrity. 1 win over a team sinking faster than the Titanic doesn't negate that.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:20 AM
It's just my opinion boss......if you don't like it you don't have to afree with it. I'm not "telling" anyone anything.

For every Kotsay there's 10 more players that KW was shrewd in acquiring. Players like that aren't the norm they're the exception.
List them.

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:22 AM
No. That's stupid. They've proven time and time again they refuse to bring pitchers up and develop them, while also spending valuable resources on guys like Mark Teahen.

That's company line bull****. Take off the rose-colored sunglasses and look at what Hudson offers.

Rose colored glasses? All I've seen is one of the more successful organizations record-wise in the last 20 years.

They did it all with so-called budget constraints.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 08:23 AM
It's just my opinion boss......if you don't like it you don't have to agree with it. I'm not "telling" anyone anything.

For every Kotsay there's 10 more players that KW was shrewd in acquiring. Players like that aren't the norm they're the exception.

Here's a trip to 2nd grade English...

This should be the least of our concerns. Let KW Reinsdorf and the White Sox financial department worry about the books.

These are imperative sentences; you're giving commands. Had you stated, "I'm not worried about the money becuase I trust KW and Reinsy," that would be declarative.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:24 AM
Rose colored glasses? All I've seen is one of the more successful organizations record-wise in the last 20 years.

They did it all with so-called budget constraints.

Successful how? Yes, 2005 was wonderful. Absolutely fantastic. Beyond that? How many division titles? How many trips to the ALCS? Not very many. They did a very good job of staying not terrible for a lot of years, staying a few games above .500 or close to it.

Edit: tell me, what specifically about Daniel Hudson gives you pause?

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:30 AM
And where do you get off talking like that's a fact? If you like Jackson and the trade, that's fine, but don't talk about him like we picked up Roy Halladay or another proven veteran. The guy's got a track record 800 innings long of sustained mediocrity. 1 win over a team sinking faster than the Titanic doesn't negate that.


Again it's just my opinion.....notice the word "may"? I've been watching the White Sox for 20 years.....and I can tell from a fan's perspective when we have an average prospect and when we have an elite one.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:30 AM
Again it's just my opinion.....notice the word 'may"? I've been watching the White Sox for 20 years.....and I can tell from a fan's perspective when we have an average prospect and when we have an elite one.
What does that even mean? What was your take on Daniel Hudson?

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:32 AM
Successful how? Yes, 2005 was wonderful. Absolutely fantastic. Beyond that? How many division titles? How many trips to the ALCS? Not very many. They did a very good job of staying not terrible for a lot of years, staying a few games above .500 or close to it.

Edit: tell me, what specifically about Daniel Hudson gives you pause?

Daniel Hudson doesn't give me pause at all.....I just don't understand all of the Hudson love around here. I've been a part of these boards for a while now and I've seen guys named Reed, Olivo, Wells, Fogg, Anderson, etc get glorified in the same manner.

As for the "list" you requested in a previous post.....I'm at work right now and I don't have the time to dig it up.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:35 AM
Daniel Hudson doesn't give me pause at all.....I just don't understand all of the Hudson love around here. I've been a part of these boards for a while now and I've seen guys named Reed, Olivo, Wells, Fogg, Anderson, etc get glorified in the same manner.

As for the "list" you requested in a previous post.....I'm at work right now and I don't have the time to dig it up.
Tell you what, get back to me on that.

As for Hudson, it's not that I love the guy. I see potential. I see a cost-effective third starter. He's not a bad player. He's going to be a solid major league pitcher. What's wrong with lamenting his loss?

Thome25
08-05-2010, 08:36 AM
What does that even mean? What was your take on Daniel Hudson?


I just felt that he was another "ho hum", run-of-the-mill, average White Sox pitching prospect. Nothing he did made me jump up and say "WOW that's a special player there".......that's all our system seems to have lately.

And IMO time will prove that Hudson will fall into the same category as guys named Wells, Fogg, Reed, Olivo, Etc.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:39 AM
I just felt that he was another "ho hum", run-of-the-mill, average White Sox pitching prospect. Nothing he did made me jump up and say "WOW that's a special player there".......that's all our system seems to have lately.

And IMO time will prove that Hudson will fall into the same category as guys named Wells, Fogg, Reed, Olivo, Etc.
To put it charitably, that's quite broad. Do you even know what pitches he throws?

russ99
08-05-2010, 08:41 AM
But I saw a lot to cringe at last night. He threw a lot of hangers and got away with it all night long.

Oh I agree, there's lots to work on, but it's a pretty good starting point.

No denying the guy has natural talent, and it will be interesting to see to what extent he can harness it under Cooper.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:43 AM
Oh I agree, there's lots to work on, but it's a pretty good starting point.

No denying the guy has natural talent, and it will be interesting to see to what extent he can harness it under Cooper.
He seemed to get by it after a rough first few innings. I thought Miggy was going to set the dugout on fire after missing some of the rolling, belt-high breaking balls he got.

hawkjt
08-05-2010, 08:46 AM
And where do you get off talking like that's a fact? If you like Jackson and the trade, that's fine, but don't talk about him like we picked up Roy Halladay or another proven veteran. The guy's got a track record 800 innings long of sustained mediocrity. 1 win over a team sinking faster than the Titanic doesn't negate that.


Jackson is not mediocre vs AL teams not named the White Sox. Last three years he is now 29-13 vs those teams. With an ERA around 3.8
Those are the teams the Sox need to beat to get to the World Series.

Hudson has 2 wins vs those teams.
Maybe he will turn out to be the real deal,but Jackson has done it already,so we know he can do it. With Hudson,we would only speculate that he can do it.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 08:47 AM
The worst thing about this whole thread is that I'm not even "against" the Jackson/Hudson trade. I'm just still a bit confused by it. Like I said, I'm normally fine with KW's aggressive approach, the only deal he's made in the last few years that instantly made me say "we got played bad" was the Swisher Part II deal. Otherwise, I love KW's aggressive philosophy and I think it does more good than bad.

I'm still just concerned about Jackson, he's expensive and has a long, long track record. If Coop really thinks he can turn him around then he'll be a steal, at this point I'm just very blah on the whole thing.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:50 AM
The worst thing about this whole thread is that I'm not even "against" the Jackson/Hudson trade. I'm just still a bit confused by it. Like I said, I'm normally fine with KW's aggressive approach, the only deal he's made in the last few years that instantly made me say "we got played bad" was the Swisher Part II deal. Otherwise, I love KW's aggressive philosophy and I think it does more good than bad.

I'm still just concerned about Jackson, he's expensive and has a long, long track record. If Coop really thinks he can turn him around then he'll be a steal, at this point I'm just very blah on the whole thing.
Here, here. I'm anti-"Hudson sucks because Josh Fogg sucked!"

doublem23
08-05-2010, 08:50 AM
Jackson is not mediocre vs AL teams not named the White Sox. Last three years he is now 29-13 vs those teams. With an ERA around 3.8
Those are the teams the Sox need to beat to get to the World Series.


OK, so what about the 87 G and 380 IP he had for Tampa Bay (also in the AL) in which he had a ERA north of 5 and a WHIP over 1.6?

