PDA

View Full Version : The All-Purpose Catch-All Edwin Jackson Debate Thread.


Thome25
01-06-2011, 09:57 AM
I'm personally sick and tired of opening every thread around here and seeing another debate about Edwin Jackson when the original subject had nothing to do with him.

Whether you love him or hate him, please use this thread to discuss your feelings on the man, the myth, the legend known as Edwin Jackson.

Please direct all Edwin Jackson-related thread hijacks into this discussion.

I'll start the discussion with his salary. Some of you out there seem to think he's overpaid at 8mil next year.

Can someone please compare his salary to the salary of other pitchers with similar stats so we can see where he stands once and for all?

Chez
01-06-2011, 10:08 AM
This thread should be re-named, "Edwin Jackson: The Wrath of Khan." :D:

doublem23
01-06-2011, 10:09 AM
This thread should be re-named, "Edwin Jackson: The Wrath of Khan." :D:

:rolling:

spawn
01-06-2011, 10:12 AM
This thread should be re-named, "Edwin Jackson: The Wrath of Khan." :D:

Brilliant. :thumbsup:

tstrike2000
01-06-2011, 10:19 AM
To all the haters: if there's a better option available than Jackson in or out of the organization for the money, please let us know.

spawn
01-06-2011, 10:20 AM
To all the haters: if there's a better option available than Jackson in or out of the organization for the money, please let us know.

The Haters are wishing Hudson wasn't traded for him, and can't seem to let it go.

DonnieDarko
01-06-2011, 10:26 AM
The Haters are wishing Hudson wasn't traded for him, and can't seem to let it go.

After seeing what he's done in Arizona (albeit, during garbage time for a crappy team), can you blame them? So far it looks like we got hosed.

Rocky Soprano
01-06-2011, 10:26 AM
The Haters are wishing Hudson wasn't traded for him, and can't seem to let it go.

Probably the same ones that were pissed when Brandon McCarthy was traded for Danks.

soltrain21
01-06-2011, 10:31 AM
Probably the same ones that were pissed when Brandon McCarthy was traded for Danks.

Things that aren't comparable. Do you forget how highly regarded Danks was?

LITTLE NELL
01-06-2011, 10:35 AM
If he pitches like he did after we got him last year he will be a steal at 8 million.

russ99
01-06-2011, 10:35 AM
Things that aren't comparable. Do you forget how highly regarded Danks was?

More like Chris Young for Javy Vazquez.

Chris Young looked great the first year with the D-Backs, but hasn't panned out exactly.

Which is what I'm expecting with Hudson, but he has a better chance of pulling a Clayton Richard in the NL.
Some people can't get over that Sox prospects and the top quality prospects for other teams aren't at the same level.

spawn
01-06-2011, 10:36 AM
After seeing what he's done in Arizona (albeit, during garbage time for a crappy team), can you blame them? So far it looks like we got hosed.

I also saw what he did when he was here. In both cases, the sample sizes are too small. It's way to early to say the Sox got hosed.

tstrike2000
01-06-2011, 10:38 AM
After seeing what he's done in Arizona (albeit, during garbage time for a crappy team), can you blame them? So far it looks like we got hosed.

I didn't really understand the trade at the time either, but instead of looking backwards, it's more like is there a better option out there now that he's here? On the free agent market at the moment, I don't see really anyone outside of course trying to trade.

DonnieDarko
01-06-2011, 10:39 AM
I also saw what he did when he was here. In both cases, the sample sizes are too small. It's way to early to say the Sox got hosed.

Oh, no doubt that the jury is out so far. I'm just saying that as things look right now it seems that we didn't get a good deal (upon further reflection, "hosed" was not a good word to use).

I didn't really understand the trade at the time either, but instead of looking backwards, it's more like is there a better option out there now that he's here? On the free agent market at the moment, I don't see really anyone outside of course trying to trade.

Also a good point. I agree with you there: we need all the help that we can get pitching-wise, especially on the starting rotation if Peavy can't come back. I'm honestly surprised that we haven't signed Garcia again at this point. Maybe the Sox are waiting for Arbitration to be done before moving forward with Garcia? That's not likely to happen until February, though...

Hitmen77
01-06-2011, 10:39 AM
I'm not a Jackson-hater and I'm not a "Hudson was garbage based on his 3 starts with us" guy either.

Jackson has had his ups and downs over his career, but I'm cautiously optimistic that he'll do well for us in his contract year in 2011. The thing is, when he's good, he can be really good.

I also think it's silly that people here think Hudson would never have improved over his 3 shakey starts when he first came up with us. 3 starts, and it's set in stone that he'll never amount to more than a 5 IP guy. Of course, now he could be as outstanding as he wants in Arizona and people will just say "it doesn't count because it's the NL". Please, it's still MLB.

Talent-wise for who I would rather have in my rotation for 2011, I would take Jackson over Hudson. Yes, both have question marks, but Jackson does have all-star caliber potential in him and has performed as such at certain times during his career.

However, you can't ignore the impact of his salary on the Sox ability to fill remaining holes in the roster. Sox management has done a great job of expanding payroll to bring in Dunn while keeping Konerko. But, when I hear that the Sox are supposedly at or near their payroll limit and they have one bullpen vacancy even after they pencil in Gregory Infante and Lucas Harell - then you can't help but notice the difference Jackson's salary makes in filling those holes.



This thread should be re-named, "Edwin Jackson: The Wrath of Khan." :D:

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

asindc
01-06-2011, 10:46 AM
This thread should be re-named, "Edwin Jackson: The Wrath of Khan." :D:

:thumbsup: I personally think that Jackson and KW took turns kicking khan's dog.

spawn
01-06-2011, 10:54 AM
However, you can't ignore the impact of his salary on the Sox ability to fill remaining holes in the roster. Sox management has done a great job of expanding payroll to bring in Dunn while keeping Konerko. But, when I hear that the Sox are supposedly at or near their payroll limit and they have one bullpen vacancy even after they pencil in Gregory Infante and Lucas Harell - then you can't help but notice the difference Jackson's salary makes in filling those holes.
Let's be honest: you could say the same thing about Buehrle's and Peavy's salaries. Peavy will be making twice as much as Jackson, and we have no idea what he will be like when he returns. If anyone's salary is having an impact IMO, it's his. I'm not saying I'm against the trade that brought him here, but I'm getting a little tired of Jackson's salary as being the reason the Sox are stretched thin financially.

doublem23
01-06-2011, 11:01 AM
Let's be honest: you could say the same thing about Buehrle's and Peavy's salaries. Peavy will be making twice as much as Jackson, and we have no idea what he will be like when he returns. If anyone's salary is having an impact IMO, it's his. I'm not saying I'm against the trade that brought him here, but I'm getting a little tired of Jackson's salary as being the reason the Sox are stretched thin financially.

Buehrle is kind of a special case because he's meant so much to this team the past 10 years that I think a lot of people can overlook his salary. Plus, even though 2010 was a down year for him, he's still just 1 season removed from a 3.84 ERA, 1.252 WHIP, 213.1 IP season, so it's not like he's had numerous poor years. As for Peavy, yeah, he's getting paid a lot more money but he's also suffered a fluke injury, so the questionable status of his return wasn't exactly easy to see coming.

Jackson, OTOH, has made of a career of being inconsistent and was aquired after we knew Jake may not be 100% next year and Mark was struggling in 2010. I think a lot of people see his acquisition as superfluous spending, considering what we gave up to get him and what we're not able to sign because of him.

spawn
01-06-2011, 11:04 AM
Buehrle is kind of a special case because he's meant so much to this team the past 10 years that I think a lot of people can overlook his salary. Plus, even though 2010 was a down year for him, he's still just 1 season removed from a 3.84 ERA, 1.252 WHIP, 213.1 IP season, so it's not like he's had numerous poor years. As for Peavy, yeah, he's getting paid a lot more money but he's also suffered a fluke injury, so the questionable status of his return wasn't exactly easy to see coming.

Jackson, OTOH, has made of a career of being inconsistent and was aquired after we knew Jake may not be 100% next year and Mark was struggling in 2010. I think a lot of people see his acquisition as superfluous spending, considering what we gave up to get him and what we're not able to sign because of him.
I understand all that, and I also understand the reason people are not happy with Jackson's acquisition. I'm just pointing out his salary isn't the only one that is handicapping the Sox, yet his is the only one anyone seems to focus on.

russ99
01-06-2011, 11:04 AM
Buehrle is kind of a special case because he's meant so much to this team the past 10 years that I think a lot of people can overlook his salary. Plus, even though 2010 was a down year for him, he's still just 1 season removed from a 3.84 ERA, 1.252 WHIP, 213.1 IP season, so it's not like he's had numerous poor years. As for Peavy, yeah, he's getting paid a lot more money but he's also suffered a fluke injury, so the questionable status of his return wasn't exactly easy to see coming.

Jackson, OTOH, has made of a career of being inconsistent and was aquired after we knew Jake may not be 100% next year and Mark was struggling in 2010. I think a lot of people see his acquisition as superfluous spending, considering what we gave up to get him and what we're not able to sign because of him.

The Sox are over $120M in payroll which they've gotten to at only one point in their history, after the World Series title.

Are we really going to gripe about what we're not able to sign?

Jim Shorts
01-06-2011, 11:15 AM
This thread should be re-named, "Edwin Jackson: The Wrath of Khan." :D:

That was well played, Chez

doublem23
01-06-2011, 11:16 AM
Are we really going to gripe about what we're not able to sign?

Since Gregory Infante and Lucas Harrell are projected to open the season in our bullpen... Yes.

russ99
01-06-2011, 11:24 AM
Since Gregory Infante and Lucas Harrell are projected to open the season in our bullpen... Yes.

Do you think Kenny is done? The bullpen will be addressed. May not be the $10M for Soriano some seem to want...

Besides, Infante looks better than the early-mid relief options we've had lately.

At worst Sale can take a prominent role. Cue the whining about wasting him in the pen...

Thome25
01-06-2011, 11:28 AM
Buehrle is kind of a special case because he's meant so much to this team the past 10 years that I think a lot of people can overlook his salary. Plus, even though 2010 was a down year for him, he's still just 1 season removed from a 3.84 ERA, 1.252 WHIP, 213.1 IP season, so it's not like he's had numerous poor years. As for Peavy, yeah, he's getting paid a lot more money but he's also suffered a fluke injury, so the questionable status of his return wasn't exactly easy to see coming.

Jackson, OTOH, has made of a career of being inconsistent and was aquired after we knew Jake may not be 100% next year and Mark was struggling in 2010. I think a lot of people see his acquisition as superfluous spending, considering what we gave up to get him and what we're not able to sign because of him.

For those posters who feel that way, put yourself back in time for a moment if you will...

In 2010, the Sox were playing well in mid-summer. They ripped off an unbelieveable run despite the fact that Buehrle was having a mediocre year.

Then Peavy gets hurt. Combine the Peavy injury with Buehrle's mediorcrity and the fact that all we had to rely on was an extremely inexperienced Hudson and the Sox absolutely had to acquire a veteran starter if they wanted to continue to make a run. EJ was that starter.

EJ pitched pretty well for us in 2010. Why complain?

If KW let the rotation flounder and didn't acquire anyone, there would've been posters complaining about that and about how the Sox are supposedly "cheap".

We can't have it both ways. Either you act like one of the big boys and acquire players when you need them or you sit it out and suck.

doublem23
01-06-2011, 11:28 AM
Do you think Kenny is done? The bullpen will be addressed.

At worst Sale can take a prominent role. Cue the whining about wasting him in the pen...

Yeah, I think he might be because he doesn't have any more money to spend.

And yes, my projection with Infante and Harrell already included Sale in the bullpen.

LH: Thornton, Sale, Harrell

RH: Santos, Crain, Pena, Infante

DumpJerry
01-06-2011, 11:33 AM
This thread should be re-named, "Edwin Jackson: The Wrath of Khan." :D:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NtOfqK5o_Ic/Sjk2qBPVoGI/AAAAAAAAAbc/CKYWAQzR8JY/s320/khan-320x240.jpg
Jackson........you're mine!!!!!!!





I really hate how Edwin's 8M salary prevented us from signing Dunn or Konerko.

Oh wait.....

hi im skot
01-06-2011, 11:35 AM
Yeah, I think he might be because he doesn't have any more money to spend.

And yes, my projection with Infante and Harrell already included Sale in the bullpen.

LH: Thornton, Sale, Harrell

RH: Santos, Crain, Pena, Infante

http://www.mcgrewsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/holdon.jpg

Hitmen77
01-06-2011, 11:39 AM
Let's be honest: you could say the same thing about Buehrle's and Peavy's salaries. Peavy will be making twice as much as Jackson, and we have no idea what he will be like when he returns. If anyone's salary is having an impact IMO, it's his. I'm not saying I'm against the trade that brought him here, but I'm getting a little tired of Jackson's salary as being the reason the Sox are stretched thin financially.

Oh, I agree. Especially on the Peavy salary/trade. As far as Buehrle goes, well giving him a 4 year deal in 2007 was the price of keeping him beyond 2007. There wasn't any trade to debate there.

Like I said, I'm not a Jackson hater. I just think the Jackson for Hudson trade has interesting implications. It's not the only make-or-break decision the Sox made. Hell, it might not even really be "make or break" at all. I just think it was an important decision the Sox made last July. That's not to say it was right or wrong or it was the only decision they ever made that is impacting them now.

If we filtered out the 1 or 2 posters that are incessantly ripping on Jackson, then this discussion wouldn't be so beaten-to-death here.

