PDA

View Full Version : Prediction thread: Friday, Danks vs Dan Hudson


A. Cavatica
06-12-2011, 07:43 PM
Since Hudson for Edwin Jackson has been a big topic of conversation I thought I'd point out that the Sox face Hudson on Friday. Jackson goes the night before in Minny so we'll miss out on a head-to-head.

Who's bold enough to make a prediction for the game? Danks has been hot, but I think Hudson will keep it close, with the Sox even or leading by one after six. And I think our bullpen will blow the game late.

Dibbs
06-12-2011, 08:03 PM
I think we will win, although I still can't believe we made this trade. Listening to many argue that we got the better end of the deal is comical.

kittle42
06-12-2011, 09:22 PM
I make no prediction on the game or Hudson's performance, but here is a certainty: one group of people on WSI will rip on another group of people here on WSI.

Frater Perdurabo
06-12-2011, 09:36 PM
I make no prediction on the game or Hudson's performance, but here is a certainty: one group of people on WSI will rip on another group of people here on WSI.

Will the sun rise in the East and set in the West? And will the Cubs still suck?

KMcMahon817
06-12-2011, 09:41 PM
Will the sun rise in the East and set in the West? And will the Cubs still suck?

Does a bear **** in the woods?

Sox
06-12-2011, 09:54 PM
I really wish people would stop ripping on one another. Frankly it's getting old. We are all passionate about the Sox. I think that we can all agree to disagree with out the fore a mentioned ripping.

voodoochile
06-12-2011, 10:19 PM
I really wish people would stop ripping on one another. Frankly it's getting old. We are all passionate about the Sox. I think that we can all agree to disagree with out the fore a mentioned ripping.

Well I have to admit that when I see threads like this, especially when the opening post is predicting a Sox loss, the word trolling comes immediately to mind, so if I seem a bit harsh when I post:

:threadsucks:

please forgive me because the very thought of this thread causes bile to rise in my throat. It strikes me as one more shot at Sox management as if there haven't been enough of those type threads this year. Now we have a whole week to rip on management some more over a trade that some posters feel strongly about because they have some notion that Hudson was the real deal. He's having a solid year this year but I wouldn't call it spectacular though he has been pitching better of late against some of the less spectacular clubs in the NL.

So I'm meh on Hudson. I like having Jackson though I wouldn't be adverse to trading him either. Personally, I'll take Humber and not worry about the rest.

Oh and my prediction is he Sox blow the Dbacks off the field all weekend long including Friday, but that's always my prediction, so I wouldn't bet ther mortgage on it...

Sox
06-12-2011, 10:32 PM
Well I have to admit that when I see threads like this, especially when the opening post is predicting a Sox loss, the word trolling comes immediately to mind, so if I seem a bit harsh when I post:

:threadsucks:

please forgive me because the very thought of this thread causes bile to rise in my throat. It strikes me as one more shot at Sox management as if there haven't been enough of those type threads this year. Now we have a whole week to rip on management some more over a trade that some posters feel strongly about because they have some notion that Hudson was the real deal. He's having a solid year this year but I wouldn't call it spectacular though he has been pitching better of late against some of the less spectacular clubs in the NL.

So I'm meh on Hudson. I like having Jackson though I wouldn't be adverse to trading him either. Personally, I'll take Humber and not worry about the rest.

Oh and my prediction is he Sox blow the Dbacks off the field all weekend long including Friday, but that's always my prediction, so I wouldn't bet ther mortgage on it...

If someone really wants to complain about something they will look really hard unfortunately. I'm not always a half full glass kind of guy myself but I would like to believe that the Sox will do better than what some will predict. And no I won't bet the farm on it but a sweep of the D'backs or any other team for that matter by the Sox would be a good thing. And maybe just maybe some of the whiners would stop whining or whatever it is that the trollers are trolling about. But I'm not going to bet the farm on that either realistically.

whitesox4eva
06-12-2011, 10:46 PM
Well I have to admit that when I see threads like this, especially when the opening post is predicting a Sox loss, the word trolling comes immediately to mind, so if I seem a bit harsh when I post:

:threadsucks:

please forgive me because the very thought of this thread causes bile to rise in my throat. It strikes me as one more shot at Sox management as if there haven't been enough of those type threads this year. Now we have a whole week to rip on management some more over a trade that some posters feel strongly about because they have some notion that Hudson was the real deal. He's having a solid year this year but I wouldn't call it spectacular though he has been pitching better of late against some of the less spectacular clubs in the NL.