The deal is only predicated on Jackson's potential, which we saw a bit of last night, but there's no way you can quote his past, he's just been below average his whole career. 1 good season doesn't mean you've turned the corner, that's why Brady Anderson isn't in the Hall of Fame.

asindc
08-05-2010, 08:51 AM
He seemed to get by it after a rough first few innings. I thought Miggy was going to set the dugout on fire after missing some of the rolling, belt-high breaking balls he got.

I think the reason Miggy missed that first rolling breaker is because he was so concerned about the fastball. That is part of the makeup that makes Jackson's potential so enticing.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 08:52 AM
I think the reason Miggy missed that first rolling breaker is because he was so concerned about the fastball. That is part of the makeup that makes Jackson's potential so enticing.
I guess. But Jackson's fastball has always been annihilated by MLB hitters. It's not a great pitch.

asindc
08-05-2010, 09:00 AM
Successful how? Yes, 2005 was wonderful. Absolutely fantastic. Beyond that? How many division titles? How many trips to the ALCS? Not very many. They did a very good job of staying not terrible for a lot of years, staying a few games above .500 or close to it.

Edit: tell me, what specifically about Daniel Hudson gives you pause?

I agree with you on the general assessment that each transaction should be viewed in its totality, finances included, to reach an honest appraisal of the move. But by your definition, "staying not terrible" is what all but maybe five or six other organizations have done since KW has been GM. I think the KW/Ozzie management team has done a bit more than just not be terrible.

By the way, in response to your challenge to Thome25 to list 10 moves that KW has made that have clearly been to the Sox's advantage, here is my list, in no particular order of importance (I left off some that could be included here just to keep it to 10):

1) Letting Maggs walk and signing JD;
2) Signing Jenks;
3) Trading McCarthy for Danks;
4) Signing AJ;
5) Trading for Floyd;
6) Trading for Freddy;
7) Signing Alexei;
8) Trading for Contreras;
9) Trading for Thornton; and
10) Acquiring Rios off waivers.

asindc
08-05-2010, 09:03 AM
I guess. But Jackson's fastball has always been annihilated by MLB hitters. It's not a great pitch.

Jackson gets his fastball crushed because it is too often the only pitch he can throw for a strike. Even a mediocre MLB hitter can sit on a 97-mph fastball if he knows that is the only pitch that will make it into the strike zone.

Domeshot17
08-05-2010, 09:05 AM
My biggest concern is how often Jackson has been traded. You don't generally see elite talent bounce around this much.

Also dislike that he was a former OF first. He just seems to lack pitching instincts. Hopefully AJ can minimize that, but the guy seems to more be a thrower with a blazing heater and a good breaking ball then a pitcher. He missed a lot of locations last night.

It was a nice start for sure, but he could have easily given up 3 or 4 runs and not 1 last night. Hopefully he can keep it up.

asindc
08-05-2010, 09:08 AM
My biggest concern is how often Jackson has been traded. You don't generally see elite talent bounce around this much.

Also dislike that he was a former OF first. He just seems to lack pitching instincts. Hopefully AJ can minimize that, but the guy seems to more be a thrower with a blazing heater and a good breaking ball then a pitcher. He missed a lot of locations last night.

It was a nice start for sure, but he could have easily given up 3 or 4 runs and not 1 last night. Hopefully he can keep it up.

This is actually my biggest concern. I think much of his problems stem from the fact that he did not come through the ranks as a pitcher first and foremost. He doesn't seem to have the mental approach to pitching that might have naturally developed if he had come up as a pitcher. Santos shows signs of this as well, but as a reliever who pitches only one or two innings at a time, he can get away with that more than Jackson pitching as a starter can.

hawkjt
08-05-2010, 09:10 AM
OK, so what about the 87 G and 380 IP he had for Tampa Bay (also in the AL) in which he had a ERA north of 5 and a WHIP over 1.6?

The deal is only predicated on Jackson's potential, which we saw a bit of last night, but there's no way you can quote his past, he's just been below average his whole career. 1 good season doesn't mean you've turned the corner, that's why Brady Anderson isn't in the Hall of Fame.


He broke into the league as a 22 yr old starter...even the great ones have to learn how to pitch in the big leagues. My point is that as a 24,25,and 26 year old starter he has done well vs AL teams. So you are going to ignore the last 3 years of evidence,to cling to his performance as a 22,23 yr old 4 and 5 years ago to label him mediocre? Didn't Cliff Lee stink his first couple of years also? How many guys are lites out from day one as a starter in this league?

As far as being traded, Leyland said Jackson's move by the tigers was strictly a salary dump,mandated by their management. They got a #1 pick in Scherzer in return. Both are quality arms.

balke
08-05-2010, 09:18 AM
My take: Hudson is going to be solid #3 for many years cheap.

Kenny looked at his first couple starts - and sees he's going to take time to adjust to the bigs. If the Sox miss the playoffs - and Kenny didn't acquire an experienced 5th starter - he'd possibly get fired.

Jackson is the safe bet to help this team now - and his arm makes him useful in the playoffs in case a starter comes out and just doesn't have his best stuff.

I like the move short term. Even if Jackson succeeds - he IS expensive. I think short term this is the win now move. Hudson will be a "lose" trade for Kenny I think - but it'll be a win if the Sox win another WS title.

Harry Chappas
08-05-2010, 09:21 AM
No. That's stupid. They've proven time and time again they refuse to bring pitchers up and develop them, while also spending valuable resources on guys like Mark Teahen.

That's company line bull****. Take off the rose-colored sunglasses and look at what Hudson offers.

What's the statute of limitations on pointing to Teahen as evidence that the organization doesn't know their ass from their elbow? I didn't like the extension either, but mistakes are made by every team, every year. I'd say the good deals KW has worked out far outweigh the bad. Furthermore, I'm not sure when all is said and done that Teahen won't provide some value.

As for Jackson/Hudson, I think we fans were fooled into thinking Hudson was the second-coming. True, he was our top ranked prospect, but overall, not so much. He kind of reminded me of Brandon McCarthy in that respect.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 09:22 AM
He broke into the league as a 22 yr old starter...even the great ones have to learn how to pitch in the big leagues. My point is that as a 24,25,and 26 year old starter he has done well vs AL teams. So you are going to ignore the last 3 years of evidence,to cling to his performance as a 22,23 yr old 4 and 5 years ago to label him mediocre? Didn't Cliff Lee stink his first couple of years also? How many guys are lites out from day one as a starter in this league?

As far as being traded, Leyland said Jackson's move by the tigers was strictly a salary dump,mandated by their management. They got a #1 pick in Scherzer in return. Both are quality arms.

If I'm clinging to his stats when he was a 22-year-old, you're still essentially clinging to 1 year (when he pitched in a gigantic ballpark, I might add). This season he's now had what? 3 starts against the AL? OK. And his 2008 still isn't that great, mid-4 ERA, WHIP over 1.5, lots of walks, decreasing Ks...

Meh. :shrug: Nice project for Coop, just seems steep for his pricetag.

asindc
08-05-2010, 09:23 AM
My take: Hudson is going to be solid #3 for many years cheap.