For me, I'm happy to see how we will do with Jackson in 2011 without the constant comments about KW's "stupidity" in making this trade. But on the flip side, it does annoy me (and it keeps fueling the argument) when people throw out the "Hudson was terrible based on 3 starts with us and games pitched for Arizona 'don't count' " comments. Can't we just admit that we gave up a decent young pitcher to get 1.5 seasons of Jackson at his salary? Sometimes you need to trade talent to get talent. We'll see in 2011 whether this trade was the right move or not.

Not every question about Sox decisions is from a Jackson or KW hater. But, I do admit there are a few "haters" here that have ruined any debate on this topic.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 11:40 AM
This and that:

Darko:

Heard from a source that Freddy wants a lot more money then he made last year. Japan is actually an option for him.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Also I threw out some names to this individual regarding bullpen help and this person had the following responses:

*Balfour would cost a draft pick, he's a type A free agent.

*Rauch apparently still hasn't been forgiven by some in the organization over what happened the first time he was with the team.

This person is convinced Kenny will get more bullpen help but they say he's going to have to move some salary first. Said the Teahan deal, not the Jackson one is "killing" the Sox right now. Would prefer to see Sale in the starting rotation but that's still up in the air and that the Sox would move "cautiously" with Soriano but the fact that Boras is his agent is no longer the issue that it was in the past. Reminded me that the Sox were in the Damon chase for a long time before pulling out and Boras was his agent.

This person also said that JR is "all in" for this year and let some things slip through the cracks last year that he isn't going to let happen again. When I asked what that meant, I was told "the Ozzie - Kenny situation"

Regarding the Twins, this person said a scout told him that Minnesota usually knows what they are doing when they let a player go and that the Sox "better hope Crain doesn't turn into another Linebrink." As far as the Twins bullpen and them losing a lot of guys they said to remember that they still have Capps and that Nathan and Neshek return this season.

Lip

Dibbs
01-06-2011, 12:00 PM
To all the haters: if there's a better option available than Jackson in or out of the organization for the money, please let us know.

Hudson is better and cheaper.

doublem23
01-06-2011, 12:04 PM
Hudson is better and cheaper.

He's definitely cheaper, but I think there's still some serious debate as to which one is better, especially right now.

The question really isn't are we better off with Jackson or Hudson in a vacuum, the question is are we better off with Hudson + $7.5 M extra or Jackson. That's where it gets tricky.

Dibbs
01-06-2011, 12:07 PM
He's definitely cheaper, but I think there's still some serious debate as to which one is better, especially right now.

The question really isn't are we better off with Jackson or Hudson in a vacuum, the question is are we better off with Hudson + $7.5 M extra or Jackson. That's where it gets tricky.

You are right. Even if Jackson is slightly better, Hudson would still be more valuable to the team because of those additional dollars available.

I am certain Kenny would take that trade back in a split second if it were possible. Of course he could never admit that.

Thome25
01-06-2011, 12:16 PM
He's definitely cheaper, but I think there's still some serious debate as to which one is better, especially right now.

The question really isn't are we better off with Jackson or Hudson in a vaccuum, the question is are we better off with Hudson + $7.5 M extra or Jackson. That's where it gets tricky.

I would tak EJ with his stats after he came to the Sox over NATIONAL LEAGUE Hudson....in a heartbeat...thats just my opinion though.

We should be glad to have EJ right now because of so many questions in our rotation. Sweaty Freddy is gone, Peavy is still hurt, Burls and Gavin are questionmarks after their showings last season. EJ pitched well. Him and Danks may be the only solid SP right now.

If you want to pick on anyone's salary it should be Teahen's

DumpJerry
01-06-2011, 12:18 PM
I would tak EJ with his stats after he came to the Sox over NATIONAL LEAGUE Hudson....in a heartbeat...thats just my opinion though.

We should be glad to have EJ right now because of so many questions in our rotation. Sweaty Freddy is gone, Peavy is still hurt, Burls and Gavin are questionmarks after their showings last season. EJ pitched well. Him and Danks may be the only solid SP right now.

If you want to pick on anyone's salary it should be Teahen's
:thumbsup:

tstrike2000
01-06-2011, 12:19 PM
You are right. Even if Jackson is slightly better, Hudson would still be more valuable to the team because of those additional dollars available.

I am certain Kenny would take that trade back in a split second if it were possible. Of course he could never admit that.

Those are valid reasons many Sox have had. However, every GM makes iffy and bad trades, and KW has admitted to such in the past. However, the trade is done, there's no going back. All I was saying that unless KW trades for an upper tier starter, which would likely deplete our offense, we don't have a lot of choice in the matter. Jackson isn't making outrageous money, can be solid, and isn't the biggest question mark on the pitching staff.

delben91
01-06-2011, 12:21 PM
This and that:

Darko:

Heard from a source that Freddy wants a lot more money then he made last year. Japan is actually an option for him.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Also I threw out some names to this individual regarding bullpen help and this person had the following responses:

*Balfour would cost a draft pick, he's a type A free agent.

*Rauch apparently still hasn't been forgiven by some in the organization over what happened the first time he was with the team.

This person is convinced Kenny will get more bullpen help but they say he's going to have to move some salary first. Said the Teahan deal, not the Jackson one is "killing" the Sox right now. Would prefer to see Sale in the starting rotation but that's still up in the air and that the Sox would move "cautiously" with Soriano but the fact that Boras is his agent is no longer the issue that it was in the past. Reminded me that the Sox were in the Damon chase for a long time before pulling out and Boras was his agent.

This person also said that JR is "all in" for this year and let some things slip through the cracks last year that he isn't going to let happen again. When I asked what that meant, I was told "the Ozzie - Kenny situation"

Regarding the Twins, this person said a scout told him that Minnesota usually knows what they are doing when they let a player go and that the Sox "better hope Crain doesn't turn into another Linebrink." As far as the Twins bullpen and them losing a lot of guys they said to remember that they still have Capps and that Nathan and Neshek return this season.

Lip

Wouldn't the Twins just get a supplemental round pick since the Sox already gave up their 1st rounder when they signed Dunn?

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 12:28 PM
Del:

You mean the Rays? Good question...I'm not sure how that works if you have already lost a first round pick.

Lip

doublem23
01-06-2011, 12:28 PM
I would tak EJ with his stats after he came to the Sox over NATIONAL LEAGUE Hudson....in a heartbeat...thats just my opinion though.

We should be glad to have EJ right now because of so many questions in our rotation. Sweaty Freddy is gone, Peavy is still hurt, Burls and Gavin are questionmarks after their showings last season. EJ pitched well. Him and Danks may be the only solid SP right now.

If you want to pick on anyone's salary it should be Teahen's

I would like to know what fantasy world you live in where Buehrle and Gavin are "question marks" but we should all be so thankful to have a rock like Edwin Jackson, whose career has been marred by utter inconsistency. He has just over 5 years of MLB service time and the Sox are his 5th MLB team. He's just as big a question mark as anyone in our pitching staff.

doublem23
01-06-2011, 12:32 PM
Del:

You mean the Rays? Good question...I'm not sure how that works if you have already lost a first round pick.

Lip

The Sox lose both their 1st and 2nd round picks.

DirtySox
01-06-2011, 12:46 PM
NATIONAL LEAGUE Hudson....in a heartbeat...that's my opinion

It's an utterly moronic assertion that Hudson is an NL pitcher. Calling any prospect an NL pitcher because of 3 bad starts in the AL is quite foolish. Maybe you should dig deeper. Hudson had far better numbers over the entire season. Maybe you should compare the offenses of the teams that both Edwin and Dan faced. It ain't Hudson who faced the creampuffs. We will get a much better idea of what type of pitcher he is in the coming year, but labeling a touted prospect who hasn't even pitched a full year in the bigs as an "NL Pitcher" is quite ignorant.

I have no issue with Edwin's salary (considering Jerry's spending this offseason) or him being in the rotation this year, but he is anything but a sure thing. Not considering him a question mark is pretty silly. He might be amazing, or he might be a complete dud. See Doub's post about a career full of inconsistency. I'm rooting for the guy as he is integral to the Sox success this year, and by having a good year he will leave the Sox with some desperately needed draft pick compensation.

spawn
01-06-2011, 01:00 PM
I would like to know what fantasy world you live in where Buehrle and Gavin are "question marks" but we should all be so thankful to have a rock like Edwin Jackson, whose career has been marred by utter inconsistency. He has just over 5 years of MLB service time and the Sox are his 5th MLB team. He's just as big a question mark as anyone in our pitching staff.

I'm not a Jackson detractor, but this post I agree with. Just because Jackson had some good starts last season doesn't make him the rock of the rotation. I'm optimistic, but the jury is still out on him.

Thome25
01-06-2011, 02:23 PM
I would like to know what fantasy world you live in where Buehrle and Gavin are "question marks" but we should all be so thankful to have a rock like Edwin Jackson, whose career has been marred by utter inconsistency. He has just over 5 years of MLB service time and the Sox are his 5th MLB team. He's just as big a question mark as anyone in our pitching staff.


C'mon now....this isn't a "fantasy world". look at the reality right in front of your face.

Question mark #1--Buehrle had a mediocre year which may indicate that he is headed toward the downside of his career.

Question mark #2--Gavin has been up and down and I know there has been some speculation about his health.

Question mark #3--Sweaty Freddy is gone leaving a hole in the #5 spot.

Question mark #4-- Peavy is still hurt and his return is unknown at this point.

I never said EJ was a "rock" or an ace for that matter....but, he does help give us some semblance of a rotation and after his performance for us last season, I rather have him in our rotation than not especially with the questionmarks above.

If we didn't have him, we would have another question mark in the rotation because who do we have that's as good/better to fill that spot?

And don't say Hudson because he brings some questions in his own right.

Understand now?

Thome25
01-06-2011, 02:26 PM
It's an utterly moronic assertion that Hudson is an NL pitcher. Calling any prospect an NL pitcher because of 3 bad starts in the AL is quite foolish. Maybe you should dig deeper. Hudson had far better numbers over the entire season. Maybe you should compare the offenses of the teams that both Edwin and Dan faced. It ain't Hudson who faced the creampuffs. We will get a much better idea of what type of pitcher he is in the coming year, but labeling a touted prospect who hasn't even pitched a full year in the bigs as an "NL Pitcher" is quite ignorant.

I have no issue with Edwin's salary (considering Jerry's spending this offseason) or him being in the rotation this year, but he is anything but a sure thing. Not considering him a question mark is pretty silly. He might be amazing, or he might be a complete dud. See Doub's post about a career full of inconsistency. I'm rooting for the guy as he is integral to the Sox success this year, and by having a good year he will leave the Sox with some desperately needed draft pick compensation.

Why the hell is it so moronic to assume that his numbers may be inflated in a clearly weaker league? That statement was MY opinion and I never stated it as fact nor did I make that assumption in comparison to his AL statistics.

NLaloosh
01-06-2011, 02:30 PM
I like Jackson and will be anxious to see if he's worth $ 8.3 mil. for the Sox this year.

And, the nice thing about this debate is that we will know after the 2011 season whether or not this trade was a good one for the Sox or a huge disaster.

One thing that I never liked were the late season deals that add significant payroll to a team that has nothing but a small playoff chance left - see Manny Ramirez and Edwin Jackson. Sure would like to have that wasted $ 3.8 mil. we gave Manny back right now.

Why not spend all you can for your roster before the season starts so that you can have those players for the whole year?

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 02:33 PM
Great point. Manny's money to me was the biggest "waste" (if you choose to use that term) than either Jackson's or Teahen's.

Lip

doublem23
01-06-2011, 02:33 PM
C'mon now....this isn't a "fantasy world". look at the reality right in front of your face.

Question mark #1--Buehrle had a mediocre year which may indicate that he is headed toward the downside of his career.

Question mark #2--Gavin has been up and down and I know there has been some speculation about his health.

Question mark #3--Sweaty Freddy is gone leaving a hole in the #5 spot.

Question mark #4-- Peavy is still hurt and his return is unknown at this point.

I never said EJ was a "rock" or an ace for that matter....but, he does help give us some semblance of a rotation and after his performance for us last season, I rather have him in our rotation than not especially with the questionmarks above.

If we didn't have him, we would have another question mark in the rotation because who do we have that's as good/better to fill that spot?

And don't say Hudson because he brings some questions in is own right.

Understand now?

:rolling: This is a ludicrous argument.

Buehrle had an off-year in 2010 yes, and that very well may indicate he will decline from here on out but baseball is riddled with tales of guys who have comeback season. There's a god damn award for it. Konerko, for example, had a horrendous 2009 season and yet was able to bounce back with arguably his best season ever in 2010.

Floyd, for his struggles has had a much better and consistent career to this point than Jackson.

What are you, Edwin's brother or something? You're simply ignoring the reality that Jackson is absolutely been an inconsistent pitcher for his whole career, who has shown flashes of dominance and flashes of hot garbage. The only pitcher in the Sox arsenal right now with more uncertainty surrounding him is Peavy. For every hot point you want to make about Buehrle and Floyd being unreliable, let me remind you that they also have a history of putting together good seasons (notice the pluralization there), and therefore are at least as likely, if not more, than Edwin to throw together a successful 2011 campaign.

Look, if you like Jackson and think he's going to be great for the Sox next year, that is fine. That's a perfectly defensible position. But let's not pretend like we acquired a seasoned veteran with a steady career under his belt. We've got a kid who is still basically learning and has, to this point, been underwhelming and inconsistent.

