iamshack

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 10, 2011 -> 10:17 PM) It really doesn't matter if he's injury prone, freak injury prone, ect. The fact of the matter is we took on a rather hefty contract with the expectation that we'd have a legitimate #1 starter heading our rotation and the return on that investment has been miniscule. Amen. I'm not going to lie, I was amped when we got him...and it's not even going to be something where I regret losing the players that we gave up, as I do in the case of Nick Swisher, but the money taken on. There is basically a rule that you never take on a massive salary like this no matter who the player is. You shouldn't make exceptions; no player is probably worth 1/6 or 1/5 of your entire payroll. This trade has been a reminder why.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 9, 2011 -> 11:40 PM) So Lillibridge is not a bad player? What about Brandon Wood and his career slash line of .167/.197/.258/.454 in almost 500 plate appearances at the big league level? He doesn't flat suck? What about somebody like Rodrigo Lopez (just pulling names out my ass now)? He's not terrible at his profession? Do these guys have to be Cubs for it to be alright? This is simply a case of multiple posters getting sensitive about something rather inconsequential. J, It's not about being sensitive. Many of these guys are simply not cut out to be successful in the major leagues. And that's fine...getting ripped a new asshole comes with the territory...that's why the paycheck is so big. I just think it's funny because these guys are just chasing their dreams. The same thing you and I would do if we were a 100th as talented as baseball as they are. And yet you're going after their throats as if they rubbed your face in it back in high school or something. Yes, some of them are bad major league baseball players. But would you seriously say this s*** to them if you ran into them at a bar or something? I doubt it.

I have to add, I do roll my eyes a bit when J4L seeks his increasingly demeaning crescendo of insults regarding a player's performance, all while he is sitting on his couch eating pork rinds or taco bell.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 06:47 PM) I keep repeating it and yet you appear to keep missing the point: it doesn't MATTER because he's gone after the year (again, if I'm wrong please correct me); it doesn't matter HOW good he becomes unless we make the playoffs because the chances we re-sign him are slim to none. If and only if he make the playoffs will I say the trade was worth it but still going by how the trade looked at the time IMO it was not a good one. I don't know what you are arguing then. I have basically stated in about 4 different ways that if we make the playoffs at least partially due to him in the rotation then I believe the gamble was worth it. I just don't really give two flying f***s how the trade looked at the time...

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 05:38 PM) The thing is we're only going by "what ifs" and if you maximized those comparisons Hudson is more valuable. "What if" they both are amazing this year? Hell, what if neither of them are? Either way, we only got Jackson for this year IIRC (correct me of I'm wrong) as opposed to like 5 for Hudson. And since Hudson is a "potentially good" prospect and Edwin in the past hasn't been very relevant, it's just an overall painful comparison; but at face value, looking at all the important factors, it was a bad trade. Like I said, the ONLY way it turns into a good trade is if we make the playoffs this year and that's it. You keep repeating this, but given our roster, that simply is not true. There are untold possible benefits based on Jackson being a core contributor to our rotation, and given the points they are at in their careers, the chances of Jackson being that are greater than they are for Hudson, regardless of Jackson's consistency issues in the past. Should we not make the postseason this year, and Jackson walks away, and Hudson turns into a better than league-average starter over the course of the next 5 years, than yes, I will admit the trade was not won by us. But the odds of Hudson doing that are not exactly short either. This isn't even considering whatever players we might select from drafts pick(s) received, should Jackson leave.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) That's exactly my standard for judging the trade's success/fail, if you recall. Yeah, I'm frustrated with the J4L/Rowand camp...