Kenny looked at his first couple starts - and sees he's going to take time to adjust to the bigs. If the Sox miss the playoffs - and Kenny didn't acquire an experienced 5th starter - he'd possibly get fired.

Jackson is the safe bet to help this team now - and his arm makes him useful in the playoffs in case a starter comes out and just doesn't have his best stuff.

I like the move short term. Even if Jackson succeeds - he IS expensive. I think short term this is the win now move. Hudson will be a "lose" trade for Kenny I think - but it'll be a win if the Sox win another WS title.

I would call it a win even if they "only" win the AL pennant but lose the WS, as I don't think either would have happened with Hudson as the 5th starter. Jackson definitely, IMO, gives the Sox a better chance to make the playoffs.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 09:24 AM
As for Jackson/Hudson, I think we fans were fooled into thinking Hudson was the second-coming. True, he was our top ranked prospect, but overall, not so much. He kind of reminded me of Brandon McCarthy in that respect.

Who the hell has said that? The nicest thing anyone has said about Hudson on these boards has been he might top out as a 3rd starter on a good team.

Harry Chappas
08-05-2010, 09:27 AM
OK, so what about the 87 G and 380 IP he had for Tampa Bay (also in the AL) in which he had a ERA north of 5 and a WHIP over 1.6?

The deal is only predicated on Jackson's potential, which we saw a bit of last night, but there's no way you can quote his past, he's just been below average his whole career. 1 good season doesn't mean you've turned the corner, that's why Brady Anderson isn't in the Hall of Fame.

I may be wrong, but isn't Jackson only 27? He was brought up when he was pretty damn young and struggled, but had a good year with Detroit last season. This season, in Arizona, he was marginal (at best), but that may have been more mental than anything. I would liken his early struggles to those of Gavin Floyd.

balke
08-05-2010, 09:32 AM
OK, so what about the 87 G and 380 IP he had for Tampa Bay (also in the AL) in which he had a ERA north of 5 and a WHIP over 1.6?

The deal is only predicated on Jackson's potential, which we saw a bit of last night, but there's no way you can quote his past, he's just been below average his whole career. 1 good season doesn't mean you've turned the corner, that's why Brady Anderson isn't in the Hall of Fame.

I see Jackson and think of Garland. It took a lot of drilling in his head what he needed to do - and Coop got him there. Garland's ERA when good was deceiving. He'd have a terrible 11ER in 2IP and follow it up with 7 QS.

Jackson stays low in the zone with good D behind him - I see good things.

wsgdf
08-05-2010, 09:33 AM
Short term: Jackson should pitch more innings here on out than Hudson would have. Even if Hudson is as effective as Jackson, Hudson would most likely have some inning limitations put on him because of his age as well as the fact that Ozzie would be more comfortable letting Jackson battle through rough innings.

Taking innings away from the bullpen in favor of your starters is pretty damn important in August and September with a ton of games left against the Twins, Tigers, Red Sox and Yankees. Especially when the Central again seems destined to come down to the final few days.

Also, there will now definitely be no four man rotation in September unless someone gets injured.

Long term: $8 million dollars is not a huge amount to gamble on someone who probably has the upside to be worth at least twice that. Shoot, fangraphs says he's been worth $8.7 million this year already just by being an innings eater.

munchman33
08-05-2010, 09:37 AM
Jackson gets his fastball crushed because it is too often the only pitch he can throw for a strike. Even a mediocre MLB hitter can sit on a 97-mph fastball if he knows that is the only pitch that will make it into the strike zone.

Ding ding ding.

He got his slider over yesterday, making him incredibly difficult to hit. He even hung a few in the zone with no consequences. No single pitch is effective if it's the only one you're throwing for strikes. But Jackson's fastball is so daunting that any other pitch with a modicum of success causes frustration for batters.

wsgdf
08-05-2010, 09:39 AM
This is actually my biggest concern. I think much of his problems stem from the fact that he did not come through the ranks as a pitcher first and foremost. He doesn't seem to have the mental approach to pitching that might have naturally developed if he had come up as a pitcher. Santos shows signs of this as well, but as a reliever who pitches only one or two innings at a time, he can get away with that more than Jackson pitching as a starter can.

When was he an OF, in high school? He's been pitching professionally since he was 17 and was good enough prospect that the Dodgers brought him up to start three games in the big leagues as a 19 year old. That's a lot different than Santos.

wsgdf
08-05-2010, 09:41 AM
I see Jackson and think of Garland. It took a lot of drilling in his head what he needed to do - and Coop got him there. Garland's ERA when good was deceiving. He'd have a terrible 11ER in 2IP and follow it up with 7 QS.

Jackson stays low in the zone with good D behind him - I see good things.

Good post. Jackson gave up 10 ER in 2 innings in Colorado followed by 8 ER in 4 innings at Wrigley. Those two starts are where most of the damage was done to Jackson's ERA.

hawkjt
08-05-2010, 09:42 AM
Listening to Coop this morning on M & H, he said he had been watching video on Jackson for 3 years. He also said that when looking at him this year at Az., it was pretty easy to see some bad mechanical habits he had fallen into...but then quickly added that spotting the flaws is the easy part,but getting the pitcher to correct them is much harder.

So, as he said, it is a work in progress. He thought he did do a good job addressing some of the flaws last nite,which probably helped his command. Coop sounded cautiously optimistic that Jackson can be solid for the Sox yet this year.

He was also excited about Sale. Anxious to see him in action.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 09:45 AM
I may be wrong, but isn't Jackson only 27? He was brought up when he was pretty damn young and struggled, but had a good year with Detroit last season. This season, in Arizona, he was marginal (at best), but that may have been more mental than anything. I would liken his early struggles to those of Gavin Floyd.

He is still young, so there is, of course, time, but that still doesn't change the fact that he's bounced around 5 different organizations now. Yeah, he had a great season in 2009 but the annals of baseball history are littered with guys who flashed in the pan for one season. Obviously, the Sox scouting department and coaching staff have done their homework, but I still have this nagging feeling that Jackson is a big, big gamble.

As for the Floyd comparisons, it's not entirely true, Floyd was considered one of the top pitching prospects straight out of high school; he was drafted 4th overall by the Phillies in 2001 and just never developed there. Jackson, came out of nowhere and sparkled in the Dodgers lower-level orgaization, but I don't think he was ever considered to be the "pitcher" Floyd was, he's always been an unpolished gem.

I see Jackson and think of Garland. It took a lot of drilling in his head what he needed to do - and Coop got him there. Garland's ERA when good was deceiving. He'd have a terrible 11ER in 2IP and follow it up with 7 QS.

Jackson stays low in the zone with good D behind him - I see good things.

And there's certainly no reason Jackson can't be successful here, like I said, I'm not "anti-Jackson," I'm just more perplexed by the deal. I'm not sure Hudson will ever become a better pitcher than Edwin, but I think we did give up a lot of payroll flexibility for a guy that's been a notorious underachiever throughout his career.

Zakath
08-05-2010, 09:45 AM
The jury should still be well into deliberations at this point.