A. Cavatica
01-06-2011, 02:44 PM
Talent-wise for who I would rather have in my rotation for 2011, I would take Jackson over Hudson. Yes, both have question marks, but Jackson does have all-star caliber potential in him and has performed as such at certain times during his career.

Jackson's best season was 2009, and he was indeed an All-Star. Looking at his 2009 game logs (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=jacksed01&t=p&year=2009) he had a great 12-game streak at the start of the season (2.16 ERA) and he reverted to form (4.55 ERA) after that.

Hudson, for his part, finished 2010 on an 11-game roll where he had a 1.69 ERA. Include his last start with the Sox and his ERA was 2.13. Isn't that also performing as an All-Star at certain times in his career?

Thome25
01-06-2011, 02:46 PM
Doub--

I'm done arguing with you. I already told you in another thread that I don't want to get sucked into the EJ debate.

I'm done....I stated MY OPINION and if you don't like it, thats on you.

I will end by saying my point of view was very logical. It advocates pitching depth especially under our current circumstances.

soltrain21
01-06-2011, 02:53 PM
Doub--

I'm done arguing with you. I already told you in another thread that I don't want to get sucked into the EJ debate.

I'm done....I stated MY OPINION and if you don't like it, thats on you.

I will end by saying my point of view was very logical. It advocates pitching depth especially under our current circumstances.

Maybe you shouldn't have started a thread ABOUT Edwin Jackson with the word "debate" in the title. Well done.

:clap:

doublem23
01-06-2011, 02:54 PM
Doub--

I'm done arguing with you. I already told you in another thread that I don't want to get sucked into the EJ debate.

I'm done....I stated MY OPINION and if you don't like it, thats on you.

I will end by saying my point of view was very logical. It advocates pitching depth especially under our current circumstances.

You want to post your OPINION on a public message board, then you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you, especially when you go to harrowing lengths to try and OPINIONly skew stats and facts to back up your argument.

FACT - Edwin Jackson is a very talented pitcher.
FACT - Edwin Jackson has pitched over 700 innings in the Majors with very, very mixed results.
FACT - Edwin Jackson's performance in 2011 is very much a question mark.

Pitching depth is great... when your pitchers are pitching well. Last year, everyone was talking about the great Sox pitching depth and we finished with the 8th best staff in the American League.

Again, I don't care if your OPINION is that Jackson will be fine in 2011 or even if you think he might be one of our better starters. A part of me agrees with that, but I also don't think for one minute that it would be inconcievable for him to just suck next year, either. I honestly don't know what to expect from Jackson next year and anyone who really thinks they do, is probably full of crap.

Thome25
01-06-2011, 02:58 PM
Maybe you shouldn't have started a thread ABOUT Edwin Jackson with the word "debate" in the title. Well done.

:clap:

Way to go smart guy. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

I started this thread so that all of the ****ing EJ **** will stay in here and not in the threads that I actually want to look at.

I made a couple of posts trying to look on the postive side of things and get flamed for it. BTW Your sarcastic "witty" posts get old after a while. Do us both a favor and please stop quoting my posts.

spawn
01-06-2011, 03:13 PM
Way to go smart guy. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

I started this thread so that all of the ****ing EJ **** will stay in here and not in the threads that I actually want to look at.

I made a couple of posts trying to look on the postive side of things and get flamed for it. BTW Your sarcastic "witty" posts get old after a while. Do us both a favor and please stop quoting my posts.

You start a thread for people to debate the Edwin Jackson Principle, give your opinion, have your opinion debated, state you don't want to get into a debate about your opinion in a thread you created, and now you're offended? I think you need to lighten up, or step away from the keyboard. No one has flamed you. Period. Lighten up.

Ranger
01-06-2011, 03:16 PM
Probably the same ones that were pissed when Brandon McCarthy was traded for Danks.
Things that aren't comparable. Do you forget how highly regarded Danks was?

You're right, they're not comparable. At the time of the trade, McCarthy had actually pitched well at the MLB level (Hudson had not. At all). And it was during the offseason, not at the trade deadline when the team was in a pennant race and in desperate need of a known starter.

I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time understand context in this situation. The Sox needed a starter. Badly. And counting on Hudson would have been a gigantic gamble at the time, and in my opinion, a bad gamble. I said it at the time, and I stick with it today. Obviously, the Sox didn't win the division, but that was no fault of Jackson's.

Thome25
01-06-2011, 03:20 PM
You start a thread for people to debate the Edwin Jackson Principle, give your opinion, have your opinion debated, state you don't want to get into a debate about your opinion in a thread you created, and now you're offended? I think you need to lighten up, or step away from the keyboard. No one has flamed you. Period. Lighten up.

Spawn--

You got it boss :thumbsup:

With that said, I did not intend to be a part of this thread. I made a couple of posts basically trying to be positive and saying "look guys can't we stay positive about this guy?"....but, to no avail. That was my fault....maybe I shouldn't have joined in on such a heated, ravenous debate......positive or otherwise.

As I stated before, I'm done with this thread. Hopefully, it becomes the place to go to debate all things EJ and the EJ debate stays in here rather than flooding other threads and hijacking them.

Domeshot17
01-06-2011, 03:25 PM
You're right, they're not comparable. At the time of the trade, McCarthy had actually pitched well at the MLB level (Hudson had not. At all). And it was during the offseason, not at the trade deadline when the team was in a pennant race and in desperate need of a known starter.

I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time understand context in this situation. The Sox needed a starter. Badly. And counting on Hudson would have been a gigantic gamble at the time, and in my opinion, a bad gamble. I said it at the time, and I stick with it today. Obviously, the Sox didn't win the division, but that was no fault of Jackson's.

The problem with the gamble was even with Jackson, the Sox were still running Kotsay out to DH (or be in the lineup somehow) most of the time in July. They weren't seriously a title team, hardly a playoff team, even with Jackson. It was a pretty short sighted move, which is okay to make in baseball sometimes, but it felt like a panic move.

Ranger
01-06-2011, 03:29 PM
What are you, Edwin's brother or something? You're simply ignoring the reality that Jackson is absolutely been an inconsistent pitcher for his whole career, who has shown flashes of dominance and flashes of hot garbage. The only pitcher in the Sox arsenal right now with more uncertainty surrounding him is Peavy. For every hot point you want to make about Buehrle and Floyd being unreliable, let me remind you that they also have a history of putting together good seasons (notice the pluralization there), and therefore are at least as likely, if not more, than Edwin to throw together a successful 2011 campaign.


I gotta stop you there. His "whole career" is four full years as a starter. Some folks need to stop acting like he's been starting games for 10 years. People also need to remember that he just turned 27 (not 37) 3 months ago. Cliff Lee didn't start dominating until he was 30 and had 4 years of starting under his belt. I'm not saying Jackson is going to be Cliff Lee, but a lot of what Lee did was "hot garbage" before he figured it out.

As there is for Hudson, there is plenty of room for Jackson to grow.

Ranger
01-06-2011, 03:32 PM
The problem with the gamble was even with Jackson, the Sox were still running Kotsay out to DH (or be in the lineup somehow) most of the time in July. They weren't seriously a title team, hardly a playoff team, even with Jackson. It was a pretty short sighted move, which is okay to make in baseball sometimes, but it felt like a panic move.


Disagree. The Sox were a top 5 offense in July, with or without Kotsay. They were the best offense in all of baseball in August. They lost because of bullpen and other pitching failures.

In my opinion, they were actually better off losing out on Dunn, at the time. They needed a starter much, much more than they needed offense.

Trust me, if Hudson stays and is dog vomit for the final two months of the season, you're all angry at Kenny for not getting another starter.

cards press box
01-06-2011, 03:33 PM
Ranger, if the Sox do sign Rafael Soriano, do you see them dealing Jackson and/or Teahen to clear salary space (and add depth, fill a need and/or upgrade some area)?

Ranger
01-06-2011, 03:41 PM
Ranger, if the Sox do sign Rafael Soriano, do you see them dealing Jackson and/or Teahen to clear salary space (and add depth, fill a need and/or upgrade some area)?

I would LOVE for them to be able to hang on to the Buehrle/Peavy/Danks/Floyd/Jackson rotation, but wouldn't be shocked if somebody gets dealt. However, they become weaker if they deal a current starter and it probably weakens the bullpen too. If they were to be able to trade, I'm sure they would prefer to deal Teahen over MB, though Teahen wouldn't be that much salary relief.

Also, in regard to what we've been discussing: soltrain said something about Danks being highly-touted earlier to which I already responded. But it occurred to me after I posted that McCarthy was actually more highly touted than Hudson was. If you all remember, Hudson was a nobody until he suddenly had one stellar minor league season. He sort of came out of nowhere.

voodoochile
01-06-2011, 04:02 PM
However, you can't ignore the impact of his salary on the Sox ability to fill remaining holes in the roster. Sox management has done a great job of expanding payroll to bring in Dunn while keeping Konerko. But, when I hear that the Sox are supposedly at or near their payroll limit and they have one bullpen vacancy even after they pencil in Gregory Infante and Lucas Harell - then you can't help but notice the difference Jackson's salary makes in filling those holes.

Sale
Thornton
Pena
Crain
Santos
+1
+1

Thats IF they carry 7.

If Sale starts the season as a starter then they need 2 but I won't be shocked if they leave him in the BP and go with a Harrel for a month or so until Peavy is ready.

voodoochile
01-06-2011, 04:04 PM
Since Gregory Infante and Lucas Harrell are projected to open the season in our bullpen... Yes.

Long relief and garbage man aren't exactly high priced slots normally...

doublem23
01-06-2011, 04:04 PM
I gotta stop you there. His "whole career" is four full years as a starter. Some folks need to stop acting like he's been starting games for 10 years. People also need to remember that he just turned 27 (not 37) 3 months ago. Cliff Lee didn't start dominating until he was 30 and had 4 years of starting under his belt. I'm not saying Jackson is going to be Cliff Lee, but a lot of what Lee did was "hot garbage" before he figured it out.

As there is for Hudson, there is plenty of room for Jackson to grow.

I don't at all disagree with your point, Ranger, but the question is, after 700 IP in the Majors, how many guys drastically change who they are? I'd be willing to bet for every Cliff Lee who the light turns on after so long, there's at least 1 other guy who similarly struggled and never figured "it" out, therefore, like every other bit of evidence we have on Edwin, there's reasons to believe he'll be fine and terrible in 2011, again, the very definition of a "question mark."

Rocky Soprano
01-06-2011, 04:07 PM
Also, in regard to what we've been discussing: soltrain said something about Danks being highly-touted earlier to which I already responded. But it occurred to me after I posted that McCarthy was actually more highly touted than Hudson was. If you all remember, Hudson was a nobody until he suddenly had one stellar minor league season. He sort of came out of nowhere.

Which is exactly why I used that trade as a comparison.

delben91
01-06-2011, 04:22 PM
The problem with the gamble was even with Jackson, the Sox were still running Kotsay out to DH (or be in the lineup somehow) most of the time in July. They weren't seriously a title team, hardly a playoff team, even with Jackson. It was a pretty short sighted move, which is okay to make in baseball sometimes, but it felt like a panic move.

The gamble wasn't intended to get Jackson, it was intended to flip Jackson for Dunn, only the Nationals backed out.

A. Cavatica
01-06-2011, 05:10 PM
I wonder if the Nationals still want him.

Sell high...

A. Cavatica
01-06-2011, 05:12 PM
And by the way, I very much believe that a solid starting rotation is the recipe for winning. I wouldn't trade Jackson without (1) having positive medical reports on Peavy, (2) being confident I could use Jackson's salary to sign Soriano, and (3) having a cheap veteran starter in mind for Charlotte.

Ranger
01-06-2011, 05:25 PM
I don't at all disagree with your point, Ranger, but the question is, after 700 IP in the Majors, how many guys drastically change who they are? I'd be willing to bet for every Cliff Lee who the light turns on after so long, there's at least 1 other guy who similarly struggled and never figured "it" out, therefore, like every other bit of evidence we have on Edwin, there's reasons to believe he'll be fine and terrible in 2011, again, the very definition of a "question mark."

I don't care about the total innings. What I care about is the trend from 2007 where he became a primary starter. That's not very much time. There has been improvement from Jackson since he became a starter and still plenty of room to get better. He's not regressing. He's continued to improve.

He had a couple of really bad months at the start of last season, but was good in every start he made for the Sox last year with the exception of one. The overall trend, however, is that he's improving.

Ranger
01-06-2011, 05:26 PM
The gamble wasn't intended to get Jackson, it was intended to flip Jackson for Dunn, only the Nationals backed out.

With the thought that they would be satisfied if they somehow ended up with Jackson and not Dunn. At the time, getting a starting pitcher was the best outcome for them, even if it wasn't their top choice.

NLaloosh
01-06-2011, 05:38 PM
With the thought that they would be satisfied if they somehow ended up with Jackson and not Dunn. At the time, getting a starting pitcher was the best outcome for them, even if it wasn't their top choice.

Still think it was a bad move. They had very little chance of going to the playoffs even if Jackson pitched well (which he did).

Hudson has proven something in the majors now. I know it wasn't during a playoff run in the A.L. but he set the NL on fire once he got there.

Secondly, if Jackson does pitch well this year, he and boras will be long gone from the Sox. So, what did they gain? They lost one of the very few top tier pitching prospects they ever get and he will be cheap for a long time.

I, for one, would have been much happier watching the Sox finish in second place without nearly $ 4 mil. thrown away on that umm...nice fella with the dreads and giving Hudson away for a guy who's leaving after this year and isn't leading them to a World Series before he goes anyway.