You guys aren't even mentioning the possibility that Jackson could very well keep us in the playoff hunt whereas Hudson might not? There are actually huge potential financial ramifications, especially with Peavy being a question mark, that make claiming the deal is a financial failure for the White Sox regardless of any possible outcome simply ridiculous. J4L, I know you are smarter than this, and you're just being stubborn in refusing to admit there are all sorts of possibilities which occur which might make this deal swing in either direction ultimately.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:09 AM) Yea, they fall in love with certain players, and are willing to pay more for them. And like I've said, I was actually really intrigued by picking up Jackson especially if Cooper saw something he really thought could help him, I just thought trading Hudson for the reasons I stated was a bad idea. Also, I really do think that Hudson's numbers from last year get lost on this board because Jackson had good success last year, but Hudson was beyond phenomenal with the DBacks in his 11 starts with them. In 80 innings he had a .84 WHIP, a 1.69 ERA and showed the control that was expected out of him. Now, there is no way to know if he could have done that with the Sox, but his minor league numbers showed a pitcher that was ready to be successful in the majors. I can concede there was a history there that suggested he could be a successful major league pitcher, but I don't even think Daniel Hudson's own mother would have suggested he would pitch as well as he did with Arizona. Secondly, despite those 11 starts with Arizona, I still believe that odds that Jackson succeeds in our rotation were/are much, much higher than the odds of Daniel Hudson succeeding in our rotation. I also believe Jackson will easily outperform Hudson this season. Whether this leads to postseason victories will probably ultimately determine how much sleep many fans who share your opinion of the trade will lose in the years to come...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:40 AM) It's baseball, so of course this is a real possibility, but you have to view the trade from when it was currently made, and from the results. To me, it wasn't just the value of the return (I actually liked picking up Jackson, though I did feel it was an overpay especially without getting a fair amount of cash back), but the position that the Sox were/are in in terms of starting pitching depth. The Sox are taking a large gamble on competing this year, I would rather see a plan to compete for the next 3-5 years. Trading away your only MLB ready young starter with good potential for an iffy starting pitcher who had shown tons of question marks throughout his career with only 1.5 yrs left on his deal was just not a decision I would make, unless I got the Dbacks to pick up half of this year's contract and we also didn't send along Holmberg. I say the last part because you can then use those savings in $ towards resigning Jackson or another one of our pitchers who are hitting FA soon, while still "going for it." I can respect that position. Two things that sum up the way our FO does business and the belief we have in our pitching coach: I believe Kenny realizes the huge failure rate of major league prospects, and also has tremndous faith that Don Cooper can straighten out some issues with high-upside, inconsistent arms. We have shown a repeated willingness to operate with these philosophies in mind, and for the most part, have succeeded with it. Because of this, I think we sometimes overpay in order to acquire very specific targets, rather than simply a certain "type" of player or a player rated in a certain tier. You'll see a lot of organizations treat prospects and mlb players alike as fungible, whereas we very much do not. We identify specific players and target them (or at least we are led to believe we do, and very much seem to). Anyone who has had experience trying to acquire very specific goods or services will quickly realize that often times a premium is necessary in order to transact for said goods. I, for one, have never really minded paying such a premium, but when viewed separately from the eventual results, the price paid at the time of the transaction can often be questioned. However, when the actual production is measured at a later time, the value of the transaction often comes out on the side of the White Sox.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 03:20 AM) Agreed, I have obviously stated my opinions on the trade, but I can understand the mentality of the other side, I just don't agree with it. But here's to hoping he keeps it up and wins us some more ballgames! Russ, let me ask you this...what if Hudson were to struggle this season, ultimately get sent back down to AAA, and never really end up doing anything more than being a long relief kind of guy? Would you still view the trade as one we lost because we might have gotten more in return for him had we made a deal with someone else?

Going just from memory, we seem to hit Shields pretty well...and Danksy has faired pretty well against the Rays....I'd imagine we'll be pretty big favorites to keep the Rays winless, Dunn or no Dunn. Edit: Looks like we are -140 on the ML and +150 on the run line....might be time to put something down on the run line...

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 11:49 PM) Who won the streak last year? I think my longest last year was 4 or 5, but I assume whoever had the 11-game Sox win streak won it, unless they forgot to post. I think Heads had two big streaks...

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 11:36 PM) I thought they'd be a good bet for 3rd. They still have good pitching and a bullpen that isn't as bad as some people think it is, but that lineup is massively underachieving, Longoria or no Longoria. Manny and Damon have like 3 hits combined to this point. What the hell was Ben Zobrist doing in the second half of 2008 and in 2009? Looks as though he is back to being a pretty marginal player again....