So I'm meh on Hudson. I like having Jackson though I wouldn't be adverse to trading him either. Personally, I'll take Humber and not worry about the rest.

Oh and my prediction is he Sox blow the Dbacks off the field all weekend long including Friday, but that's always my prediction, so I wouldn't bet ther mortgage on it...

Good post. This is how I feel also.

asindc
06-12-2011, 10:50 PM
well i have to admit that when i see threads like this, especially when the opening post is predicting a sox loss, the word trolling comes immediately to mind, so if i seem a bit harsh when i post:

:threadsucks:

Please forgive me because the very thought of this thread causes bile to rise in my throat. It strikes me as one more shot at sox management as if there haven't been enough of those type threads this year. Now we have a whole week to rip on management some more over a trade that some posters feel strongly about because they have some notion that hudson was the real deal. He's having a solid year this year but i wouldn't call it spectacular though he has been pitching better of late against some of the less spectacular clubs in the nl.

So i'm meh on hudson. I like having jackson though i wouldn't be adverse to trading him either. Personally, i'll take humber and not worry about the rest.

Oh and my prediction is he sox blow the dbacks off the field all weekend long including friday, but that's always my prediction, so i wouldn't bet ther mortgage on it...

good post. This is how i feel also.

+2

spawn
06-12-2011, 10:56 PM
Well I have to admit that when I see threads like this, especially when the opening post is predicting a Sox loss, the word trolling comes immediately to mind, so if I seem a bit harsh when I post:

:threadsucks:

please forgive me because the very thought of this thread causes bile to rise in my throat. It strikes me as one more shot at Sox management as if there haven't been enough of those type threads this year. Now we have a whole week to rip on management some more over a trade that some posters feel strongly about because they have some notion that Hudson was the real deal. He's having a solid year this year but I wouldn't call it spectacular though he has been pitching better of late against some of the less spectacular clubs in the NL.

So I'm meh on Hudson. I like having Jackson though I wouldn't be adverse to trading him either. Personally, I'll take Humber and not worry about the rest.

Oh and my prediction is he Sox blow the Dbacks off the field all weekend long including Friday, but that's always my prediction, so I wouldn't bet ther mortgage on it...

Good post. This is how I feel also.

+2
My sentiments as well. These posts made this thread readable.

konerko 14
06-12-2011, 11:02 PM
Sox win 5-1

balke
06-13-2011, 12:34 PM
I was bummed about this trade. Makes it worse that this trade was seemingly made to get Dunn who has struggled so mightily.

I refuse to root against Hudson - he's a good pitcher. I will root for the Sox though. With a 2.77 starter ERA the past 20 at home - the Sox aren't lamenting the Hudson loss as much as some of the fans. I'm actually very happy with Jackson - and he's competing in the AL.

SoxSpeed22
06-13-2011, 12:41 PM
Thanks to Phil Humber, I am not missing Hudson that much. I still think we gave up on him too early, but I will root for the White Sox either way.

hawkjt
06-13-2011, 12:50 PM
Sox win 8-2. Sox lite up Mr. Hudson,while Johnny Danks goes 7ip,2 runs,1 earned, 4 hits, 2bb.

I am going to root against Mr Hudson,cus if he succeeds,the Sox will not.
Sox need to focus on the Twins first,tho. This series is the biggest of the year for the Twins. If the Sox can take 2 or 3 of these games,with the two teams at the top playing each other...the Twins are guaranteed to drop a couple of games back,and that will really nip their momentum.

Any chance that Ozzie will gamble with Dunn playing left field in interleague games?

doublem23
06-13-2011, 12:57 PM
Any chance that Ozzie will gamble with Dunn playing left field in interleague games?