Falstaff
01-08-2011, 03:19 AM
Here's why I like EJ in the rotation:
Peavy = perfect game
Buehle = perfect game, no-no
Jackson = no hitter
Danks & Floyd = numerous 2 hitters (and a 1 hitter?) between them

So 1 thru 5 we have pitchers who know how to be lights out.
Granted, Jake is now big unknown due to injury, but I have to wonder
what other teams in MLB history had so many no-hitters under the belt
among the majority the the rotation? I think you'd have to look up the Nolan Ryan teams, but then he would account for the vast majority of them on that staff. Yeah I agree, this was alot like when we let Brandon McCarthy go; I was mad at first but now I am happy.

soltrain21
01-08-2011, 09:48 AM
Here's why I like EJ in the rotation:
Peavy = perfect game
Buehle = perfect game, no-no
Jackson = no hitter
Danks & Floyd = numerous 2 hitters (and a 1 hitter?) between them

So 1 thru 5 we have pitchers who know how to be lights out.
Granted, Jake is now big unknown due to injury, but I have to wonder
what other teams in MLB history had so many no-hitters under the belt
among the majority the the rotation? I think you'd have to look up the Nolan Ryan teams, but then he would account for the vast majority of them on that staff. Yeah I agree, this was alot like when we let Brandon McCarthy go; I was mad at first but now I am happy.

Peavy doesn't have a perfect game.

Tragg
01-08-2011, 09:53 AM
The gamble wasn't intended to get Jackson, it was intended to flip Jackson for Dunn, only the Nationals backed out.
Then do a three way trade like every other team does. This "flipping" stuff is BS, and unnecessary.

TheVulture
01-09-2011, 04:23 AM
I still think Jackson will be the Sox' staff ace in 2011.

fram40
01-09-2011, 10:55 AM
Yeah, I think he might be because he doesn't have any more money to spend.

And yes, my projection with Infante and Harrell already included Sale in the bullpen.

LH: Thornton, Sale, Harrell

RH: Santos, Crain, Pena, Infante

is Harrell a lefty?

SephClone89
01-09-2011, 11:00 AM
is Harrell a lefty?

He's not. For some reason his wiki article says he is, though.

fram40
01-09-2011, 11:10 AM
He's not. For some reason his wiki article says he is, though.

why would anyone use wiki when baseball-reference.com is available?

doublem23
01-09-2011, 12:57 PM
why would anyone use wiki when baseball-reference.com is available?

Wiki loads faster than B-R. Plus, I think I had it open in another browser.

My mistake. :redface:

Ranger
01-09-2011, 09:30 PM
Still think it was a bad move. They had very little chance of going to the playoffs even if Jackson pitched well (which he did).

Hudson has proven something in the majors now. I know it wasn't during a playoff run in the A.L. but he set the NL on fire once he got there.

Secondly, if Jackson does pitch well this year, he and boras will be long gone from the Sox. So, what did they gain? They lost one of the very few top tier pitching prospects they ever get and he will be cheap for a long time.

I, for one, would have been much happier watching the Sox finish in second place without nearly $ 4 mil. thrown away on that umm...nice fella with the dreads and giving Hudson away for a guy who's leaving after this year and isn't leading them to a World Series before he goes anyway.

Absolutley incorrect. The Sox were a game in front when they traded for him. How can you say that a first place team in late July has "very little chance" of going to the postseason?

It's a fact that people would have been furious had Hudson stayed here and stunk in the final two months. You know as well as I do that it would've been "Kenny should've done something about the rotation!" You'd be kidding yourself to deny that.

Hanging on to Jackson gave them their best shot at the postseason last year, and I'll never complain (nor should you) that they made an attempt to get better down the stretch. It didn't work out.

khan
01-09-2011, 10:39 PM
Absolutley incorrect. The Sox were a game in front when they traded for him. How can you say that a first place team in late July has "very little chance" of going to the postseason?

Ranger, can you name another team that lost one of it's top 2 SPs to the DL that later went to the playoffs? Or one that was CAPABLE of doing so in your opinion, if they had not suffered such an injury? [Such as the '90s Braves, with their 5 foot wide strike zone and multiple #1 SPs.]

Thanks.

Ranger
01-09-2011, 11:04 PM
Ranger, can you name another team that lost one of it's top 2 SPs to the DL that later went to the playoffs? Or one that was CAPABLE of doing so in your opinion, if they had not suffered such an injury? [Such as the '90s Braves, with their 5 foot wide strike zone and multiple #1 SPs.]

Thanks.

Um, yeah, the 2010 Sox were capable of it. After Peavy went down, I certainly didn't think that meant they had no chance of the postseason because they still had 4 other solid starters and added another one in Jackson. For most teams, it's serious trouble if they lose a guy like Peavy because, in most cases, teams don't have a solid 1-5. Losing Peavy wasn't as big of a blow to the Sox as it may have been to another team with a thinner pitching staff. Replacing him with Jackson stabilized the rotation.

The Sox lost the lead in the division mainly because of bullpen failures and injuries.

It's just totally inaccurate to say the White Sox' playoff chances vanished with Peavy's injury.

Lip Man 1
01-10-2011, 12:40 AM
Ranger:

Agree 100% with your last comment.

Lip

cws05champ
01-10-2011, 10:08 AM
I think we can all agree that Jackson is a very talented pitcher that has the potential to be a #1 if he is right in the head and his mechanics. The reality though is he HAS been inconsistent up until this point.

I'll be the first to admit that I was pissed when this deal went down for Jackson...not because I didn't like Jackson, but because Hudson was in the deal. If there was one guy I didn't want traded it was Hudson. Regardless of his starts with the Sox last year (all three of them!), I thought he was going to be a good pitcher for a long time that was 6 years under control.

While I agree that the NL is easier on pitchers I hate the argument that Hudson is only an NL pitcher. He had a 1.69 ERA in the NL for Christ sake, not and 3.50. If you use the same logic then Jackson should have been worse than his 5.16 ERA in the NL when he came over.....but baseball doesn't work that way.

Bottom line is, if Jackson pitches well and helps the Sox go deep in to the post-season in 2011, then I think you can say the gamble worked out. But if they fail to win the division again it's a big time failure, and may go down as one of the worst deals of KW tenure.

I just worry about the long term viability of our rotation.
> If EJ pitches well he could bolt after 2011
> Buehrle might retire or goes to STL for 1-2 years
> Will Peavy really ever return to form?
> Danks has refused a long-term deal, only controlled through 2012

We'd better hope some of the SP we drafted last year are ready to contribute by 2012.

khan
01-10-2011, 11:38 AM
Um, yeah, the 2010 Sox were capable of it. After Peavy went down, I certainly didn't think that meant they had no chance of the postseason because they still had 4 other solid starters and added another one in Jackson. For most teams, it's serious trouble if they lose a guy like Peavy because, in most cases, teams don't have a solid 1-5. Losing Peavy wasn't as big of a blow to the Sox as it may have been to another team with a thinner pitching staff. Replacing him with Jackson stabilized the rotation.

The Sox lost the lead in the division mainly because of bullpen failures and injuries.

It's just totally inaccurate to say the White Sox' playoff chances vanished with Peavy's injury.
1. I have to disagree with your supposition that the 2010 SOX were capable of winning it after losing their $15M man. The results proved it to be so.

2. I'll agree that most, if not ALL teams that lose such an important player are doomed to not succeed in making the playoffs. Again, the results proved it for the 2010 SOX. [Also, if Jackson "stabilized" the rotation, wouldn't adding such a golden god have meant we would have celebrated another WS win?]

3. Neither Floyd's crappy 1.487 2nd half WHIP, nor Jackson's crappy 1.408 WHIP in September/October, nor Buehrle's horrific 1.486 WHIP in August-October had anything to do with the bullpen. The SOX lost Peavy's 1.233 WHIP, and did not have the ammo to replace it with, say Cliff Lee or any other SP that was anything like Peavy.

4. If we use your supposition that it was the bullpen that failed, why didn't KW fix THAT instead? Your own opinion illustrates that it was quixotic to add Jackson when it wouldn't have helped this team.

5. Can we stop this bull**** about the SOX having a "solid" rotation? Their results in 2010 illustrate that they are ANYTHING but solid. [For that matter, let's stop the myth that Jackson, he of the 1.485 career WHIP, is "solid." He isn't, whether we like it or not.]

doublem23
01-10-2011, 11:41 AM
5. Can we stop this bull**** about the SOX having a "solid" rotation? Their results in 2010 illustrate that they are ANYTHING but solid. [For that matter, let's stop the myth that Jackson, he of the 1.485 career WHIP, is "solid." He isn't, whether we like it or not.]

Maybe if you'd stop the bull**** of relying solely on one season's results?

:dunno:

khan
01-10-2011, 11:46 AM
Maybe if you'd stop the bull**** of relying solely on one season's results?

:dunno:

Hey, at least I'm bothering to support my opinion with ANY results. The "SOX-rotation-is-solid" view is entirely a myth, BASED on the results. [Moreover, the "Jackson-is-a-solid-SP" opinion is an even BIGGER myth, based on the results.]

After all, baseball is a results-oriented business, is it not?

shenk16
01-10-2011, 12:04 PM
Why is it that hard to believe that the "SOLID" numbers that Jackson put up with the Sox in his short tenure last year could be the start of something? It definitely isn't inconceivable to think that Coop could help turn a pitcher around that already has proven stuff. See Matt Thornton and Gavin Floyd.

khan
01-10-2011, 12:11 PM
Why is it that hard to believe that the "SOLID" numbers that Jackson put up with the Sox in his short tenure last year could be the start of something? It definitely isn't inconceivable to think that Coop could help turn a pitcher around that already has proven stuff. See Matt Thornton and Gavin Floyd.

1. Jackson's so-called "solid" numbers were actually GREAT numbers in August vs. Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland. Detroit was missing Maggs and Damon was in a slump, and they were close to being done in August. [As well as being his former team.] Baltimore has sucked at baseball for a long time. Cleveland was dead by August, and had little-to-nothing to play for.

2. Jackson THEN followed his lucky August with a reversion to form, with his 1.406 WHIP. Jackson has done this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in his career. [Which is ONE reason why every team gives up on him sooner or later.]

3. Coop couldn't "fix" David Aardsma or Scott Linebrink or Mike MacDougal or Bartolo Colon, among others. He isn't a magician that can transform bad players into good.

Jackson's numbers are BAD over a career, which highly suggests that he's a bad pitcher. Even him being exposed to Coop last season didn't "fix" him. Again, Jackson was AWESOME against bad competition/one of his former teams, and then reverted to his usual bad form in Sept/Oct.

shenk16
01-10-2011, 12:14 PM
3. Coop couldn't "fix" David Aardsma or Scott Linebrink or Mike MacDougal or Bartolo Colon, among others. He isn't a magician that can transform bad players into good.

Please note that I never mentioned these players because none of them had or have proven, SOLID stuff like Jackson, Thornton, and Floyd.

Dick Allen
01-10-2011, 12:16 PM
Floyd, Danks, and Buehrle just didn't hold up their end down the stretch, that was the real killer.

khan
01-10-2011, 12:20 PM
Please note that I never mentioned these players because none of them had or have proven, SOLID stuff like Jackson, Thornton, and Floyd.

So Bartolo Colon, who had a Cy Young Award, 31 career complete games, and ~150 or so career wins under his belt wasn't "proven?"

russ99
01-10-2011, 12:26 PM
Jackson's numbers are BAD over a career, which highly suggests that he's a bad pitcher. Even him being exposed to Coop last season didn't "fix" him. Again, Jackson was AWESOME against bad competition/one of his former teams, and then reverted to his usual bad form in Sept/Oct.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=1841&position=P&page=0&type=mini

The graphs over Jackson's career haven't stayed at the same level, they've all improved over the last three years.

But I guess that's "lucky" too...

khan
01-10-2011, 12:30 PM
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=1841&position=P&page=0&type=mini

The graphs over Jackson's career haven't stayed at the same level, they've all improved over the last three years.

But I guess that's "lucky" too...
Huh?

2008 WHIP: A craptacular 1.507
2009 WHIP: A lucky 1.262
2010 WHIP (Az): A reversion to his career norms at 1.498
2010 WHIP (CWS): A hollow 1.213


Where's this supposed "trend" that you see, russ? I see bad 2008, good 1st half of 2009, bad 2nd half of 2009, bad 1st half of 2010, and I guess "good" 2nd half of 2010.

His career is the EPITOME of the "bad-good, bad-good, bad-good" mambo.

shenk16
01-10-2011, 12:34 PM
So Bartolo Colon, who had a Cy Young Award, 31 career complete games, and ~150 or so career wins under his belt wasn't "proven?"

Poor effort on your part. If we are talking about Bartolo Colon 2003, I would say his stats were exactly where they should have been. As a matter of fact, his WAR was the highest of his career that year. However, I'm assuming that you are trying to talk about the 36 year old 2009 version of him and I would say that his 4.19 ERA during that time was more than respectable for the number 5 pitcher in the rotation that he was. Of course, now you are comparing apples and oranges.

Bringing this conversation back to Edwin Jackson, he is 27 years old and entering the prime years of his career.

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

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2011, 12:35 PM
Okay, let me see if I've got this. Khan doesn't like Jackson. Have I got it?