The talent is definitely there, as evidenced by last night. He can throw strikes, he's got velocity, and he's not afraid to go after hitters. He also didn't fall apart when he gave up hits or when his defense let him down a bit.

He also missed spots and didn't really get another pitch over other than his fastball consistently.

Even though he's been in the majors for 8 years (only 4 as a full-time starter), he's still pretty raw. He's a hurler, but the question is can he become a true pitcher? We probably won't see enough evidence of that this year, but I'd like to see how different he is around Labor Day, when he's been here for a month, vs. now. Coop apparently saw something he liked, started to make some minor adjustments, and we got a quality start out of him. By Labor Day, he'll have had 6 starts (actually, if the rotation holds, he will pitch on Labor Day in Detroit):

8/9 at Baltimore
8/14 vs. Detroit
8/20 at Kansas City
8/26 vs. Baltimore
8/31 at Cleveland
9/6 at Detroit

though he's going to miss both the Yankees and Red Sox. If he gets us 4 quality starts out of that, I'll be ecstatic.

Jurr
08-05-2010, 09:51 AM
It was interesting to watch on BBTN that Jackson was already making mechanical changes to his delivery, as it pertained to his plant leg.

Coop is working his magic already.

Iwritecode
08-05-2010, 09:53 AM
My biggest concern is how often Jackson has been traded. You don't generally see elite talent bounce around this much.

I don't think being traded is necessarily a bad thing. Looking at the other side, that means there's a lot of team's that wanted him at one point.

Look at how many times Cliff Lee has been traded the past couple years.

Not that I'm comparing Jackson to Lee...

asindc
08-05-2010, 10:01 AM
When was he an OF, in high school? He's been pitching professionally since he was 17 and was good enough prospect that the Dodgers brought him up to start three games in the big leagues as a 19 year old. That's a lot different than Santos.

You are right, they are two different situations, but I do think if Jackson was a pitcher right from the very beginning (Sudcliffe mentioned last night that the Dodgers drafted him with OF in mind), then he might have a more refined approach by now, though 8+ years is a long time to still have rough edges, I will acknowledge.

Hitmen77
08-05-2010, 10:37 AM
As Doub said, the move still makes little to no sense. He left way, way too many balls up in the zone for my liking, and I can see why, despite his velocity, his fastball has always been teed off on by major league hitters. Threw some good sliders tonight, but I'm not sold on the offspeed stuff.

Also, who the hell were 3/4 of those guys in the Tigers lineup?

3/4? :scratch: Well, Jackson, Cabrera, Damon and Inge made up almost half of their lineup and they're not exactly nobodies.

I have concerns about the Jackson trade too. Also, I agree the Tigers are not exactly at full strength 1 through 9. But come on, are we so bent on criticizing a Sox player that we have to exaggerate the weakness of the opponent to make our point?

soxfan1965
08-05-2010, 10:51 AM
Edwin gut gespielt, in seinem ersten Spiel für die Weißen Socken. (sorry if this is bad translation, Edwin was born in and spent 8 years in Germany, pitched well last night for the "Weißen Socken").

goon
08-05-2010, 10:56 AM
As Doub said, the move still makes little to no sense. He left way, way too many balls up in the zone for my liking, and I can see why, despite his velocity, his fastball has always been teed off on by major league hitters. Threw some good sliders tonight, but I'm not sold on the offspeed stuff.

Also, who the hell were 3/4 of those guys in the Tigers lineup?

So because you don't know who they are, they must not count, right? That makes sense.

The Tigers are top 5 or at least league average in pretty much EVERY offense category, so we can all cut the ****, Jackson had a great game, give credit where credit is due.

Austin Jackson
Miguel Cabrera
Brandon Boesch
Johnny Damon
Brandon Inge

Those guys are all pretty good, I mean Brandon Inge is having a pretty good season, didn't he have 3 hits last night?

doublem23
08-05-2010, 11:09 AM
So because you don't know who they are, they must not count, right? That makes sense.

The Tigers are top 5 or at least league average in pretty much EVERY offense category, so we can all cut the ****, Jackson had a great game, give credit where credit is due.

Austin Jackson
Miguel Cabrera
Brandon Boesch
Johnny Damon
Brandon Inge

Those guys are all pretty good, I mean Brandon Inge is having a pretty good season, didn't he have 3 hits last night?

Jackson, Cabrera, and Damon are the only guys worth a damn; Boesch started the year nice but he's slugging well under .300 since July 1. He's hit a wall in a major way. Inge has been around forever, but that doesn't make him any good. He's having one of the better years of his career... with an OPS+ that is just barely over 100.

Simple fact, when you're 4th, 5th, and 6th best hitter in your lineup is Peralta, Inge, and Boesch... you've got some problems.

The Tigers aren't sinking like a rock by accident. They're just bad right now.

cards press box
08-05-2010, 11:10 AM
List them.

1. Bobby Jenks (off the waiver wire from L.A. Angels)

2. Dustin Hermanson (free agent from S.F., I think)

3. Carlos Quentin (yes, I know that Chris Carter is a good prospect, but KW was high on Quentin before anyone else was)

4. Esteban Loaiza (free agent from Toronto in 2004)

5. Jose Contreras (acquired from NYY for Loaiza before Loaiza's value dropped like a rock)

6. Juan Uribe (from Colorado for Aaron Miles)

7. Gavin Floyd (from Philly in Freddy Garcia deal)

8. John Danks (from Texas in Brandon McCarthy deal)

9. Alex Rios (off the waiver wire from Toronto)

10. A.J. Pierzynski (free agent from S.F.)

Honorable mention should go to KW's Cuban signees, Alexei Ramirez and Dayan Viciedo and to Shingo Takatsu as well. The frisbee slider was fun while it lasted.

cards press box
08-05-2010, 11:11 AM
So because you don't know who they are, they must not count, right? That makes sense.

The Tigers are top 5 or at least league average in pretty much EVERY offense category, so we can all cut the ****, Jackson had a great game, give credit where credit is due.

Austin Jackson
Miguel Cabrera
Brandon Boesch
Johnny Damon
Brandon Inge

Those guys are all pretty good, I mean Brandon Inge is having a pretty good season, didn't he have 3 hits last night?

Jhonny Peralta is not a bad hitter, either.

goon
08-05-2010, 11:15 AM
Successful how? Yes, 2005 was wonderful. Absolutely fantastic. Beyond that? How many division titles? How many trips to the ALCS? Not very many. They did a very good job of staying not terrible for a lot of years, staying a few games above .500 or close to it.

Aren't the White Sox ranked 5th or 4th behind the Yankees, Braves and Red Sox for wins over the past 20 years? I would call that successful.

As far as winning the World Series, how many other teams in the AL have won it in the past 20 years? Twins 19 years ago, the Blue Jays went back to back 92-93, the Yankees about 50 times, Red Sox twice, Angels in 2002.

The A's, Rangers, Mariners, Tigers, Royals, Indians, Orioles, and Rays haven't won anything and the Twins and Jays did it nearly 2 decades ago.

They've won four division titles, that's pretty good.