I sincerely doubt it

hawkjt
06-13-2011, 01:04 PM
I sincerely doubt it

I agree,but if Dunn actually got hot,and there was a lefty dominated lineup on the other side,he might not hurt you if you pulled him by the 7th.

hi im skot
06-13-2011, 01:05 PM
The game will not be rained out.

kittle42
06-13-2011, 02:20 PM
Any chance that Ozzie will gamble with Dunn playing left field in interleague games?

Since not playing Pierre is near-impossible, no.

Also, I'd actually rather have Pierre in LF than Dunn. Dunn in the OF is a horrible idea.

khan
06-13-2011, 06:02 PM
Well I have to admit that when I see threads like this, especially when the opening post is predicting a Sox loss, the word trolling comes immediately to mind, so if I seem a bit harsh when I post:

:threadsucks:



I agree that this thread sucks.


please forgive me because the very thought of this thread causes bile to rise in my throat. It strikes me as one more shot at Sox management as if there haven't been enough of those type threads this year. Now we have a whole week to rip on management some more over a trade that some posters feel strongly about because they have some notion that Hudson was the real deal. He's having a solid year this year but I wouldn't call it spectacular though he has been pitching better of late against some of the less spectacular clubs in the NL.
For myself, I merely think Jackson is so terribly inconsistent, and has a horrifically obese contract, and the world's biggest ******* for an agent.

At the same time, I believed then, and I believe NOW that Hudson could deliver similar results, only for MILLIONS less in salary; Said millions could have been used for other needs. Thus, I saw it as a moronic trade then, and I still see it as such now.


So I'm meh on Hudson. I like having Jackson though I wouldn't be adverse to trading him either. Personally, I'll take Humber and not worry about the rest.
Every time Santos or Thornton blows a save, I think to myself, "You know, having Hudson [@ MLB min] + JJ Putz [@ ~$4m/YR] + ~$3M more to spend + another kid down on the farm would sure beat the inconsistent Edwin Jackson and watching Santos or Thornton learn on the job."

It isn't "just" Jackson vs. Hudson. It's Jackson [and his obese contract] vs. Hudson, PLUS whatever ~$7M or so could have bought instead.

Tragg
06-13-2011, 06:08 PM
I love how Hudson is downgraded because of the competition....that would be the same competition that Jackson was pitching horribly against at a mammoth salary when we acquired him. It was one of Williams' worst conceived trades....but Jackson's pitched decently for us, so it didn't end up horrible like the Ritchie trade. I also suspect that ace talent-evaluator in the dugout had something to do with this. Danks is better than Hudson so we should win.

balke
06-13-2011, 06:28 PM
:threadsucks:



I agree that this thread sucks.



For myself, I merely think Jackson is so terribly inconsistent, and has a horrifically obese contract, and the world's biggest ******* for an agent.

At the same time, I believed then, and I believe NOW that Hudson could deliver similar results, only for MILLIONS less in salary; Said millions could have been used for other needs. Thus, I saw it as a moronic trade then, and I still see it as such now.



Every time Santos or Thornton blows a save, I think to myself, "You know, having Hudson [@ MLB min] + JJ Putz [@ ~$4m/YR] + ~$3M more to spend + another kid down on the farm would sure beat the inconsistent Edwin Jackson and watching Santos or Thornton learn on the job."

It isn't "just" Jackson vs. Hudson. It's Jackson [and his obese contract] vs. Hudson, PLUS whatever ~$7M or so could have bought instead.


Thornton was the closer coming in - and well deserved. Would've trusted his health over putz anyhow. Putz deserves to close - he wasn't coming here just based on a setup role.

And 'whatever that money could've bought' doesn't mean anything. Spending money has led to trouble for the Sox. Could've bought Jenks for that or 3 more Ohmans. Sox have everything they need to compete - those guys just haven't so far. If they had more money - maybe the Sox would be dealing with Crawford and his slump too.

JB98
06-13-2011, 06:37 PM
I don't miss Dan Hudson. I haven't forgotten why that trade was made.

spawn
06-13-2011, 07:46 PM
I don't miss Dan Hudson. I haven't forgotten why that trade was made.
Ditto on both.

TaylorStSox
06-13-2011, 10:38 PM
The only internet topic I find more stale than Dan Hudson is Bruce Weber...carry on.

DirtySox
06-13-2011, 11:36 PM
I'm a fan of Dan Hudson and hope he pitches well on Friday and in the future.