Foulke You
01-10-2011, 12:37 PM
1. I have to disagree with your supposition that the 2010 SOX were capable of winning it after losing their $15M man. The results proved it to be so.
20/20 hindsight never fails, eh? To say that Kenny should have somehow envisioned his team's definitive failure after Peavy's back injury when his club was still perched in first place for weeks AFTER the fact is silly. I agree with Ranger. It was bullpen blow ups that doomed the Sox playoff hopes, not the lack of Jake Peavy. Losing Peavy certainly didn't help but they still could have won the division if the bullpen performed better and stayed healthier down the stretch. The Sox lost a ridiculous amount of 1 run games in the 8th inning or later (especially in August) in games where they had a lead or were tied and none of it had anything to do with Peavy. Injuries to Putz, Thornton, and Jenks also helped the bullpen problems along and most of those happened AFTER the July 31st trade deadline.

Boondock Saint
01-10-2011, 12:37 PM
Okay, let me see if I've got this. Khan doesn't like Jackson. Have I got it?

Best synopsis ever.

khan
01-10-2011, 12:38 PM
Poor effort on your part. If we are talking about Bartolo Colon 2003, I would say his stats were exactly where they should have been.

Bringing this conversation back to Edwin Jackson, he is 27 years old and entering the prime years of his career.

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

Nicely moved goalposts. You said "proven stuff," did you not?

Actually, you did:

..."Please note that I never mentioned these players because none of them had or have proven, SOLID stuff like Jackson, Thornton, and Floyd."

So, I'll have to call BS on this. Colon and Linebrink had "proven stuff." [Again, your words, not mine.]


In any case, the point remains: Coop is not a magician that can turn bad players into good ones.

khan
01-10-2011, 12:45 PM
20/20 hindsight never fails, eh? To say that Kenny should have somehow envisioned his team's definitive failure after Peavy's back injury when his club was still perched in first place for weeks AFTER the fact is silly.

This is an inaccurate summation of my view.

My view is that Peavy was a very important player for this team. He was so much so, that he was one of the rather irreplaceables in the roster.

With the lack of ammo to add anyone NEARLY as good as Peavy, it was quixotic to add Jackson, who is clearly an inferior player to Peavy.


I'll agree that the bullpen failed. But you and Ranger fail to acknowledge the value that was placed on Peavy, and the grasp for straws that was the addition of Jackson.

shenk16
01-10-2011, 12:50 PM
So apparently proven stuff sticks with a player throughout their career and doesn't deplete with age? Keep reaching.

Nellie...I'd say you're dead on as well. Jackson is far from a favorite of mine, but I believe he will be SOLID this year.

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2011, 12:50 PM
This is an inaccurate summation of my view.

My view is that Peavy was a very important player for this team. He was so much so, that he was one of the rather irreplaceables in the roster.

With the lack of ammo to add anyone NEARLY as good as Peavy, it was quixotic to add Jackson, who is clearly an inferior player to Peavy.


I'll agree that the bullpen failed. But you and Ranger fail to acknowledge the value that was placed on Peavy, and the grasp for straws that was the addition of Jackson.It's easy to point out what went wrong. How about telling us what you would have done differently? Who would YOU have gone out and obtained to fill the gap left by Peavy?

khan
01-10-2011, 01:00 PM
It's easy to point out what went wrong. How about telling us what you would have done differently? Who would YOU have gone out and obtained to fill the gap left by Peavy?
OK, this is a fair statement on your part.

For this discussion, I'll assume that some of the moves made by KW would have already been made, EVEN if I disagreed with them. [Such as the stupid Kotsay re-signing instead of Thome, and the idiotic Teahen extension.]


If I were GM, I would have not made any further move to give away value, since I gave away players in recent years [Swisher, Vazquez] and got ZILCH in return. I would admit [privately] that the farm system was devoid of anything of value, and worked to protect that value.


Additionally, since the team was flawed, [which I believe contributed to the OG-KW feud] I would have cut my losses for 2010, and not added the kind of salaries that KW did.


My "under the radar" moves would have been to publicly laud Daniel Hudson [knowing that my team is flawed], and promote him. [Thus preserving value for the next-best opportunity to win, which was/is 2011.]

I would have then tried to add a pitcher or two via the waiver process, if possible. I would not have added Manny Ramirez.


The results? The SOX would still end up in 2nd place, but WITH Daniel Hudson, AND ~$11M not spent on Jackson, AND the ~$4M not spent on Ramirez.


I would then be able to add a SP [if Hudson failed], a closer, and still had more money to spend THIS offseason, even after Dunn/Konerko/AJ.

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 01:09 PM
OK, this is a fair statement on your part.

For this discussion, I'll assume that some of the moves made by KW would have already been made, EVEN if I disagreed with them. [Such as the stupid Kotsay re-signing instead of Thome, and the idiotic Teahen extension.]


If I were GM, I would have not made any further move to give away value, since I gave away players in recent years [Swisher, Vazquez] and got ZILCH in return. I would admit [privately] that the farm system was devoid of anything of value, and worked to protect that value.


Additionally, since the team was flawed, [which I believe contributed to the OG-KW feud] I would have cut my losses for 2010, and not added the kind of salaries that KW did.


My "under the radar" moves would have been to publicly laud Daniel Hudson [knowing that my team is flawed], and promote him. [Thus preserving value for the next-best opportunity to win, which was/is 2011.]

I would have then tried to add a pitcher or two via the waiver process, if possible. I would not have added Manny Ramirez.


The results? The SOX would still end up in 2nd place, but WITH Daniel Hudson, AND ~$11M not spent on Jackson, AND the ~$4M not spent on Ramirez.


I would then be able to add a SP [if Hudson failed], a closer, and still had more money to spend THIS offseason, even after Dunn/Konerko/AJ.

So...you punt when the Sox already had the Central well within their grasp?

Ron Schueler approves.

Daver
01-10-2011, 01:13 PM
So...you punt when the Sox already had the Central well within their grasp?

Ron Schueler approves.

"How to alienate your fanbase and drag down your attendance numbers"

A book by khan.

khan
01-10-2011, 01:15 PM
So...you punt when the Sox already had the Central well within their grasp?

Ron Schueler approves.
I disagree with your supposition that the "Central was well within their grasp."

The results proved it to be otherwise. Correspondingly, the twins proved themselves to be better than the SOX.


Losing your $15M man was a pretty severe blow, IMO.

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 01:23 PM
I disagree with your supposition that the "Central was well within their grasp."

The results proved it to be otherwise. Correspondingly, the twins proved themselves to be better than the SOX.


Losing your $15M man was a pretty severe blow, IMO.

Tough to disagree with facts. The Sox were in first place 27 days through July and August, with their last day in first on August 11th. They weren't eliminated until the middle of September.

Sure, it was a flawed team, but there wasn't exactly a juggernaut in either league this season. Get into the playoffs and try to make some noise.

Had the Sox snuck into the playoffs last season, you'd struggle to find too many Sox fans upset with that. You only have to look back two year to see the proof.

khan
01-10-2011, 01:29 PM
Tough to disagree with facts. The Sox were in first place 27 days through July and August, with their last day in first on August 11th. They weren't eliminated until the middle of September.

Sure, it was a flawed team, but there wasn't exactly a juggernaut in either league this season. Get into the playoffs and try to make some noise.

Had the Sox snuck into the playoffs last season, you'd struggle to find too many Sox fans upset with that. You only have to look back two year to see the proof.

I respect that view, but on the other hand, Minnesota's GM didn't crap his pants and grasp for straws when Neshek or Nathan were on the DL. He didn't overpay for mediocrity when their former MVP Morneau went down.

He kept his head, and promoted from within, and trusted his on field coaching staff to earn their keep. And guess what? Despite losing all that quality in their bullpen and their former MVP, they STILL won the division.

And amazingly, they did so without a PANICKED race to overpay for an inferior player to the ones they were missing. Imagine that, right?

KMcMahon817
01-10-2011, 01:33 PM
Okay, let me see if I've got this. Khan doesn't like Jackson. Have I got it?

But, but, but, if you look at his profile, Jackson is his favorite player!!!

Lip Man 1
01-10-2011, 01:33 PM
Minnesota's minor league system is a "tad" better than the Sox one. Promoting from within is not an option given the quality of the players there. I had no desire to see Lucus Harrell getting a bunch of starts down the stretch and I'd feel the same way about Dan Hudson.

Lip

Daver
01-10-2011, 01:34 PM
I respect that view, but on the other hand, Minnesota's GM didn't crap his pants and grasp for straws when Neshek or Nathan were on the DL. He didn't overpay for mediocrity when their former MVP Morneaux went down.

He kept his head, and promoted from within, and trusted his on field coaching staff to earn their keep. And guess what? Despite losing all that quality in their bullpen and their former MVP, they STILL won the division.

And amazingly, they did so without a PANICKED race to overpay for an inferior player to the ones they were missing. Imagine that, right?

The Twins always build from within, and they develop players better than most teams in MLB, it is well that the White Sox do neither.

khan
01-10-2011, 01:36 PM
Minnesota's minor league system is a "tad" better than the Sox one. Promoting from within is not an option given the quality of the players there. I had no desire to see Lucus Harrell getting a bunch of starts down the stretch and I'd feel the same way about Dan Hudson.

Lip

Lip, I'd agree in most cases. But an injury is but one reason to have a farm system in the first place.

Having said that, Hudson was the one [ONLY] farm hand that I would have trusted last season.

I still think Hudson could have provided a 1.406 WHIP in September/October, only for millions less.

khan
01-10-2011, 01:37 PM
The Twins always build from within, and they develop players better than most teams in MLB, it is well that the White Sox do neither.

I can agree. But Hudson was the rare SOX farmhand that was positioned to be an injury replacement, and was not likely to embarrass himself.

DirtySox
01-10-2011, 01:40 PM
Minnesota's minor league system is a "tad" better than the Sox one. Promoting from within is not an option given the quality of the players there. I had no desire to see Lucus Harrell getting a bunch of starts down the stretch and I'd feel the same way about Dan Hudson.

Lip

To be fair, there is a substantial difference in those pitchers you mentioned. One posted a 2.3 WAR as a rookie in less than a half of a season, while the other will be lucky to be a mop-up man.

Even if you don't feel comfortable relying on prospects and filling holes from within, it needs to be a viable option at some point. Elite teams are able to fill out rosters both externally and internally, no matter the position a team is in. It's a significant deficiency in the Sox organization unfortunately.

Daver
01-10-2011, 01:41 PM
I can agree. But Hudson was the rare SOX farmhand that was positioned to be an injury replacement, and was not likely to embarrass himself.

Trying to win a pennant with unproven starting pitching is not the way I would go about doing it.

KMcMahon817
01-10-2011, 01:42 PM
How about this: Let's all be the SOX fans that we are, and root for Mr. Edwin Jackson (the Golden God, the Myth, etc.) in 2011 and hope that KW's gamble pays off. If not, oh well, it's over. This topic has been wrung dry here at WSI.

khan
01-10-2011, 01:45 PM
Trying to win a pennant with unproven starting pitching is not the way I would go about doing it.

Fair enough. But, IMO, given the lack of ammo to go out and get an adequate replacement to your $15M man, it ceased to be about the 2010 division. It started to become a race for the 2011 division at that point.


Publicly, KW could have pumped up Hudson, and made statements about how "we trust our coaches and scouts and we're really excited about this kid." "We've had our eye on him for awhile, and we think he's in position to help us."

Privately, KW chould have admitted that it was a flawed team that was not going to win the division. He could have then set about planning for 2011, only with $11M more in his pockets.

Daver
01-10-2011, 01:49 PM
Fair enough. But, IMO, given the lack of ammo to go out and get an adequate replacement to your $15M man, it ceased to be about the 2010 division. It started to become a race for the 2011 division at that point.


Publicly, KW could have pumped up Hudson, and made statements about how "we trust our coaches and scouts and we're really excited about this kid." "We've had our eye on him for awhile, and we think he's in position to help us."

Privately, KW chould have admitted that it was a flawed team that was not going to win the division. He could have then set about planning for 2011, only with $11M more in his pockets.

And give the fans the perception that the team gave up on the season in July, that will sell a lot of tickets.

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 01:50 PM
I respect that view, but on the other hand, Minnesota's GM didn't crap his pants and grasp for straws when Neshek or Nathan were on the DL. He didn't overpay for mediocrity when their former MVP Morneau went down.

He kept his head, and promoted from within, and trusted his on field coaching staff to earn their keep. And guess what? Despite losing all that quality in their bullpen and their former MVP, they STILL won the division.

And amazingly, they did so without a PANICKED race to overpay for an inferior player to the ones they were missing. Imagine that, right?

First of all, KW never "crapped his pants"; he found an opportunity to strengthen his team. We can argue whether or not he succeeded in doing so, but it's not like he was picking up guys off the scrap heap.

Second, let's not subscribe to the Hawk Harrelson theory that The Minnesota Twins Do Everything Right™. I know it's easy to forget that the Twins made two significant (and questionable) moves by adding Matt Capps and Brian Fuentes, but they did in response to Jon Rauch's struggles in the closer spot.

And it's not like the Twins moved a bunch of nobodies to "improve" their squad. The Capps move included dealing Wilson Ramos, one of their top prospects at the time. These moves helped them limp into the playoffs and do their normal one and done act we're used to seeing from them in the postseason.

Perhaps the Twins DID panic and crap the bed, eh?

Lip Man 1
01-10-2011, 01:51 PM
Dirty:

Can't argue with your point. Let's look at it this way...when Hudson becomes a free agent after six years with Arizona the Sox can get him back, a far more polished pitcher than he was when they traded him, since we know if he's any good Arizona won't pay him. :D:

Lip

KMcMahon817
01-10-2011, 01:51 PM
Fair enough. But, IMO, given the lack of ammo to go out and get an adequate replacement to your $15M man, it ceased to be about the 2010 division. It started to become a race for the 2011 division at that point.