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 12:31 AM) I think it was Wite who said they'd be boom or bust with the guys they gambled on. So far, he's been right. Just 1 run in 5 of their 6 games thus far, and 8 total runs. Yowsers. To be fair, they have been without Longoria, but still, that is horrendous. I've been in the camp putting the Rays in 4th or 5th place in the AL East this year as well.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 8, 2011 -> 12:14 AM) Just so you guys know, the Rays have yet to lead in any game thus far. We have to keep that streak alive. Wow, that is incredible.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 10:20 PM) I agree with that notion. But if you're thinking long term (which you should) then Hudson was a better fit. In short, I think it becomes a huge tragedy if the Sox don't make the playoffs this year. Once again, for the most part it seems a lot of people are hung on "I believe," "I think," and "if." Same goes for my earlier argument about Walker/the offense. I think putting all opinions/preconceptions aside, logically going with Hudson would be an overall more conservative decision. If we win it all this year or even just go to the playoffs I guess it become null, I admit that. But if not, then it just looks like a huge waste... which is exactly how it looked at the time of the trade (which IMO is the most logical way to look at it; value the trade for how it looked at the time of). I don't really take issue with anyone's opinion of the deal anymore. I think reasonable minds can easily disagree on this one. What I do disagree with, is the notion that somehow a value judgment can be made as to who won the trade at this point. We just haven't seen enough play out yet. I can understand those who feel like we could have gotten more for Hudson, but ultimately, I care about results on the field, not who won the negotiations.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 09:53 PM) The problem is that's all you guys are going by is "ifs." What we KNOW is that we gave up a potential future stud who could be had cheap for a long time for a guy on a much shorter term who's a Boras client and has proven to be inconsistent in the past. While I agree either way it's a risk, but Jackson clearly seems like the bigger one; I think you simply saying "What if Hudson doesn't pan out?" is a bit silly when the same thing applies to Jackson, and more critically IMO. I think it's fair to say that Kenny probably got less than he could have for Hudson. I can't really argue that. But ultimately, it's what production you receive versus what you give up. If Jackson performs at the level he has since the trade was made, I will be pleased with the gamble, and I think we will have had a chance to do some damage in the postseason. That opportunity, given the makeup of our current roster, would have been worth Hudson, in my opinion. I understand, however, that it may not be the opinion of others. What would you rather have though, a trade in which it appeared you were the clear winner at the time of the trade, or a trade in which you were the ultimate winner after all the chips have fallen where they might?

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 10:31 PM) At the time of the Hudson/Jackson trade, I thought that Hudson was a #3 at best and Jackson under Cooper's tutelage could be an ace, and maybe would be appreciative enough to the Sox for helping him reach his potential to give them maybe a 2/25 extension. I was for the trade, until I heard that Jackson's agent was Boras. Now I know that if Jackson reaches his potential, it is the Danks situation again. He'll get ace money from someone, and 5-7 years. Sometimes I think you have to make an exception for pitchers and pay up, but I don't know if Jackson is the right guy to do it with because he relies so much on his stuff, and when it declines,(which you never know when it will happen) he'll get lit up like a pinball machine. second off, he is pretty much on the young end of free agency. When top free agents are 27 or 28 years old, they get more money. The maximum year length deal I'd sign him for is 4 years, taking him from age 28-31, and knowing Boras's MO, he'd laugh at that. I think Jackson may win the CY award this season, so that just plays into Boras's hands. The best we can hope for is a return to form by Peavy this year, Jackson turning into an ace, and Danks taking that next step, all leading to a Sox WS win. Unfortunately, all that will lead to is a complete blowup of the team after this season a la Florida Marlins in 1997-1998. I think when they say they're "all in" they mean it in the sense that this season is the last one for the Sox as we know them, and they plan to go young next season. This is the last shot, It's 2011 WS winner or bust, and bust is coming whether the Sox win the WS or not. If that is indeed what you think, then I'd be hard-pressed to imagine how trading Hudson for Edwin results in a loss for us, especially considering the makeup of our roster and what a CY season from Edwin would probably do for our chances this year.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 08:51 PM) Overall, it's going to be a loss, yes. And for the 90th time, I haven't anointed Hudson anything and neither has anyone else around here. Edwin and Huddy both have to show more, Jackson has had an up and down career and well Hudson hasn't proven anything in the majors yet. Here's what we know: Jackson has the higher ceiling but Hudson thus far has been a tad better since the trade and the Dbacks get 5 years of a very inexpensive pitcher. At best, Edwin turns into an ace this season and we lose him next year. Now, once again, if Edwin has turned the corner(and I DO believe he has) and we can somehow manage to re-sign him then that changes pretty much everything. But at this point, it's definitely a net gain for the Diamondbacks. And what if Hudson struggles and never turns into anything more than a fringe pitcher? You're saying you haven't annointed him anything, and yet you are, saying he's going to be starting for the next 5 years. Seems like you are annointing him to be at least an average mlb starter to me. We've seen plenty of starters start out like Hudson and then turn into Zach Duke.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 08:21 PM) Haha, good point. I just thought it was in the lower 3's. My guess is it's around 3.2-3.3 or so now...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 09:18 PM) I actually thought Jackson's ERA has been lower with the Sox. It probably is after today....

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 09:16 PM) She did get arrested today... For slapping a valet... Then she fell on her ass...

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 08:04 PM) conspiracy? I bet LeBron's mom has something to do with this...

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) This is what I saw too. There is a picture of the baby and it is white. I don't spend a lot of time around kids, but that baby looks older than 3-4 months to me...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 06:57 PM) I hope he heals entirely, but I hope it takes forever. With our luck, and the way things usually happen for the Twins, they'll dig out some guy with a .687 OPS in AA and he'll post a .800 OPS as this guy's replacement, while playing gold glove caliber defense.