PDA

View Full Version : Hudson


AZChiSoxFan
08-03-2011, 09:41 PM
First off, I'm sorry if this has been discussed already but I seem to have missed all of this.

So did the Sox essentially give Daniel Hudson away for nothing? IIRC, they traded him for Jackson, and then a few weeks back, gave Jackson away for the proverbial bag 'o balls. I'm of course refering to the Hudson who is having a nice season for AZ and is only 24.

If all of this is accurate, then what was it about Hudson they didn't like?

TommyGavinFloyd
08-03-2011, 09:43 PM
Why is this in the Sox Clubhouse? Go to Baseball Reference if you are that curious. What is the date that people are going to quit talking about Daniel ****ing Hudson? 2014? 2040?

Frater Perdurabo
08-03-2011, 09:45 PM
What is the date that people are going to quit talking about Daniel ****ing Hudson? 2014? 2040?

Oh, maybe three or four decades after he's collected his 450th win and gets inducted in the HOF.

sox1970
08-03-2011, 09:46 PM
They thought they were going to get Jackson and flip him to Washington for Adam Dunn (hold your laughter).

And they also gave up a 19-year-old lefty named David Holmberg, who was having a real good season up until recently. He's in High-A now at 20.

The trade was a disaster and will be for years.

I think the only thing they had against him were his mechanics. Maybe he'll have problems later, but for now, that trade is a nightmare.

AZChiSoxFan
08-03-2011, 09:47 PM
Why is this in the Sox Clubhouse? Go to Baseball Reference if you are that curious. What is the date that people are going to quit talking about Daniel ****ing Hudson? 2014? 2040?

Ummm....because he was a Sox player and they traded him away. So shoot me for putting it in the wrong place.

AS I STATED, I'm sorry if you are sorry about talking about this. Next time, feel free to skip the thread.

I can easily find the details of the trade, but since message boards are a place for discussion, I thought I would ask about it.

When the Sox quit giving away good talent for nothing, people will most likely stop talking about that.

AZChiSoxFan
08-03-2011, 09:51 PM
They thought they were going to get Jackson and flip him to Washington for Adam Dunn (hold your laughter).

And they also gave up a 19-year-old lefty named David Holmberg, who was having a real good season up until recently. He's in High-A now at 20.

The trade was a disaster and will be for years.

I think the only thing they had against him were his mechanics. Maybe he'll have problems later, but for now, that trade is a nightmare.

Thanks for the info. Looks like I hit a nerve with some in this thread. That wasn't my intention.

asindc
08-03-2011, 10:13 PM
Ummm....because he was a Sox player and they traded him away. So shoot me for putting it in the wrong place.

AS I STATED, I'm sorry if you are sorry about talking about this. Next time, feel free to skip the thread.

I can easily find the details of the trade, but since message boards are a place for discussion, I thought I would ask about it.

When the Sox quit giving away good talent for nothing, people will most likely stop talking about that.

When you show us a GM that hasn't given away good talent for nothing, people will start skipping this thread.

AZChiSoxFan
08-04-2011, 12:10 AM
When you show us a GM that hasn't given away good talent for nothing, people will start skipping this thread.

Sorry I even asked. Sheesh. I'm not on WSI everyday all day like so many are and LIKE I SAID, I probably missed it when it was discussed. That's why I was wondering if there was something about the trade I was overlooking or didn't know about.

For a GM with KW's track record as of late, so many here are so defensive of the guy.

CHISOXFAN13
08-04-2011, 12:22 AM
I'm not thrilled about the deal, but Hudson was struggling the past month and we heard nothing.

He throws eight solid innings and another thread.

The horse is dead. I think that's why people are defensive.

Tragg
08-04-2011, 01:48 AM
First off, I'm sorry if this has been discussed already but I seem to have missed all of this.

So did the Sox essentially give Daniel Hudson away for nothing? IIRC, they traded him for Jackson, and then a few weeks back, gave Jackson away for the proverbial bag 'o balls. I'm of course refering to the Hudson who is having a nice season for AZ and is only 24.

If all of this is accurate, then what was it about Hudson they didn't like?
First, your description of what we got for Jackson isn't accurate.
Most teams are unwilling to trade their top prospects. The Sox are not only willing to do it, but are willing to trade them for non-elite ball players that are simply in that "somewhat above average" category (Jackson, Swisher).
It was a just a bad trade; the flippin stuff for Dunn is a canard (it would have been a terrible trade for a 1/2 year rent of Dunn too).

We're at the point, as we unload, that we need some teams to trade with that have similar philosophies to Williams re trading their prospects...but I doubt they exist.