That just doesn't make any sense. So one of your best pitchers gets hurt, who by the way was far from outstanding in 2010, and expect KW to just pack it in for the year?

There would be outrage from most SOX fans, especially if the team is within reach of first place, let alone in first place.

By using this thought, shouldn't the Twins have just packed it in and started looking forward to 2011 when Morneau got hurt? Sure, they have viable back up options, but so did we (Hudson). Except, the SOX are run a different way than the Twins. The Twins pull up their farmhands to plug holes, the SOX trade most of their young guys for proven pieces. It's the way it has been for most of the past decade...

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 01:53 PM
I can agree. But Hudson was the rare SOX farmhand that was positioned to be an injury replacement, and was not likely to embarrass himself.

Hudson didn't exactly set the world on fire in his time with the Sox. You keep speaking in this hypothetical world, which doesn't exactly help your already-weak case.

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 01:54 PM
How about this: Let's all be the SOX fans that we are, and root for Mr. Edwin Jackson (the Golden God, the Myth, etc.) in 2011 and hope that KW's gamble pays off. If not, oh well, it's over. This topic has been wrung dry here at WSI.

I think everyone wants Jackson to succeed. I'm glad he's in the rotation and expect a solid 2011 from him.

The awesome thing about this thread is you know exactly what you're getting into when you click on it. If the Jackson debate doesn't do anything for you, it's easy to ignore this thread.

KMcMahon817
01-10-2011, 01:55 PM
I think everyone wants Jackson to succeed. I'm glad he's in the rotation and expect a solid 2011 from him.

The awesome thing about this thread is you know exactly what you're getting into when you click on it. If the Jackson debate doesn't do anything for you, it's easy to ignore this thread.

That's all I am sayin'.

khan
01-10-2011, 01:57 PM
First of all, KW never "crapped his pants"; he found an opportunity to strengthen his team. We can argue whether or not he succeeded in doing so, but it's not like he was picking up guys off the scrap heap.

Second, let's not subscribe to the Hawk Harrelson theory that The Minnesota Twins Do Everything Right™. I know it's easy to forget that the Twins made two significant (and questionable) moves by adding Matt Capps and Brian Fuentes, but they did in response to Jon Rauch's struggles in the closer spot.

And it's not like the Twins moved a bunch of nobodies to "improve" their squad. The Capps move included dealing Wilson Ramos, one of their top prospects at the time. These moves helped them limp into the playoffs and do their normal one and done act we're used to seeing from them in the postseason.

Perhaps the Twins DID panic and crap the bed, eh?
1. Picking up a pitcher with a career 1.485 WHIP, and an at-the-time 1.50+ WHIP in the NL to replace your $15M man with the 1.213 WHIP is the DEFINITION of grasping for straws. [Not to mention sending away your only MLB-ready pitching prospect as well.]

2. Capps was added [in part] because Minnesota had the ammo to go get him. They had the catching prospect and the pitching prospect they needed to make THAT trade happen.

Correspondingly, if KW had enough ammo to do so, I'm sure he would have set his sights higher, and perhaps gone for Lee. [Which I would have fully supported, IF there were the pieces available to make that trade happen.]

3. Fuentes was picked up after the waiver deadline, with a PTBNL sent back. He was picked up essentially for little-to-nothing.

None of the moves by minnesota were panicked. They were all well-reasoned, IMO.

doublem23
01-10-2011, 02:03 PM
None of the moves by minnesota were panicked. They were all well-reasoned, IMO.

Obviously

:rolleyes:

khan
01-10-2011, 02:05 PM
By using this thought, shouldn't the Twins have just packed it in and started looking forward to 2011 when Morneau got hurt? Sure, they have viable back up options, but so did we (Hudson). Except, the SOX are run a different way than the Twins. The Twins pull up their farmhands to plug holes, the SOX trade most of their young guys for proven pieces. It's the way it has been for most of the past decade...

Thank you for agreeing with me. Hudson probably could have gone for the 1.406 WHIP that Jackson so graciously gave the SOX in September/October. Only for millions less.

khan
01-10-2011, 02:06 PM
Hudson didn't exactly set the world on fire in his time with the Sox. You keep speaking in this hypothetical world, which doesn't exactly help your already-weak case.

Hey, remind me, since I forgot:

Who won the 2010 AL Central Division, the SOX or the twins?

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 02:06 PM
Thank you for agreeing with me. Hudson probably could have gone for the 1.406 WHIP that Jackson so graciously gave the SOX in September/October. Only for millions less.

Or not.

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 02:07 PM
Hey, remind me, since I forgot:

Who won the 2010 AL Central Division, the SOX or the twins?

I assume you can check your closet for your Twins 2010 Central Division Champions t-shirt to find the answer.

Ranger
01-10-2011, 02:20 PM
I would someday love to meet the human misery that is khan.

1. I have to disagree with your supposition that the 2010 SOX were capable of winning it after losing their $15M man. The results proved it to be so.

2. I'll agree that most, if not ALL teams that lose such an important player are doomed to not succeed in making the playoffs. Again, the results proved it for the 2010 SOX. [Also, if Jackson "stabilized" the rotation, wouldn't adding such a golden god have meant we would have celebrated another WS win?]

3. Neither Floyd's crappy 1.487 2nd half WHIP, nor Jackson's crappy 1.408 WHIP in September/October, nor Buehrle's horrific 1.486 WHIP in August-October had anything to do with the bullpen. The SOX lost Peavy's 1.233 WHIP, and did not have the ammo to replace it with, say Cliff Lee or any other SP that was anything like Peavy.

4. If we use your supposition that it was the bullpen that failed, why didn't KW fix THAT instead? Your own opinion illustrates that it was quixotic to add Jackson when it wouldn't have helped this team.

5. Can we stop this bull**** about the SOX having a "solid" rotation? Their results in 2010 illustrate that they are ANYTHING but solid. [For that matter, let's stop the myth that Jackson, he of the 1.485 career WHIP, is "solid." He isn't, whether we like it or not.]

(Can we all concede that WHIP is khan's favorite statistic of all time?)

Well pretty much everything you just said here is wrong. KW didn't "fix" the bullpen because the injuries and failures didn't start piling up until AFTER the deadline.

I'm sorry, but it is just painfully stupid to think that a team in first place 4 months into a 6 month season had no chance of winning its division. It's just so monumentally wrong it can't be defended.

You asked if I knew of any team capable of winning the division after losing someone like Peavy. The answer is still: Yes, the White Sox were. Capable? Yes. Did they do it? No. Those are two different things. Did they lose the division because they lost Peavy? Absolutely not. Jackson was good in all of his Sox starts except for one.

They didn't lose because of Peavy and no facts support that they did.

Trying to win a pennant with unproven starting pitching is not the way I would go about doing it.

Which is exactly why they didn't. It's ok to like Dan Hudson. But everyone here knows as well as I do (which is why nobody will argue against it) that had the Sox gone the rest of the year with Hudson -- and he stunk -- fans would have been all over Williams for not getting a "proven" guy. Trust me, I'm not wrong.

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 02:24 PM
I would someday love to meet the human misery that is khan.



(Can we all concede that WHIP is khan's favorite statistic of all time?)

Well pretty much everything you just said here is wrong. KW didn't "fix" the bullpen because the injuries and failures didn't start piling up until AFTER the deadline.

I'm sorry, but it is just painfully stupid to think that a team in first place 4 months into a 6 month season had no chance of winning it's division. It's just so monumentally wrong it can't be defended.

You asked if I knew of any team capable of winning the division after losing someone like Peavy. The answer is still: Yes, the White Sox were. Capable? Yes. Did they do it? No. Those are two different things. Did they lose the division because they lost Peavy? Absolutely not. Jackson was good in all of his Sox starts except for one.

They didn't lose because of Peavy and no facts support that they did.



Which is exactly why they didn't. It's ok to like Dan Hudson. But everyone here knows as well as I do (which is why nobody will argue against it) that had the Sox gone the rest of the year with Hudson -- and he stunk -- fans would have been all over Williams for not getting a "proven" guy. Trust me, I'm not wrong.

http://oi33.tinypic.com/2dwglci.jpg

SI1020
01-10-2011, 02:30 PM
I assume you can check your closet for your Twins 2010 Central Division Champions t-shirt to find the answer. Definitely. Questioning the acquisition of an expensive pitcher with an uneven track record is tantamount to treason. I'm sure that there is much more than just that Twins jersey in Khan's closet.

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 02:32 PM
Definitely. Questioning the acquisition of an expensive pitcher with an uneven track record is tantamount to treason. I'm sure that there is much more than just that Twins jersey in Khan's closet.

You obviously haven't read all of khan's posts.

Risk
01-10-2011, 02:35 PM
Well pretty much everything you just said here is wrong. KW didn't "fix" the bullpen because the injuries and failures didn't start piling up until AFTER the deadline.

I'm sorry, but it is just painfully stupid to think that a team in first place 4 months into a 6 month season had no chance of winning it's division. It's just so monumentally wrong it can't be defended.

You asked if I knew of any team capable of winning the division after losing someone like Peavy. The answer is still: Yes, the White Sox were. Capable? Yes. Did they do it? No. Those are two different things. Did they lose the division because they lost Peavy? Absolutely not. Jackson was good in all of his Sox starts except for one.

They didn't lose because of Peavy and no facts support that they did.



Which is exactly why they didn't. It's ok to like Dan Hudson. But everyone here knows as well as I do (which is why nobody will argue against it) that had the Sox gone the rest of the year with Hudson -- and he stunk -- fans would have been all over Williams for not getting a "proven" guy. Trust me, I'm not wrong.

QFT. And thats the killshot.

Risk

Foulke You
01-10-2011, 02:58 PM
I would someday love to meet the human misery that is khan.



(Can we all concede that WHIP is khan's favorite statistic of all time?)

Well pretty much everything you just said here is wrong. KW didn't "fix" the bullpen because the injuries and failures didn't start piling up until AFTER the deadline.

I'm sorry, but it is just painfully stupid to think that a team in first place 4 months into a 6 month season had no chance of winning it's division. It's just so monumentally wrong it can't be defended.

You asked if I knew of any team capable of winning the division after losing someone like Peavy. The answer is still: Yes, the White Sox were. Capable? Yes. Did they do it? No. Those are two different things. Did they lose the division because they lost Peavy? Absolutely not. Jackson was good in all of his Sox starts except for one.

They didn't lose because of Peavy and no facts support that they did.



Which is exactly why they didn't. It's ok to like Dan Hudson. But everyone here knows as well as I do (which is why nobody will argue against it) that had the Sox gone the rest of the year with Hudson -- and he stunk -- fans would have been all over Williams for not getting a "proven" guy. Trust me, I'm not wrong.
Indeed. Well said, Ranger.

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2011, 03:10 PM
...since the team was flawed, [which I believe contributed to the OG-KW feud] I would have cut my losses for 2010, and not added the kind of salaries that KW did.


My "under the radar" moves would have been to publicly laud Daniel Hudson [knowing that my team is flawed], and promote him. [Thus preserving value for the next-best opportunity to win, which was/is 2011.]Well, now that you've clarified what you considered to be the correct move, then there's nothing further to discuss, because I couldn't disagree more. To look at the Sox and where they were when Peavy went down and say "well, we're done. Scrap the season and start looking toward 2011" would have been a disaster, PR-wise and otherwise. Talk about a "white-flag" moment; that would have been the epitome of a bad white-flag move. And all the "flawed team" logic is just nonsense. Show me a team without flaws. I'm glad the Sox didn't quit on the season.

khan
01-10-2011, 03:33 PM
1. (Can we all concede that WHIP is khan's favorite statistic of all time?)


Well pretty much everything you just said here is wrong. KW didn't "fix" the bullpen because the injuries and failures didn't start piling up until AFTER the deadline.

2. I'm sorry, but it is just painfully stupid to think that a team in first place 4 months into a 6 month season had no chance of winning it's division. It's just so monumentally wrong it can't be defended.

3. You asked if I knew of any team capable of winning the division after losing someone like Peavy. The answer is still: Yes, the White Sox were. Capable? Yes. Did they do it? No. Those are two different things. Did they lose the division because they lost Peavy? Absolutely not. Jackson was good in all of his Sox starts except for one.

4. They didn't lose because of Peavy and no facts support that they did.
1. I use WHIP because it seems to have fair acceptance around these parts. If you don't like WHIP, use OBPallowed, or another suitable metric.

Feel free to propose another metric, so that we're intellectually honest and using REAL measurements rather than opinions.


2. I disagree. It is monumentally stupid to not acknowledge the very small margin of error that was constructed into that team. In other words, WITHOUT Peavy, they weren't going to win. "Ranger, can you name another team that lost one of it's top 2 SPs to the DL that later went to the playoffs? Or one that was CAPABLE of doing so in your opinion, if they had not suffered such an injury? [Such as the '90s Braves, with their 5 foot wide strike zone and multiple #1 SPs.]"

Since the SOX lost their #1 or #2 SP and didn't make the playoffs, I'm absolutely correct in my assessment of Peavy's importance to that team. [If you don't like the nomenclature of "#1 or #2," use the idea that Peavy was definitely slated to be one of their starters in a hypothetical playoff series.]


4. Again: They replaced Peavy's relative effectiveness [as measure by his 1.213 WHIP] with a relatively-ineffective Edwin Jackson [as measured by his WHIP.]

Buehrle and Floyd both underperformed their career averages, and were both worse than the league average for most pitching metrics, if you don't like WHIP.