I don't know what's considered successful, and you can definitely spin it anyway you want which makes it a difficult topic to argue about.

goon
08-05-2010, 11:26 AM
Jackson, Cabrera, and Damon are the only guys worth a damn; Boesch started the year nice but he's slugging well under .300 since July 1. He's hit a wall in a major way. Inge has been around forever, but that doesn't make him any good. He's having one of the better years of his career... with an OPS+ that is just barely over 100.

Simple fact, when you're 4th, 5th, and 6th best hitter in your lineup is Peralta, Inge, and Boesch... you've got some problems.

The Tigers aren't sinking like a rock by accident. They're just bad right now.

It's kind of hard to play both sides. You can't say Brennan Boesch is playing poorly now so he doesn't count as a good hitter, but even if Brandon Inge is having a good season, his career has been average, so he doesn't count.

Are we going to start going week by week, game by game, at-bat by at-bat? Right now Vizquel is playing well, but before this season was pretty much an afterthought, so is he not a good hitter?

Their lineup is pretty good, not awful, Jackson had a good game.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 11:28 AM
It's kind of hard to play both sides. You can't say Brennan Boesch is playing poorly now so he doesn't count as a good hitter, but even if Brandon Inge is having a good season, his career has been average, so he doesn't count.

Brandon Inge's career has not been average. He's just ****ty.

balke
08-05-2010, 11:35 AM
I'm not sure Hudson will ever become a better pitcher than Edwin, but I think we did give up a lot of payroll flexibility for a guy that's been a notorious underachiever throughout his career.


Could be preparation for Chris Sale as well. He wants to pitch next year it seems like. Kenny might have wanted Hudson to get his due and go pitch somewhere where he can be utilized - but not compete with the Sox.

Meanwhile - Sale can pitch right out of the gate next season and there will not be a question about having 2 youngsters at 5 in the rotation if Garcia doesn't come back and another pitcher is dealt. Or now they have one young guy in the minors for depth if they go with Peavy/Buehrle/Floyd/Danks/Jackson.

Edit: bad math

Now that I see that - makes me think someone is getting dealt this offseason.

voodoochile
08-05-2010, 11:36 AM
Ding ding ding.

He got his slider over yesterday, making him incredibly difficult to hit. He even hung a few in the zone with no consequences. No single pitch is effective if it's the only one you're throwing for strikes. But Jackson's fastball is so daunting that any other pitch with a modicum of success causes frustration for batters.

Wonder if the fact he froze some guys or got them swinging and missing or making weak contact even on hangers was that he's corrected the pitch tipping issues too or at least mitigated it. Maybe the guys who do know him were looking for those clues and not seeing them or thinking they were seeing a fastball and getting the slider.

goon
08-05-2010, 11:37 AM
Brandon Inge's career has not been average. He's just ****ty.

Ugh

average=
ok
adequate
ordinary

He's not awful, he's average. Like I said.

There have been season's when he's been awful, but I've seen him play well and carry that team. He's putting together a respectable season.

Domeshot17
08-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Could be preparation for Chris Sale as well. He wants to pitch next year it seems like. Kenny might have wanted Hudson to get his due and go pitch somewhere where he can be utilized - but not compete with the Sox.

Meanwhile - Sale can pitch right out of the gate next season and there will not be a question about having 2 youngsters at 4 and 5 in the rotation. And no competition for that 5th spot if Garcia comes back.

But if you plan on having Sale in the rotation next year, who is now the odd man out:

Peavy-Buehrle-Danks-Floyd-Jackson (making about 50 mil total)-Sale-Maybe Freddy?

Danks has not signed long term yet, but if you can sign Danks for around 7-8 per for 3-4 years, is it Buehrle? Cost wise I would have to say yes. Is it Jackson in the offseason?

I really like Buehrle, but if you can lock up Peavy-Danks-Floyd-Jackson-Sale for the next 3-4 years, you are talking Peavy being the oldest guy in that rotation, I mean that is just sick. Again, I am a Buehrle fan (see my sig that has not changed in 3 years). That said, hes moving towards the middle 30s, not even on pace to strike out 100 guys this year, giving up a TON of hits. maybe now is the time to trade him while his value is still high.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 11:39 AM
Ugh

average=
ok
adequate
ordinary

He's not awful, he's average. Like I said.

There have been season's when he's been awful, but I've seen him play well and carry that team. He's putting together a respectable season.

No he's not, he's actually a very bad hitter.

Career slash: .238/.308/.396

Bad. He somehow turned 2 averageish years in 2004-2005 into sticking around for another 5 years. Remarkable.

Domeshot17
08-05-2010, 11:44 AM
No he's not, he's actually a very bad hitter.

Career slash: .238/.308/.396

Bad. He somehow turned 2 averageish years in 2004-2005 into sticking around for another 5 years. Remarkable.

He has stuck around for 3 reasons: He shows some power, he can play mutiple positions, he can play mutiple positions very very well.

Zisk77
08-05-2010, 11:46 AM
I don't think that's right. Jackson's not Sidd Finch. There have been a lot of guys in MLB with his fastball/slider combination. Most have been in the bullpen -- and, might I add, elite bullpen pitchers.

Listen, I'm happy we won, I'm happy he walked one and only allowed one run. But I saw a lot to cringe at last night. He threw a lot of hangers and got away with it all night long.


He also threw some good change ups last night...4 of them that I remember.

1. A good one with 2 strikes to Kelly, unfortunately Kelly was badly fooled and out front and rolled it off the 1b bag for a single.

2. Threw one to Peralta in his second at bat that was chopped foul.

3. Buried one in dirt to Damon

4. Struck Damon out with best change of night.

I expect the change will become a bigger pitch for him in a sox uniform as it seems it does for most sox pitchers.

True he got away with some hangers, but if you are honest with yourself Danks, Beurhle, and Floyd usually get away with a few a game themselves.

Jackson will probably continue to get away with more mistakes than others because hitters have to cheat more on his fb.

Moses_Scurry
08-05-2010, 11:49 AM
But if you plan on having Sale in the rotation next year, who is now the odd man out:

Peavy-Buehrle-Danks-Floyd-Jackson (making about 50 mil total)-Sale-Maybe Freddy?

Danks has not signed long term yet, but if you can sign Danks for around 7-8 per for 3-4 years, is it Buehrle? Cost wise I would have to say yes. Is it Jackson in the offseason?

I really like Buehrle, but if you can lock up Peavy-Danks-Floyd-Jackson-Sale for the next 3-4 years, you are talking Peavy being the oldest guy in that rotation, I mean that is just sick. Again, I am a Buehrle fan (see my sig that has not changed in 3 years). That said, hes moving towards the middle 30s, not even on pace to strike out 100 guys this year, giving up a TON of hits. maybe now is the time to trade him while his value is still high.

Sale is in the minors until Peavy gets hurt. There is no way Kenny will be able to rely on Peavy having a healthy 2011 after the rare injury.

Thome25
08-05-2010, 11:50 AM
But if you plan on having Sale in the rotation next year, who is now the odd man out:

Peavy-Buehrle-Danks-Floyd-Jackson (making about 50 mil total)-Sale-Maybe Freddy?