MARTINMVP
08-04-2011, 08:48 AM
Sorry I even asked. Sheesh. I'm not on WSI everyday all day like so many are and LIKE I SAID, I probably missed it when it was discussed. That's why I was wondering if there was something about the trade I was overlooking or didn't know about.

For a GM with KW's track record as of late, so many here are so defensive of the guy.

I'm on WSI almost daily, and I am prone to missing discussions here and there. I don't see why people would take exception to something bringing it up again. That trade is not representative of an occasionally bad KW move - it is just another example that suggests that KW's recent performance as a general manager deserves a failing grade.

A bad trade or a bad signing here and there happens. But we are talking about a trade that gave up a potentially good pitcher, for essentially nothing. Even though these type of things do happen, it doesn't excuse any fan from being upset about it. Add on top of some of the other bad moves, including being stuck with the long Rios contract, Mark Teahen, Jake Peavey, etc - all of those moves at the time, came with legit questions marks. I can include the Adam Dunn signing as a blunder, but that may be more unfair since the vast majority of people never would have seen his awful performance coming.

asindc
08-04-2011, 09:08 AM
I'm not thrilled about the deal, but Hudson was struggling the past month and we heard nothing.

He throws eight solid innings and another thread.

The horse is dead. I think that's why people are defensive.

Bingo. As if KW is the only GM that has traded low on a prospect who has gone on to have success later.

sox102
08-04-2011, 09:11 AM
Sorry I even asked. Sheesh. I'm not on WSI everyday all day like so many are and LIKE I SAID, I probably missed it when it was discussed. That's why I was wondering if there was something about the trade I was overlooking or didn't know about.

This is why I don't like posting my opinion or questions on this website. People jump all over you for no reason. I agree, if you don't want to read the thread then skip it. But no, there will be someone that has to comment on everything. :scratch:

asindc
08-04-2011, 09:49 AM
Sorry I even asked. Sheesh. I'm not on WSI everyday all day like so many are and LIKE I SAID, I probably missed it when it was discussed. That's why I was wondering if there was something about the trade I was overlooking or didn't know about.

For a GM with KW's track record as of late, so many here are so defensive of the guy.

I apologize if it seemed I was jumping on you, but this has been discussed ad nauseum. Essentially what KW did was take a calculated risk to increase the chances of winning the division in that season (2010), whether it be with Dunn or Jackson. It was not a move with an eye towards the long term. It is, of course, perfectly fine to question or criticize the move for that reason, but many fans in their criticism of the move have mischaracterized the reasons for it. Tragg has been consistent from day one in his opposition to the move, for instance, but he has not mischaracterized the reasons for it. The same can't be said about others, however. That is part of the reason why the mere mention of the subject raises the tenor of conversation.

MarySwiss
08-04-2011, 10:18 AM
Sorry I even asked. Sheesh. I'm not on WSI everyday all day like so many are and LIKE I SAID, I probably missed it when it was discussed. That's why I was wondering if there was something about the trade I was overlooking or didn't know about.

For a GM with KW's track record as of late, so many here are so defensive of the guy.
My friend, I'll bet you'd get a snarky response from someone on here if you wished everybody a nice day and best of luck in the Lottery. Ignore it. :smile:

Dibbs
08-04-2011, 10:38 AM
We didn't "trust" him (whatever that means) in a divisional title race that we obviously didn't win. Funny thing is, Hudson is actually a better pitcher than Jackson. I wasn't quite sure how someone could "trust" Jackson more when his ERA was 5+ etc. Not to mention the salary difference between the two players. It was comical the amount of people who believed it was not only a good deal, but actually fought tooth and nail with those like me who disagreed with the decision. Heads should roll over poor decisions like these.

A. Cavatica
08-04-2011, 08:54 PM
Heads should roll over poor decisions like these.

Should, but we all know that they won't.

balke
08-04-2011, 11:26 PM
It was comical the amount of people who believed it was not only a good deal, but actually fought tooth and nail with those like me who disagreed with the decision.


I don't remember anyone ever saying it was a good deal - except those who thought they were getting Dunn. Both made me shutter but I actually liked Jackson. I also like Humber who may not have been here without that move.

A. Cavatica
08-04-2011, 11:27 PM
Tragg has been consistent from day one in his opposition to the move, for instance, but he has not mischaracterized the reasons for it. The same can't be said about others, however.

DirtySox (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2574742&postcount=12) was all over this. "[If Jackson is not flipped for Dunn] we just traded a very good cheap pitching prospect for an average pitcher who the Sox will have to pay around 8 million for next year."

and later "If the Sox are indeed paying all of next year's contract (if they hold onto him), then Kenny was fleeced."

Many others, too.