The trade was and still is awful.

DumpJerry
06-13-2011, 11:51 PM
People who still harp on the "loss" of Dan Hudson are from the same school as those who made Aaron Rowand out to be the greatest Center Fielders since Willie Mays and could not get over the fact that he was gone.

Seriously, people, it's time to move on. Dan Hudson was not a Cy Young winner or some other total stud. He was a decent pitcher, but there are many guys who fit that label.

HaroMaster87
06-13-2011, 11:56 PM
I don't miss Dan Hudson. I haven't forgotten why that trade was made.


EXACTLY...

Oh, and I'll be at this game too!! Can't wait!! I've never been to that stadium. That's another I can scratch off the list!

asindc
06-14-2011, 12:11 PM
I liked Hudson and I am not surprised that he is playing fairly well with Arizona, but I also remember the reason for the trade. If Hudson had played as well in his short time with the big club as Humber did in his first few starts, then he would most likely still be a member of the Sox.

Crestani
06-14-2011, 01:50 PM
I liked Hudson and I am not surprised that he is playing fairly well with Arizona, but I also remember the reason for the trade. If Hudson had played as well in his short time with the big club as Humber did in his first few starts, then he would most likely still be a member of the Sox.


And as Charlie Harper used to say..."There it is"..!!

sox1970
06-14-2011, 09:26 PM
How's Edwin Jackson vs Daniel Hudson look to you? God help us.

JB98
06-14-2011, 09:46 PM
How's Edwin Jackson vs Daniel Hudson look to you? God help us.

Serenity now.

Tragg
06-14-2011, 10:18 PM
If Hudson had played as well in his short time with the big club as Humber did in his first few starts, then he would most likely still be a member of the Sox.
Yep - he had a total of 3 whole starts, and Ozzie had seen enough. So we traded him for a 1.5 year rent of an expensive pitcher with a 5.16 ERA on a cellar dweller team that was dying to dump salary. And is it any coincidence it was with friendly Arizona?

Brian26
06-14-2011, 10:24 PM
Serenity now.

Serenity or serendipity?

Foulke You
06-15-2011, 02:27 AM
I will never fault a GM for trying to go for a championship. I remember what it was like in the 90s to never have a GM who was willing to trade a prospect for a chance at October. Peavy got hurt and we needed a veteran starter to try and catch the Twins. Hudson ended up getting to develop in a free and easy environment last year playing meaningless baseball in the NL West about a bazillion games out of 1st place. It would not have been as easy for him to develop in a Pennant race with tons of pressure every start. Jackson pitched well last year but we fell a bit short of the division title. I still think KW did the right thing given the circumstances.

Before we annoint Hudson as an all-star pitcher....I remember the wailing and moaning on WSI at the great loss of Jeremy Reed when he was packaged for Freddy Garcia. I also remember the same venom spewed when we dared part with Brandon McCarthy for Johnny Danks. Time will be the judge of this trade.

sox1970
06-15-2011, 07:04 AM
It's too early to judge the trade, but facts are facts--Hudson is a good pitcher. Maybe not a star pitcher, but neither is Edwin Jackson.

The Sox haven't won with Jackson yet. Results count--not just effort.

And another thing--the Sox also traded David Holmberg, who is a young lefty starter having a good season in South Bend. We haven't seen what he'll do over the next few years, trying to get to the majors.

So my opinion has always been the same--on the surface, I didn't like the trade. But if the Sox actually win with Jackson, then it was worth it.

SOXSINCE'70
06-15-2011, 11:45 AM
How's Edwin Jackson vs Daniel Hudson look to you? God help us.

:gah::praying:

hawkjt
06-15-2011, 11:52 AM
:gah::praying:
I agree. Friday nites matchup now being Jackson vs Hudson will spark way too many comments,and threads for weeks ahead,I suspect.
Please,baseball gods, let Edwin kick arse on Friday!!:o:

SOXSINCE'70
06-15-2011, 11:57 AM
I agree. Friday nites matchup now being Jackson vs Hudson will spark way too many comments,and threads for weeks ahead,I suspect.
Please,baseball gods, let Edwin kick arse on Friday!!:o:

I'll settle for him leaving with a 2-2 tie.

kittle42
06-15-2011, 12:04 PM
Regardless of Dan Hudson, Edwin Jackson is a questionable acquisition. His career has been consistently being wildly inconsistent. He hasn't changed.

doublem23
06-15-2011, 12:15 PM
Regardless of Dan Hudson, Edwin Jackson is a questionable acquisition. His career has been consistently being wildly inconsistent. He hasn't changed.