Danks has not signed long term yet, but if you can sign Danks for around 7-8 per for 3-4 years, is it Buehrle? Cost wise I would have to say yes. Is it Jackson in the offseason?

I really like Buehrle, but if you can lock up Peavy-Danks-Floyd-Jackson-Sale for the next 3-4 years, you are talking Peavy being the oldest guy in that rotation, I mean that is just sick. Again, I am a Buehrle fan (see my sig that has not changed in 3 years). That said, hes moving towards the middle 30s, not even on pace to strike out 100 guys this year, giving up a TON of hits. maybe now is the time to trade him while his value is still high.

I posted this in another thread and I'll say it again while there's a strong possibility that Buehrle would be the odd man out, IMHO there's a stronger possibilty that either Danks or EJ are gone after this season.

Freddy is gone no matter what. But, I believe KW has been making overtures to sign Danks to a multi-year deal and he keeps turning it down.

If the Sox miss the playoffs or bow out early, IMO we may see KW sell high on Danks in a blockbuster if he can't get him to sign that multi-year deal. Either that or in this same scenario you'll see us flip EJ again (if we miss the playoffs or bow out early.) if he pitches well.

goon
08-05-2010, 11:59 AM
No he's not, he's actually a very bad hitter.

Career slash: .238/.308/.396

Bad. He somehow turned 2 averageish years in 2004-2005 into sticking around for another 5 years. Remarkable.

Career OPS: .704

According to Bill James... AVERAGE

Should we open a Brandon Inge thread?

Coops4Aces
08-05-2010, 12:01 PM
Career OPS: .704

According to Bill James... AVERAGE

Should we open a Brandon Inge thread?

Who is Bill James?

.704 is wayyyy below average.

doublem23
08-05-2010, 12:03 PM
Career OPS: .704

According to Bill James... AVERAGE

Should we open a Brandon Inge thread?

Career OPS+ = 85

Below Average. Well below average for a guy who gets over 500 PA every season. I'm sorry, there's no way anyone could consider Brandon Inge anything other than flat-out bad. BAD.

I'm guessing an OPS of .704 is average across the board of all-time baseball stats, but not in this era.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 12:23 PM
Jackson gets his fastball crushed because it is too often the only pitch he can throw for a strike. Even a mediocre MLB hitter can sit on a 97-mph fastball if he knows that is the only pitch that will make it into the strike zone.

Ding ding ding.

He got his slider over yesterday, making him incredibly difficult to hit. He even hung a few in the zone with no consequences. No single pitch is effective if it's the only one you're throwing for strikes. But Jackson's fastball is so daunting that any other pitch with a modicum of success causes frustration for batters.
I agree with the notion that his fastball has been hit because it's all he can get over. But his fastball is clearly not a "daunting pitch" when you look at his pitch type values (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1841&position=P#pitchvalues) over at Fangraphs. He has clearly gotten better of late, and the guys at Fangraphs are fans of his increased groundball rate.

So because you don't know who they are, they must not count, right? That makes sense.

The Tigers are top 5 or at least league average in pretty much EVERY offense category, so we can all cut the ****, Jackson had a great game, give credit where credit is due.

Austin Jackson
Miguel Cabrera
Brandon Boesch
Johnny Damon
Brandon Inge

Those guys are all pretty good, I mean Brandon Inge is having a pretty good season, didn't he have 3 hits last night?
Jesus. I know who they are. I made an approximation. I'm not discounting Jackson, just making note of the fact that Will Rhymes (?) was their no. 2 hitter and that, well, that sucks for the Tigers. He makes Chris Getz look like Matt Stairs.
1. Bobby Jenks (off the waiver wire from L.A. Angels)

2. Dustin Hermanson (free agent from S.F., I think)

3. Carlos Quentin (yes, I know that Chris Carter is a good prospect, but KW was high on Quentin before anyone else was)

4. Esteban Loaiza (free agent from Toronto in 2004)

5. Jose Contreras (acquired from NYY for Loaiza before Loaiza's value dropped like a rock)

6. Juan Uribe (from Colorado for Aaron Miles)

7. Gavin Floyd (from Philly in Freddy Garcia deal)

8. John Danks (from Texas in Brandon McCarthy deal)

9. Alex Rios (off the waiver wire from Toronto)

10. A.J. Pierzynski (free agent from S.F.)

Honorable mention should go to KW's Cuban signees, Alexei Ramirez and Dayan Viciedo and to Shingo Takatsu as well. The frisbee slider was fun while it lasted.
To you and asindc -- I agree. I just wanted to see Thome25 furnish any sort of evidence to back up what the hell he was saying.

balke
08-05-2010, 12:33 PM
I agree with the notion that his fastball has been hit because it's all he can get over. But his fastball is clearly not a "daunting pitch" when you look at his pitch type values (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1841&position=P#pitchvalues) over at Fangraphs. He has clearly gotten better of late, and the guys at Fangraphs are fans of his increased groundball rate.

THANK YOU FOR THAT LINK! I was looking for a place to find pitch type values last week to no avail. The rabbit hole of stats just got that much deeper.

Thome25
08-05-2010, 01:05 PM
To you and asindc -- I agree. I just wanted to see Thome25 furnish any sort of evidence to back up what the hell he was saying.

Man sometimes with some of the things you post you're just begging to get called out. Evidence? are you ****ing serious?

Talk about the epitome of condescending.....you honestly wanted me to spell it out for you so you could "test" my knowledge and to try and see if I understood what I was posting?

You knew what my point was. KW makes a **** ton more good deals than bad ones and to dwell on guys like Kotsay is asinine.

The Sox are one of the more well-run organizations of the last 20 years which covers KW's entire tenure as a baseball executive.

If I had more time I would've called upon some of the same deals those other posters did. Thank you to those of you who did.

munchman33
08-05-2010, 01:11 PM
I agree with the notion that his fastball has been hit because it's all he can get over. But his fastball is clearly not a "daunting pitch" when you look at his pitch type values (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1841&position=P#pitchvalues) over at Fangraphs. He has clearly gotten better of late, and the guys at Fangraphs are fans of his increased groundball rate.



If you concede that his fastball is less effective because he didn't get anything else over, then you have to agree that's dramatically affected the wFB numbers, correct? The figure is based on what's leading to runs, and his fastball is getting hit because it's all he threw that was able to be hit.

munchman33
08-05-2010, 01:13 PM
Man sometimes with some of the things you post you're just begging to get called out. Evidence? are you ****ing serious?

Talk about the epitome of condescending.....you honestly wanted me to spell it out for you so you could "test" my knowledge and to try and see if I understood what I was posting?

You knew what my point was. KW makes a **** ton more good deals than bad ones and to dwell on guys like Kotsay is asinine.

The Sox are one of the more well-run organizations of the last 20 years which covers KW's entire tenure as a baseball executive.

If I had more time I would've called upon some of the same deals those other posters did. Thank you to those of you who did.

Thome my recollection tells me Kenny makes some bonehead moves too and it's probably closer to even. I happen to like this trade, but I've disliked MANY of his deals and been right. I don't think Craig's attacking you, I think he just doesn't agree with you. If you went back and looked like he's asking you, your opinion might change.