I'll agree [and I have agreed] that the bullpen failed. But it wasn't alone in failing to help get the team into the playoffs. The starting rotation also failed because it isn't as good as advertised, and because it lost one of the most important players in the roster.

khan
01-10-2011, 03:34 PM
I assume you can check your closet for your Twins 2010 Central Division Champions t-shirt to find the answer.

If you're going to suggest that I'm not a SOX fan, that's really not cool.

You can be funny without challenging someone's fandom, inasmuch as I can challenge opinions by using real results and real outcomes to do so.

khan
01-10-2011, 03:39 PM
Well, now that you've clarified what you considered to be the correct move, then there's nothing further to discuss, because I couldn't disagree more. To look at the Sox and where they were when Peavy went down and say "well, we're done. Scrap the season and start looking toward 2011" would have been a disaster, PR-wise and otherwise. Talk about a "white-flag" moment; that would have been the epitome of a bad white-flag move. And all the "flawed team" logic is just nonsense. Show me a team without flaws. I'm glad the Sox didn't quit on the season.

I'm glad you brought that up. In another thread, my view was NOT that the "white flag trade" was a mistake.

My view was that JR stupidly opened his mouth and said something stupid, when he could have said any number of things, or kept his mouth shut, or waited for the news cycle to change.

With the loss of Peavy/hypothetical promotion of Hudson, there are/were any number of perfectly acceptable ways to win the "PR battle." I've mentioned them earlier. Nowhere did I suggest that anyone in the front office PUBLICLY acknowledge that the team was flawed, and was unlikely to win the division. A front office can say one thing, but do another. It happens all the time in MLB.

hi im skot
01-10-2011, 03:46 PM
If you're going to suggest that I'm not a SOX fan, that's really not cool.

You can be funny without challenging someone's fandom, inasmuch as I can challenge opinions by using real results and real outcomes to do so.

Lighten up.

doublem23
01-10-2011, 03:47 PM
Lighten up.

Nobody is allowed to have fun on the internet.

SI1020
01-10-2011, 04:54 PM
Nobody is allowed to have fun on the internet. I do. Sometimes even at my own expense.

spawn
01-10-2011, 05:02 PM
Nobody is allowed to have fun on the internet.

What is the Internet?

DirtySox
01-10-2011, 05:04 PM
What is the Internet?

I believe it is a series of tubes.

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2011, 05:26 PM
I believe it is a series of tubes.Yup. :nod:

KMcMahon817
01-10-2011, 05:46 PM
Thank you for agreeing with me. Hudson probably could have gone for the 1.406 WHIP that Jackson so graciously gave the SOX in September/October. Only for millions less.

No. I was not in agreement with anything you said. Hudson may have been a viable option, but you ignored the rest of my statement. By dealing Hudson, the Sox acquired a more viable option (Jackson). But nice attempt at a straw man....as if I should be surprised.

KyWhiSoxFan
01-10-2011, 06:04 PM
I believe it is a series of tubes.

I think you mean a series of rubes.

TommyJohn
01-10-2011, 07:38 PM
What is the Internet?

The place where they have Facebook.

A. Cavatica
01-10-2011, 09:02 PM
Look, there was an argument to be made for getting Jackson -- and it's been made. Fans would have ripped KW if he had stuck with Hudson.

There was an argument to be made for sticking with Hudson, too. He was the Sox' best SP prospect since Brandon McCarthy, and he was cheap.

KW made the wrong call. Now all those other fans get to rip him. That's life for a GM.

But the best defense of Jackson so far has been "he was a better gamble than an unproven rookie". Nobody has come up with any reason other than blind faith for him to be any better than that. And until he actually shows that he's better than his established career performance, he's going to be a WHIPping boy.

spawn
01-10-2011, 09:12 PM
KW made the wrong call. Now all those other fans get to rip him. That's life for a GM.
That's your opinion. The jury is still out on this decision. It's a little too early to proclaim his acquisition as a failure, considering he hasn't pitched a full season in a White Sox unifiorm.

A. Cavatica
01-10-2011, 09:20 PM
That's your opinion. The jury is still out on this decision. It's a little too early to proclaim his acquisition as a failure, considering he hasn't pitched a full season in a White Sox unifiorm.

The argument for getting Jackson was that KW would've been ripped if he'd kept Hudson for the rest of the season. In hindsight, keeping Hudson for the rest of the season was the better choice.

Obviously, the trade will be better evaluated five years from now, but nobody's going to wait five years before voicing an opinion.

spawn
01-10-2011, 09:26 PM
The argument for getting Jackson was that KW would've been ripped if he'd kept Hudson for the rest of the season. In hindsight, keeping Hudson for the rest of the season was the better choice.
No, the argument is if Hudson would've continued pitching the way he had, KW would've been ripped for not making an attempt to make the rotation better. And it's a pretty solid argument. And there is absolutely no guarantee Hudson would've pitched for the Sox the way he did for the DBacks. he had one solid outing in the starting rotation for the Sox, and that was against the Mariners. Now, would he have continued to pitch that way? We don't know. All I know is I don't blame KW at all for taking the chance by trading for Jackson, because at the time of the trade, I had absolutely no confidence in Hudson.
Obviously, the trade will be better evaluated five years from now, but nobody's going to wait five years before voicing an opinion.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You stated it as a fact:

KW made the wrong call. Now all those other fans get to rip him. That's life for a GM.

Again, it's too early to say he made the wrong call.

mzh
01-10-2011, 09:28 PM
The argument for getting Jackson was that KW would've been ripped if he'd kept Hudson for the rest of the season. In hindsight, keeping Hudson for the rest of the season was the better choice.


Apples to Oranges, IMO. Hudson struggled against the AL, and while he obviously dominated the NL West, it's hard to say whether he would have had the same results in the AL. Having already drafted Chris Sale with Hudson still in the system and Sale's rapid descent, I think we'd still have just as many questions about the state of the Sox 2011 rotation.

A. Cavatica
01-10-2011, 09:51 PM
Apples to Oranges, IMO. Hudson struggled against the AL, and while he obviously dominated the NL West, it's hard to say whether he would have had the same results in the AL. Having already drafted Chris Sale with Hudson still in the system and Sale's rapid descent, I think we'd still have just as many questions about the state of the Sox 2011 rotation.

And maybe Hudson would've pitched even better if the Sox had kept him. (After all, Jackson got better going to the AL.) But common sense says we can only go by the salaries and the records, and by those measures it worked out a lot better for the D-Backs.

How do you figure that there are fewer questions about Jackson than Hudson? Jackson's had several years of poor performance, with one great 12-start run that got him in the All-Star Game a couple of years ago. Hudson's coming off a great 11-start run that was just as good as Jackson's best streak ever. Both have had the same amount of success; Jackson's just had a lot more suck.

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2011, 10:09 PM
Apples to Oranges, IMO. Hudson struggled against the AL, and while he obviously dominated the NL West, it's hard to say whether he would have had the same results in the AL. Having already drafted Chris Sale with Hudson still in the system and Sale's rapid descent, I think we'd still have just as many questions about the state of the Sox 2011 rotation.I think you mean rapid ascent. A rapid descent is a very bad thing.

NLaloosh
01-10-2011, 11:30 PM
Absolutley incorrect. The Sox were a game in front when they traded for him. How can you say that a first place team in late July has "very little chance" of going to the postseason?

It's a fact that people would have been furious had Hudson stayed here and stunk in the final two months. You know as well as I do that it would've been "Kenny should've done something about the rotation!" You'd be kidding yourself to deny that.

Hanging on to Jackson gave them their best shot at the postseason last year, and I'll never complain (nor should you) that they made an attempt to get better down the stretch. It didn't work out.

Ranger, still disagree with you. It doesn't matter that they were still 1 game up. They were losing momentum and the Twins were gaining. Their bullpen was falling apart and that's what really killed them. The Twins had gone through their slump and we all know that the Sox wet the bed against the Twins head to head.

Don't tell me what I would've said. I am almost always in favor of holding onto good young prospects like Hudson. So, no, I didn't want Kenny to add pitching by trading pitching.

You're also wrong about the deal not working out. The deal did work out in the interim. Jackson was as good as they hoped. However, the team was flawed and weren"t going to finish ahead of the surging Twins - which is the point. Most of us could see that the Sox were goin to fall short which is why we didn't want $ 4 mil. wasted on Manny either.

Kenny Williams has made many good deals but lately there have been some real bad ones - Peavy (worst in his career), Dunn signing (way overpaid), Jackson for Hudson,Teahen extension and Pierre (overpaid).

Thome25
01-11-2011, 12:04 AM
Dammit it is so frustrating around here sometimes whenever we trade a prospect.

There are some WSIers who act like the players we traded are the "second coming" and everytime we trade young players we somehow got "fleeced".

Here is a list of some of our so-called "top-prospects" over the last 10 years:

Pitchers:

Kris Honel, Royce Ring, Brandon McCarthy, Gio Gonzalez, Lance Broadway, Clayton Richard, Kyle McCulloch, Aaron Poreda, John Ely, Dan Hudson, Chris Sale

Position Players:

Chris Young, Josh Fields, Jeremy Reed, Chris Getz, Brian Anderson, Ryan Sweeney, Gordon Beckham, Brent Morel, Jordan Danks, Jared Mitchell,

The point of this exercise is to highlight the fact that the White Sox scouting, drafting, and player development has absolutely BLOWN over the last 10 years at the very least. Should we get all bent out of shape when an AVERAGE prospect such as Hudson gets traded and will most likely end up as one of the washouts on that list? HELL NO.

Look at that list of mostly garbage. Do you see any pitchers on this list that have or will become the next Cy Young, Greg Maddux or even Jamie Moyer for that matter?

What about position players? Do you see any present or future Mickey Mantles, Mike Schmidts, or Albert Pujols' on that list?

IMO I see two. That's right TWO who could and that's a big COULD become perennial all-stars. Gordon Beckham and Chris Sale. Is the jury still out on several of them? Sure. But, will they end up being something truly special? Probably not.

Did we trade either of those two(Beckham and Sale) for EJ? That's right no we didn't. So sleep safe and sound when we trade one of our quote/un-quote "top prospects" because chances are they won't even pan out.....given our track record.

balke
01-11-2011, 12:53 AM
I like Edwin Jackson. He can stay and I think that's great. He can be traded before the season starts and I think that would be great too. How can you complain about the guy so far?

Foulke You
01-11-2011, 01:16 AM
My view was that JR stupidly opened his mouth and said something stupid, when he could have said any number of things, or kept his mouth shut, or waited for the news cycle to change.[/EDIT]
The White Flag Trade would have been long remembered as a dark day in White Sox history whether JR opened his mouth or not.

Ranger
01-11-2011, 03:16 AM
The argument for getting Jackson was that KW would've been ripped if he'd kept Hudson for the rest of the season. In hindsight, keeping Hudson for the rest of the season was the better choice.

Obviously, the trade will be better evaluated five years from now, but nobody's going to wait five years before voicing an opinion.

That's assuming Hudson pitches just as well here as he did in Arizona. But there was no way to know that, considering his struggles in the starts they did give him before the trade. Maybe he would have been fine, but maybe he would have been terrible. Either way, it isn't true for anyone to say they were positive the deal would have worked out better had he stayed. Nobody could have been certain of that, and we still can't be.

Ranger, still disagree with you. It doesn't matter that they were still 1 game up. They were losing momentum and the Twins were gaining. Their bullpen was falling apart and that's what really killed them. The Twins had gone through their slump and we all know that the Sox wet the bed against the Twins head to head.

Don't tell me what I would've said. I am almost always in favor of holding onto good young prospects like Hudson. So, no, I didn't want Kenny to add pitching by trading pitching.

You're also wrong about the deal not working out. The deal did work out in the interim. Jackson was as good as they hoped. However, the team was flawed and weren"t going to finish ahead of the surging Twins - which is the point. Most of us could see that the Sox were goin to fall short which is why we didn't want $ 4 mil. wasted on Manny either.

Kenny Williams has made many good deals but lately there have been some real bad ones - Peavy (worst in his career), Dunn signing (way overpaid), Jackson for Hudson,Teahen extension and Pierre (overpaid).

But that's just not correct. Only those with a perpetual defeatist attitude would automatically assume the Sox weren't going the win the division because the Twins had "momentum". First of all, if there even is such a thing as game-to-game momentum, all it takes is one day for that momentum to disappear. Second, the Sox went on a run in June. With two months left to play, how can you be so positive that they wouldn't have gone on another? And how could you have been so positive that the Twins weren't going to go on a true slide at some point in the last 2 months? "Because it's the Twins" and "because they have a been a good second half team in recent years" are not good enough reasons. Different season, different players.

There is no way you knew that Putz and Thornton would both go on the DL in late August or that Jenks was going to be completely unavailable for the final month of the season. And there is no way you knew that something disastrous wouldn't have happened to the Twins in the final two months.

Being in first place at the end of April doesn't mean a team is in pretty good position to win the division. Being in first place heading into August does, though. If a team's made it that far into a season and is in first, they have a pretty good shot at winning.

Bottom line is: no Sox fans "knew" heading into August it was going to turn out the way it did. Being a pessimist with a gut feeling that turns out to be right, doesn't mean you "knew" something that other people didn't. In late August of 2005, Sox fans just "knew" they were going to blow the division. Guess what? They didn't.

Furthermore, people have to stop bringing up the $4 mil for Manny last year. That, in no way, affected the payroll for this season. It didn't hurt anything, it just didn't work.

(By the way, "almost always" being in favor of holding onto prospects colors your perception of every single trade. By admitting that, you're admitting that there is very little wiggle room in your mind to ever trade a prospect to bolster playoff chances for a contending team. That's also failure to recognize the hundreds of good young prospects that never amount to anything.)