That is true, but you could have said the same thing about Jose Contreras, Gavin Floyd, Matt Thornton, Bobby Jenks, etc. when they were aquired by the Sox, as well.

I don't have a problem with picking up Jackson, or even swapping him straight up for Hudson, but the salary... Ooof, the salary.

Domeshot17
06-15-2011, 12:23 PM
Pitcher's duel, Sox beat JJ Putz in the the 9th to win 3-2.

Hudson for Edwin was obviously a major mistep. Financially would be awesome if we could replace Jackson and Buehrle with Hudson and Humber next year.

TDog
06-16-2011, 04:46 PM
I will never fault a GM for trying to go for a championship. I remember what it was like in the 90s to never have a GM who was willing to trade a prospect for a chance at October. Peavy got hurt and we needed a veteran starter to try and catch the Twins. Hudson ended up getting to develop in a free and easy environment last year playing meaningless baseball in the NL West about a bazillion games out of 1st place. It would not have been as easy for him to develop in a Pennant race with tons of pressure every start. Jackson pitched well last year but we fell a bit short of the division title. I still think KW did the right thing given the circumstances.

Before we annoint Hudson as an all-star pitcher....I remember the wailing and moaning on WSI at the great loss of Jeremy Reed when he was packaged for Freddy Garcia. I also remember the same venom spewed when we dared part with Brandon McCarthy for Johnny Danks. Time will be the judge of this trade.

Add to that the fact that Hudson was getting hit so hard after coming up to replace Peavy and Garcia, who started out so well, had lost it. The Sox didn't win with Jackson, but Hudson was struggling to the point where they weren't going to win with him in the rotation and fans would have complained that the Sox didn't make a trade. Arizona, especially in the heavier air of monsoon season, proved a good place for him to develop.

Arizona is a different team this year. I am more concerned with holding the Arizona offense. Diamondbacks management made a lot of effort to reduce the strikeouts in the lineup. They make more contact and can wear out an outfield's defense. At the same time, they have great arms in the outfield, at least left and right. Young's best attribute is his range in center in a park built for triples, especially the way the ball carries this time of year. Last night it was 106 at gametime, and they had the roof open. the heat can war pitchers down, and it's good the Sox have a rested bullpen heading into the desert.

Not having Dunn in the lineup (I hope they don't sit Konerko during the season) won't hurt the offense that much. Coming into the Minnesota series, Hudson, who will be hitting ninth for the Diamondbacks, was hitting about 100 points higher than Dunn, although he didn't have Dunn's power numbers. The disadvantage American League teams have when they play in National League parks is that NL starting pitchers are part of the offense. They take batting practice and work on their bunting throughout the year. Many of them hit in the minor leagues, although Hudson didn't because he was brought up in the White Sox system.

In May, the Twins lost three straight in Arizona, including a 9-6 loss in a game in which they took a 6-3 lead into the bottom of the eighth, in large part because the Diamondbacks made five errors.

I don't expect Hudson and the rest of the Arizona starters to shut the White Sox down, but I think the Arizona offense presents a bigger challenge for White Sox pitching than teams they have faced recently, going back to and including Detroit.

khan
06-16-2011, 08:58 PM
Regardless of whatever supposed "reasons" for trading for an inconsistent and [at the time] outright BAD pitcher, it was a bad, and dumb decision to do so. Jackson has underperformed his contract, and his acquisition costs to the SOX. Moreover, acquiring a guy who crapped his pants in his previous division race with the tiggers reeked of desperation.


That said, I know I'll be cheering for Edwin Jackson in this, and in every appearance he has for the SOX. I'm rooting for a CG, with 1 or 2 hits in 95 pitches by Edwin Jackson on Friday.