Domeshot17
08-05-2010, 01:16 PM
Man sometimes with some of the things you post you're just begging to get called out. Evidence? are you ****ing serious?

Talk about the epitome of condescending.....you honestly wanted me to spell it out for you so you could "test" my knowledge and to try and see if I understood what I was posting?

You knew what my point was. KW makes a **** ton more good deals than bad ones and to dwell on guys like Kotsay is asinine.

The Sox are one of the more well-run organizations of the last 20 years which covers KW's entire tenure as a baseball executive.

If I had more time I would've called upon some of the same deals those other posters did. Thank you to those of you who did.

I don't know, Jury is still out. If we miss the playoffs or get bounced in round 1 because the offense was a no show, Kenny failing to get a legitimate DH is going to hurt. Giving Mark Kotsay 300-400 ABs in a year or more is just nuts, yet we are doing it.

Tragg
08-05-2010, 02:28 PM
He simply overpaid for Jackson. He has a big contract, having a bad year on a terrible team. You can pick up that kind of player at a bargain price. Williams paid his best pitching prospect PLUS another prospect. That's not good bargaining. And another trade with Arizona.

Williams just hasn't been sharp in his trades:

Cunningham-Richar- terrible
Quentin - Carter- Excellent
Young for essentially Flowers - not good
Allen for Pena- meh; Allen may not amount to anything, but Pena is a middle reliever and nothing more.
So with Arizona it's 1-2-1. Not including Jackson

The other recents:
3 top prospects for Swisher - awful
Swisher for Marquez and Betemet - awful
4 pitchers for Peavy- this one was well conceived, and should turn out well if peavy will get off of the disabled list.


I maintain he's better at FAs, small deals, etc than he is at executing major trades. Not only is he better, he excels at finding players on the cheap who turn out to be hits.
And he's emphasized pitching since the second he took over, and that's kept the Sox above average for the most part during his tenure.

munchman33
08-05-2010, 02:49 PM
He simply overpaid for Jackson. He has a big contract, having a bad year on a terrible team. You can pick up that kind of player at a bargain price. Williams paid his best pitching prospect PLUS another prospect. That's not good bargaining. And another trade with Arizona.

Williams just hasn't been sharp in his trades:

Cunningham-Richar- terrible
Quentin - Carter- Excellent
Young for essentially Flowers - not good
Allen for Pena- meh; Allen may not amount to anything, but Pena is a middle reliever and nothing more.
So with Arizona it's 1-2-1. Not including Jackson

The other recents:
3 top prospects for Swisher - awful
Swisher for Marquez and Betemet - awful
4 pitchers for Peavy- this one was well conceived, and should turn out well if peavy will get off of the disabled list.


I maintain he's better at FAs, small deals, etc than he is at executing major trades. Not only is he better, he excels at finding players on the cheap who turn out to be hits.
And he's emphasized pitching since the second he took over, and that's kept the Sox above average for the most part during his tenure.

You can't pickup a mid-twenties starter with a 98 MPH fastball for nothing, that's asinine. The contract is in the discussion when it comes to value, but it doesn't change the fact that he's a hot commodity in baseball. I know people are upset about Hudson going with the way he was hyped up, but you cannot make the argument he was more valuable due to talent, he's a pretty standard B prospect. It's Jackson's contract more than anything else which made the deal possible. Arizona needed to shed payroll. Otherwise, the price would have been a lot higher.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 04:04 PM
Man sometimes with some of the things you post you're just begging to get called out. Evidence? are you ****ing serious?

Talk about the epitome of condescending.....you honestly wanted me to spell it out for you so you could "test" my knowledge and to try and see if I understood what I was posting?

You knew what my point was. KW makes a **** ton more good deals than bad ones and to dwell on guys like Kotsay is asinine.

The Sox are one of the more well-run organizations of the last 20 years which covers KW's entire tenure as a baseball executive.

If I had more time I would've called upon some of the same deals those other posters did. Thank you to those of you who did.
Considering your extremely broad, elementary assessment of Hudson, I was seeing what your examples were. KW makes some good deals, some bad ones. He gives up value at times when it's completely unnecessary.

Craig Grebeck
08-05-2010, 04:08 PM
If you concede that his fastball is less effective because he didn't get anything else over, then you have to agree that's dramatically affected the wFB numbers, correct? The figure is based on what's leading to runs, and his fastball is getting hit because it's all he threw that was able to be hit.

I can reason with that. Good point.

goon
08-05-2010, 06:53 PM
Career OPS+ = 85

Below Average. Well below average for a guy who gets over 500 PA every season. I'm sorry, there's no way anyone could consider Brandon Inge anything other than flat-out bad. BAD.

I'm guessing an OPS of .704 is average across the board of all-time baseball stats, but not in this era.

Yeah, that's fair. His career OPS certainly wasn't a best way to describe him as a hitter, but look at it this way. Since he has become a full-time position player for the Tigers his OPS+, from season to season look like this: 109, 100, 98, 79, 76, 86, 104. That's 4 average seasons, one at 86 and two very below average.

The guy isn't Cezar Izturis or something, he's okay. He has above average power, but SO's a lot, whatever, that was never the point.

The point was that you can't have it both ways. If Brennen Boesch can be evaluated as being bad because of his poor performance in July, then Brandon Inge should be judged on how he has played this season, what he has done in the past shouldn't come into it.

I understand the Tigers aren't the Yankees or Rays, but they are not horrible, they have some talent. Jackson should get credit for the win.

Hopefully, Edwin Jackson can get the Sox a couple of wins against Baltimore and Detroit before he faces a very good lineup in Minnesota.

JermaineDye05
08-05-2010, 07:20 PM
I really really like our rotation next year if Peavy is able to come back. You're talking about Edwin as your #5 starter. He's gotta pitch well more than once before I call Coop a genius again though.

canOcorn
08-05-2010, 08:01 PM
The point was that you can't have it both ways. If Brennen Boesch can be evaluated as being bad because of his poor performance in July, then Brandon Inge should be judged on how he has played this season, what he has done in the past shouldn't come into it.



I think the point is Inge has been below average for years and Boesch has a three month career. He was a B prospect that tore it up for 2 months and then the 2nd and 3rd time through the league teams found his huge hole on the inner half against fastballs. He's sucked and will continue to suck until he changes his swing.

I think the most encouraging thing you can take from EJ's start is that he walked one batter, it didn't come until the 8th inning (it was Cabrera to boot) and he was pretty consistently ahead in the count. He should do pretty well if he continues doing that considering the offenses he faces in his up coming starts. I'll stop my bitching about the sacrifices we'll need to make next year due to his salary until those sacrifices happen.

goon
08-05-2010, 08:20 PM
I think the point is Inge has been below average for years and Boesch has a three month career. He was a B prospect that tore it up for 2 months and then the 2nd and 3rd time through the league teams found his huge hole on the inner half against fastballs. He's sucked and will continue to suck until he changes his swing.

Well, the discussion is about if Detroit has a decent lineup. I think they do.