A. Cavatica
01-11-2011, 06:27 AM
I like Edwin Jackson. He can stay and I think that's great. He can be traded before the season starts and I think that would be great too. How can you complain about the guy so far?

I agree with this. I don't hate Jackson; I just think his upside is 200 innings with a 4.50 ERA. I'd be willing to trade him to free up salary to sign Soriano. Not Crain, not Ohman, but Soriano. And only if I knew Peavy was coming back.

doublem23
01-11-2011, 06:41 AM
I agree with this. I don't hate Jackson; I just think his upside is 200 innings with a 4.50 ERA. I'd be willing to trade him to free up salary to sign Soriano. Not Crain, not Ohman, but Soriano. And only if I knew Peavy was coming back.

Nobody knows that.

Thome25
01-11-2011, 10:42 AM
(By the way, "almost always" being in favor of holding onto prospects colors your perception of every single trade. By admitting that, you're admitting that there is very little wiggle room in your mind to ever trade a prospect to bolster playoff chances for a contending team. That's also failure to recognize the hundreds of good young prospects that never amount to anything.)

I agree with this. See my post above. We need these average-type prospects like Hudson to trade away when we're contending. Chances are, they won 't amount to anything anyway....especially with our track record of scouting, drafting, and player development over the last 10+ years.

With that said, we're either going to be a perennial contender who trades off marginal prospects at the deadline or we'll be the a team like the Twins who hangs onto players develops them, and lets them walk when free agency hits.

I'd much rather be the perennial contender who makes the trades especially with our farm system. Let's face it Hudson is a marginal prospect. The only reason he was even considered one of our top prospects is because our system is so barren.

SI1020
01-11-2011, 11:51 AM
I agree with this. See my post above. We need these average-type prospects like Hudson to trade away when we're contending. Chances are, they won 't amount to anything anyway....especially with our track record of scouting, drafting, and player development over the last 10+ years.

With that said, we're either going to be a perennial contender who trades off marginal prospects at the deadline or we'll be the a team like the Twins who hangs onto players develops them, and lets them walk when free agency hits.

I'd much rather be the perennial contender who makes the trades especially with our farm system. Let's face it Hudson is a marginal prospect. The only reason he was even considered one of our top prospects is because our system is so barren. I try to see as much minor league baseball in the Carolinas as possible. I was not in any way impressed with Hudson, who in my opinion pitched very timidly at the first hint of trouble. I was totally surprised he did so well with Arizona last year. Even if he never duplicates it, why was Arizona successful with him while the Sox were not? The same thing with Clayton Richard. Not only are the Sox are lousy at drafting, they don't seem to be able to maximize the potentials of those they do draft. It may not be popular, but I believe that drafting and developing young talent is key to a MLB team's chances for long term success. You don't have to trade for a very iffy project like Edwin Jackson when you know you have someone potentially much better on the farm.

DirtySox
01-11-2011, 12:06 PM
Let's face it Hudson is a marginal prospect. The only reason he was even considered one of our top prospects is because our system is so barren.

Incorrect. Where do you even come up with this stuff? Do you even know what marginal means? Such an assertion is almost as funny as your conclusion that Hudson must be an NL only pitcher after a whopping AL sample size of 15 innings.

Hudson wasn't an elite prospect, but he was highly regarded by many. John Ely was a marginal prospect. So is Lucas Harrell. You are once again way off base.

voodoochile
01-11-2011, 01:28 PM
I try to see as much minor league baseball in the Carolinas as possible. I was not in any way impressed with Hudson, who in my opinion pitched very timidly at the first hint of trouble. I was totally surprised he did so well with Arizona last year. Even if he never duplicates it, why was Arizona successful with him while the Sox were not? The same thing with Clayton Richard. Not only are the Sox are lousy at drafting, they don't seem to be able to maximize the potentials of those they do draft. It may not be popular, but I believe that drafting and developing young talent is key to a MLB team's chances for long term success. You don't have to trade for a very iffy project like Edwin Jackson when you know you have someone potentially much better on the farm.

Pitching in the weak hitting NLW is NOT the same thing as pitching in the ALC.

SI1020
01-11-2011, 01:32 PM
Pitching in the weak hitting NLW is NOT the same thing as pitching in the ALC. True, but I think these comparisons are sometimes overplayed. It's still MLB. Remember Edwin Jackson posted a 5.16 ERA and an 82 ERA+ with the Diamondbacks.

hi im skot
01-11-2011, 01:54 PM
Edwin Jackson is the anti-Christ and probably somehow responsible for Ke$ha, "Hot Tub Time Machine" and the removal of the diamond sock patch on the home uniforms.

spawn
01-11-2011, 01:55 PM
Edwin Jackson is the anti-Christ and probably somehow responsible for Ke$ha, "Hot Tub Time Machine" and the removal of the diamond sock patch on the home uniforms.

He's a more evolved version of Dewayne Wise.

doublem23
01-11-2011, 02:00 PM
Pitching in the weak hitting NLW is NOT the same thing as pitching in the ALC.

Yes, I'm sure he was crapping his pants thinking of those matchups against the Indians and Royals

SI1020
01-11-2011, 02:12 PM
Edwin Jackson is the anti-Christ and probably somehow responsible for Ke$ha, "Hot Tub Time Machine" and the removal of the diamond sock patch on the home uniforms. Talk about overreaction. He's a gamble that may or may not work out. Nothing more and nothing less. To say that one should ignore Hudson's success last year in the NLW doesn't jibe with the fact that Jackson for the most part failed there.

spawn
01-11-2011, 02:14 PM
Talk about overreaction. He's a gamble that may or may not work out. Nothing more and nothing less. To say that one should ignore Hudson's success last year in the NLW doesn't jibe with the fact that Jackson for the most part failed there.

Do people around here no longer have a sense of humor??? :scratch:

hi im skot
01-11-2011, 02:15 PM
Talk about overreaction. He's a gamble that may or may not work out. Nothing more and nothing less. To say that one should ignore Hudson's success last year in the NLW doesn't jibe with the fact that Jackson for the most part failed there.

Do people around here no longer have a sense of humor??? :scratch:

Seriously. Calm down, folks...IT'S BASEBALL.

SI1020
01-11-2011, 02:24 PM
Do people around here no longer have a sense of humor??? :scratch: I have a great sense of humor. I am on occasion a bit dense though.

guillensdisciple
01-11-2011, 02:27 PM
Edwin Jackson is the anti-Christ and probably somehow responsible for Ke$ha, "Hot Tub Time Machine" and the removal of the diamond sock patch on the home uniforms.

I take offense to this.

"Hot Tub Time Machine" was a good movie.

Risk
01-11-2011, 02:44 PM
I take offense to this.

"Hot Tub Time Machine" was a good movie.

Only with the assistance of lots and lots of peyote.:tongue:

Risk

Foulke You
01-11-2011, 02:58 PM
Yes, I'm sure he was crapping his pants thinking of those matchups against the Indians and Royals
Three of the top hitting teams in the league were in the AL Central. Royals (2), Twins (3), and Tigers (5). Contrast that to the NL West where every team was ranked in the bottom 15 in the league.

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable_team_stats.jsp?c_id=mlb&baseballScope=mlb&statType=1&sitSplit=&timeSubFrame=2010&groupByTeam=true&Submit=Submit&timeFrame=1

DirtySox
01-11-2011, 03:23 PM
Three of the top hitting teams in the league were in the AL Central. Royals (2), Twins (3), and Tigers (5). Contrast that to the NL West where every team was ranked in the bottom 15 in the league.

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable_team_stats.jsp?c_id=mlb&baseballScope=mlb&statType=1&sitSplit=&timeSubFrame=2010&groupByTeam=true&Submit=Submit&timeFrame=1

Batting average is a terrible metric to judge a teams offensive output.

The Royals are a middle of the pack offensive team and nowhere near the top, but the Tigers are decent. EJ didn't once pitch against the Twins last season either. Also, the Rockies rank 10th when considering an all encompassing offensive measure such as wOBA. Can't argue about the Padres/Giants/Dodgers though. Hudson did manage to stymie the Reds twice, the Brewers, and the Rockies. The proportion of good offenses each pitcher faced last year (post trade) isn't that different.

Thome25
01-11-2011, 03:31 PM
Incorrect. Where do you even come up with this stuff? Do you even know what marginal means? Such an assertion is almost as funny as your conclusion that Hudson must be an NL only pitcher after a whopping AL sample size of 15 innings.

Hudson wasn't an elite prospect, but he was highly regarded by many. John Ely was a marginal prospect. So is Lucas Harrell. You are once again way off base.

Incorrect? It's my opinion and is therefore not a definite and can't be incorrect. If I stated it as fact, then it might be incorrect. Also, of course I have a grasp on my vocabulary. For you to insult my intelligence is beyond ridiculous.

If you want to have an intelligent debate then let's have at it. Otherwise take my point of view for what it's worth.

I believe Hudson is nothing more than a marginal, average prospect. His high ranking in the White Sox system is a product of our weak farm system. There is nothing "funny" or ridiculous about that.

Just so you can understand the context here is the definition of the word:

Marginal--adj,-\ˈmärj-nəl, ˈmär-jə-nəl\-- not of central importance. also : limited in extent, significance, or stature.

Hudson wouldn't be nearly as highly touted if we had a strong farm system like the Rays, Twins, or Marlins for example.

You're right, he isn't an elite prospect....he's nothing more than average at best IMO and he sure isn't the "second coming" that some are making him out to be.

In addition, I NEVER said he was an "NL only" pitcher. I merely stated that his numbers from last season could've been inflated in a clearly weaker league.

A. Cavatica
01-11-2011, 05:47 PM
Incorrect? It's my opinion and is therefore not a definite and can't be incorrect. If I stated it as fact, then it might be incorrect. Also, of course I have a grasp on my vocabulary. For you to insult my intelligence is beyond ridiculous.

If you want to have an intelligent debate then let's have at it. Otherwise take my point of view for what it's worth.

I believe Hudson is nothing more than a marginal, average prospect. His high ranking in the White Sox system is a product of our weak farm system. There is nothing "funny" or ridiculous about that.

Just so you can understand the context here is the definition of the word:

Marginal--adj,-\ˈmärj-nəl, ˈmär-jə-nəl\-- not of central importance. also : limited in extent, significance, or stature.

Hudson wouldn't be nearly as highly touted if we had a strong farm system like the Rays, Twins, or Marlins for example.

You're right, he isn't an elite prospect....he's nothing more than average at best IMO and he sure isn't the "second coming" that some are making him out to be.

In addition, I NEVER said he was an "NL only" pitcher. I merely stated that his numbers from last season could've been inflated in a clearly weaker league.

I would never dream of insulting your intelligence, but your assessment of Hudson as a marginal prospect is stupid, stupid, stupid.

He may not have been elite, but he was way above average or marginal.

Debuted with 70 innings in the Pioneer league in 2008. Rose all the way to the majors in 2009. Baseball America's #66 prospect going into 2010. Combined minor league numbers: 310 minor league innings, 238 hits allowed, 87 walks, 364 strikeouts, 30-13 record, 2.90 ERA, 1.047 WHIP.

Jackson ranked higher on BA's prospect lists because he did it at a younger age, but his career minor league record was 32-32 with a 4.39 ERA and a 1.378 WHIP.

KMcMahon817
01-11-2011, 06:25 PM
I take offense to this.

"Hot Tub Time Machine" was a good movie.

Thank you. You beat me to it. I found it hilarious.

Thome25
01-11-2011, 06:46 PM
Thank you. You beat me to it. I found it hilarious.

As did I.....thread hijack over....:redneck

whitesoxfan1986
01-11-2011, 09:21 PM
Back on topic-When the trade was made, I liked it because I thought, through watching Hudson's starts, that he had a bad breaking ball and was a two pitch pitcher. Over the 3 starts that I saw, his slider had little movement and was like a hanging splitter. Furthermore, I rarely saw him throw a curveball, though I read through minor league scouting reports that he had one. I haven't watched him since then, but it seems as if either a) his slider does break to hitters, and we can't see the break due to his arm angle on TV, or b) he decided to throw the curve, and it is actually a good pitch. I praised Keith Law for saying that Hudson was a marginal prospect, because what I saw was a guy who was destined for the bullpen or being a washout. I never saw a guy who would be a good pitcher. I was surprised that he did well, even in the NL, based on my earlier observations. I'd probably get fired if I was a scout, and that is why I'm not one.

If Peavy was going to get injured, 3 weeks before the deadline was a bad time. The Sox had to make a quick decision about a rookie that got bombed in 2 of his 3 starts. Unfortunately for them, they had nobody of value to trade but Hudson, and they didn't think that they could count on him in the heat of a division race. I think that this trade would be looked at differently if the Sox didn't get their brains beat in by the Cockroaches.(Twins-I call them this because they won't ever die, and when you think they're dead they just keep coming back.) If the Sox won the division, then I think the move is heralded by the fans as a division saving move, rather than a front office blunder. IIRC, Jackson never pitched against the Twins, so Danks, Buehrle, Floyd, Garcia and the Bullpen should get the blame for not getting the Twins out. Jackson pitched brilliantly until that one game where he had to go something like 140 pitches, because the bullpen was used up and hurt, and his performance dropped off after that.

voodoochile
01-11-2011, 11:49 PM
Yes, I'm sure he was crapping his pants thinking of those matchups against the Indians and Royals

You mean the Royals who finished with a higher OPS than the World Champion Giants and the second best team batting average in baseball last year?