Lip Man 1
06-17-2011, 11:58 AM
Phil Rogers weighs in with a "I told you so" column.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-your-morning-phil-hudson-granderson-girardi-20110617,0,6196365.story

Now again I give Phil props for being consistent but here's what I don't get, his line about "most White Sox fans were behind Williamsí short-sighted attempt to improve a team that had little chance to reach the playoffs."

According to Retrosheet, the Sox had a game and a half lead on the Twins when the deal was made and were potentially short an experienced starting pitcher. That's having "little chance?"

:?:

Lip

BringHomeDaBacon
06-17-2011, 12:14 PM
While Chris Young is making Rios and Pierre look older than Omar by comparison this weekend, we can all reminisce about all those wonderful outfielders the Sox have trotted out there the last five years and the three great years of Javier Vazquez at $10+ mil.

Tragg
06-17-2011, 12:49 PM
It's too early to judge the trade, but facts are facts--Hudson is a good pitcher. Maybe not a star pitcher, but neither is Edwin Jackson.

The Sox haven't won with Jackson yet. Results count--not just effort.

And another thing--the Sox also traded David Holmberg, who is a young lefty starter having a good season in South Bend. We haven't seen what he'll do over the next few years, trying to get to the majors.

We can't just trade our top pitching prospect for a 1.5 year rent of a pitcher with a 5+ ERA and a massive salary...we have to throw in extra prospects to friendly Arizona. Now that's trade negotiation!

But Jackson throws hard and that's what counts.

Williams' trading has been singularly non-productive since the Quentin trade. And we're the ones trading for the proven veteran, and we can't even scout them accurately.

BringHomeDaBacon
06-17-2011, 12:56 PM
We can't just trade our top pitching prospect for a 1.5 year rent of a pitcher with a 5+ ERA and a massive salary...we have to throw in extra prospects to friendly Arizona. Now that's trade negotiation!

But Jackson throws hard and that's what counts.

Williams' trading has been singularly non-productive since the Quentin trade. And we're the ones trading for the proven veteran, and we can't even scout them accurately.

He had to outbid all the other teams beating down Arizona's door to get their hands on Edwin Jackson.

miker
06-17-2011, 01:01 PM
According to Retrosheet, the Sox had a game and a half lead on the Twins when the deal was made and were potentially short an experienced starting pitcher. That's having "little chance?"

In Phil Roger's self-serving-revisionist-history-selective-memory world, it is.

balke
06-17-2011, 01:54 PM
I predict Hudso gives up 8 hits and no runs with 10 K's. He'll walk 5. Not because he had a good night - but because these guys can't score runs to save their lives. If Jackson faced the Sox he'd have a 16 K night.

JB98
06-17-2011, 02:02 PM
Phil Rogers weighs in with a "I told you so" column.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-your-morning-phil-hudson-granderson-girardi-20110617,0,6196365.story

Now again I give Phil props for being consistent but here's what I don't get, his line about "most White Sox fans were behind Williamsí short-sighted attempt to improve a team that had little chance to reach the playoffs."

According to Retrosheet, the Sox had a game and a half lead on the Twins when the deal was made and were potentially short an experienced starting pitcher. That's having "little chance?"

:?:

Lip


I've lost a lot of respect for Phil the last couple years. Lots of revisionist history.

The trade was made because the Sox needed an experienced starting pitcher. The Sox DID have a shot last year, and Hudson was throwing the ball poorly when the deal was made.

At the time, WSI was screaming for KW to address the starting rotation. He did, and now everybody hates him for it. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of KW. This isn't one.

Tragg
06-17-2011, 06:57 PM
Phil Rogers weighs in with a "I told you so" column.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-your-morning-phil-hudson-granderson-girardi-20110617,0,6196365.story

Now again I give Phil props for being consistent but here's what I don't get, his line about "most White Sox fans were behind Williamsí short-sighted attempt to improve a team that had little chance to reach the playoffs."

According to Retrosheet, the Sox had a game and a half lead on the Twins when the deal was made and were potentially short an experienced starting pitcher. That's having "little chance?"

:?:

Lip
The only thing he got right was that the trade was short-sighted.

GoSox2K3
06-18-2011, 01:12 AM
Anyone who was surprised by tonight's outcome needs to seriously get back in touch with reality.