And Brandon Inge is obviously the best 3rd baseman/Catcher of the decade, evar.

kjhanson
08-05-2010, 08:26 PM
He simply overpaid for Jackson. He has a big contract, having a bad year on a terrible team. You can pick up that kind of player at a bargain price. Williams paid his best pitching prospect PLUS another prospect. That's not good bargaining. And another trade with Arizona.

Williams just hasn't been sharp in his trades:

Cunningham-Richar- terrible
Quentin - Carter- Excellent
Young for essentially Flowers - not good
Allen for Pena- meh; Allen may not amount to anything, but Pena is a middle reliever and nothing more.
So with Arizona it's 1-2-1. Not including Jackson

The other recents:
3 top prospects for Swisher - awful
Swisher for Marquez and Betemet - awful
4 pitchers for Peavy- this one was well conceived, and should turn out well if peavy will get off of the disabled list.


First off, your assessment of the Cunningham deal is, well, "terrible". Danny Richar was nothing and Aaron Cunningham is .248/.295/.395 in 210 career at-bats. He's having a decent little season in limited playing time (77 at-bats) but look at the splits. He's hitting .462 off lefties this year and .235 off right-handers. In other words, if he had to play a full season as a starter he's probably more like the .248 line guy. Did Kenny win this one? No. Did he get hosed? No. This trade is entirely insignificant.

It's funny when you do the win loss for trades and say it's 1-2-1. How does the Quentin trade count the same as all the other trades?

I would say:
Cunningham deal: -1 point (just to patronize you; really: -.001 point)
Quentin deal: +5 points
Young deal: - 2 points (at the moment)
Pena deal: +1 point (at the moment)

So when you add them all up, we're pretty far ahead. In baseball, a ten-run win counts the same as a one run victory, but in trades that's the furthest thing from the truth

BadBobbyJenks
08-05-2010, 08:34 PM
First off, your assessment of the Cunningham deal is, well, "terrible". Danny Richar was nothing and Aaron Cunningham is .248/.295/.395 in 210 career at-bats. He's having a decent little season in limited playing time (77 at-bats) but look at the splits. He's hitting .462 off lefties this year and .235 off right-handers. In other words, if he had to play a full season as a starter he's probably more like the .248 line guy. Did Kenny win this one? No. Did he get hosed? No. This trade is entirely insignificant.

It's funny when you do the win loss for trades and say it's 1-2-1. How does the Quentin trade count the same as all the other trades?

I would say:
Cunningham deal: -1 point (just to patronize you; really: -.001 point)
Quentin deal: +5 points
Young deal: - 2 points (at the moment)
Pena deal: +1 point (at the moment)

So when you add them all up, we're pretty far ahead. In baseball, a ten-run win counts the same as a one run victory, but in trades that's the furthest thing from the truth

Well we haven't seen what Carter can do yet, so it is a bit early to give that a +5 (whatever that means)

canOcorn
08-05-2010, 08:37 PM
Well, the discussion is about if Detroit has a decent lineup. I think they do.



I'll disagree that the lineup Detroit put out there last night was decent. They have/had a decent/good lineup when completely healthy. IMO, they were below average/poor at C, 2B, SS, 3B, LF and RF. They had three guys who were average or better. :shrug:

asindc
08-05-2010, 09:03 PM
I'll disagree that the lineup Detroit put out there last night was decent. They have/had a decent/good lineup when completely healthy. IMO, they were below average/poor at C, 2B, SS, 3B, LF and RF. They had three guys who were average or better. :shrug:

Not directed at you as much as the argument that has been going back and forth since yesterday:

So What? Unless anyone here is willing to discount Twinkee victories against sub-par opponents, Jackson's Sox debut matters and is impressive for that reason alone, if nothing else.

doublem23
08-10-2010, 07:40 AM
Another pretty good outing for Edwin, I know he had that one bad inning in the 6th, but otherwise he was effective on the mound. 13 innings in a White So uniform, 2 walks, 13 K. That's huge.

Craig Grebeck
08-10-2010, 07:43 AM
Another pretty good outing for Edwin, I know he had that one bad inning in the 6th, but otherwise he was effective on the mound. 13 innings in a White So uniform, 2 walks, 13 K. That's huge.
It is very encouraging. He got ****ed by his defense last night.

dwitt76
08-10-2010, 07:45 AM
It is very encouraging. He got ****ed by his defense last night.

Dont forgot the offense or lack there of...:whiner:

bigdommer
08-10-2010, 08:38 AM
Young for essentially Flowers - not good


This is a grossly incomplete and inaccurate assessment. First off, Young is a good young player, but lets not make him out to be Willie Mays. In 5 years he has a lower career OPS than Jones and about 10 points up on (gulp) Kotsay. Also in that deal, the Sox were able to off load potentially $6.5MM of a broken down El Duque. The Sox also unloaded Vizcaino's salary, and got cash in the deal. Vazquez was flipped for a back up major league infielder in Lillilbridge, a top prospect in Flowers, a high ceiling electric arm in Santos Rodriguez, and a former first rounder in Jon Gilmore who is playing well in high A ball.

So, Young for "essentially" Flowers is incomplete, and "not good" is inaccurate or at least incomplete. This was part salary dump and part win now on the front end, and restock some of the farm system on the back end. Chris Young was an all star (NL was forced to take a player from Arizona) this year, but he was also absolutely terrible last year. If we get to 2013 and Young makes another all star game, and Flowers/Rodriguez/Gilmore all manage to never make to the bigs, then you can call this a loss. But right now, I think it's a win and at the worst a "wait and see."

Sargeant79
08-10-2010, 12:43 PM
This is a grossly incomplete and inaccurate assessment. First off, Young is a good young player, but lets not make him out to be Willie Mays. In 5 years he has a lower career OPS than Jones and about 10 points up on (gulp) Kotsay. Also in that deal, the Sox were able to off load potentially $6.5MM of a broken down El Duque. The Sox also unloaded Vizcaino's salary, and got cash in the deal. Vazquez was flipped for a back up major league infielder in Lillilbridge, a top prospect in Flowers, a high ceiling electric arm in Santos Rodriguez, and a former first rounder in Jon Gilmore who is playing well in high A ball.

So, Young for "essentially" Flowers is incomplete, and "not good" is inaccurate or at least incomplete. This was part salary dump and part win now on the front end, and restock some of the farm system on the back end. Chris Young was an all star (NL was forced to take a player from Arizona) this year, but he was also absolutely terrible last year. If we get to 2013 and Young makes another all star game, and Flowers/Rodriguez/Gilmore all manage to never make to the bigs, then you can call this a loss. But right now, I think it's a win and at the worst a "wait and see."

Totally agree bigdommer. Let's also add this to the equation...

You also got 3 years of Javier Vazquez in that. Like him or hate him, he still was, at worst, a high strikeout innings eater in 2006 and 2008, and he was really good in 2007. His failures down the stretch in 2008 aside, those kind of pitchers cost talent if you are trying to trade for them.

Anyone calling that trade Chris Young for Tyler Flowers is taking a real narrow view.

balke
08-31-2010, 11:10 PM
Said I'd wait 5 starts to judge. Coop strikes again. Edwin was filthy in this his 5th start - and might be the best pitcher on the team right now. Gotta catch those dang Twins.