gatnom

QUOTE (Ranger @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 06:47 PM) He'll be fine. Unless, of course, he gets injured which is a possibility. A possibility in which there there appears to be a higher probability when the amount pitched jumps dramatically. Not that that means he will definitely get injured or anything. QUOTE (Ranger @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 06:47 PM) The up and down thing isn't going to hurt him in the slightest. The bottom line is: the Sox are better off this year having him pitch in the bullpen, so that's where he belongs. If he has to spend an extended amount of time as a starter this year, the Sox will not be as good as they would be if he were a reliever. I don't know Ranger... Chris Sale in the bullpen will not make or break this team

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 12:52 PM) He shouldn't be thinking anything considering he's probably turned down a handful of multi-year offers already. Oh please, the last contract they offered him was a joke.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) That was the point of my whole argument, we're going for it in 2011 so you don't care "what about Sale in 2014??????". I also don't buy that 1 year in the bullpen will hurt his arm or any of that bs. What about Sale in 2012? If you planned on having him replace somebody in the rotation next season, having him in the bullpen will lessen his conditioning. You could be throwing anywhere between 20-40 extra innings at your bullpen as well as looking at Sale falling off a cliff by the end of the season. Or, are we only going for it in 2011 and not 2012? And then there's always the fact that there will be nobody ready to immediately step in if Peavy or anybody else gets hurt this season. That right there could cost you games this season.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 04:30 AM) There should be no disappointment if the first round pick turns out to be a good, contributing MLB player considering the great majority of first round players turn out to be nothing and some never even play a single inning in the big leagues. If Sale would've have turned out to be a career AAA player, then that would have been disappointing. Remember, he was picked 13th, not 5th or better. Like qwerty said, adding to his value is the fact he was able to contribute almost immediately. Not many teams are fortunate enough to have that from their first-round picks. If Gordon Beckham were to become merely an average to above average second baseman, would you not at least be slightly disappointed? It is the same with Sale. As I said in my post, I would gladly take some value for the pick if Sale were to end up in the pen over having no value for the pick at all if he turned into a AAA player. Personally, I want Sale to start out the year as a starter, whether that be in Chicago or Charlotte, and have him transition into the pen around mid-season if we can acquire no other help via trade or promotion. That way, he's at least getting some time to work towards entering our rotation instead of completely halting his development.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 01:54 AM) I don't think J4L, me, or anyone else on the "Sale for Starter" campaign is saying that him being a reliever for his career is a disappointment. However, he should get every chance to be a starter before he gets sucked into a relievers role. Sale needs to be starting games until he shows that he can't, either through struggling, lack of stamina, or injury. Only at that point should be relegated to the bullpen. And if he becomes a great bullpen arm, then everyone should be very happy. But it's foolish to not try to maximize his potential while his potential has not been defined. I think it's a disappointment, a pretty big one. Chris Sale as a starter has infinitely more value than as a reliever. Now, I would rather him become a dominant reliever than a failed prospect, but it would certainly be disappointing to have that be the case.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 12:34 AM) Twenty bucks. He can't play the field damnit. At least someone like Mark Kotsay's got a stellar glove on him. and doughnuts.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 08:33 PM) 1.Over the last three seasons LH have put up a .223/.303/.386/.689 line against him. I'll take that out of my LOOGY. I'm not saying you're wrong, but haven't there been issues in the past with Ozzie using these types of pitchers improperly? I don't think it's exactly a good idea to add this type of player if your coach cannot use him properly, presuming I'm not misremembering things. Please tell me if I'm wrong on that.

Since Ranger commented on my post I had to respond... but I swear this is the last time I bump this thread! QUOTE (Ranger @ Jan 6, 2011 -> 02:58 PM) I don't think anyone has justified the trade by calling Hudson "terrible", have they? I don't think you need to say Hudson was terrible in order for the trade to make sense, because it does make sense even if that is not the case. I don't think Hudson's terrible. What I do think is that the Sox absolutely needed a starter they could count on down the stretch last year, and Hudson had not shown in his 3 starts that he could be counted on. I don't care what anyone here says, if you don't think there is a great difference between knowing that you have to replace Jake Peavy in the final two months of a pennant race in Chicago versus pitching for a team with zero playoff chances, you're mistaken. I guarantee that fans would've been furious that Williams did nothing to help the rotation if Daniel Hudson was awful for them down the stretch. And just because he pitched well for Arizona, does not mean he would have pitched well here in this situation. I hope Hudson does well in his career and he just might. Good for him. It's just incredibly annoying to hear the bold phrase below over and over and over again in order to try to belittle what Hudson does while completely giving Jackson the benefit of the doubt in his situation. I don't think Hudson will be what he was last season for his career, but he put up better numbers in a better hitters park and if I recall correctly he even did it against better teams. As I said in a post above, I'm fine with this trade if Coop legitimately fixed Jackson and we as a team are willing to dish out millions of extra dollars to fill our holes because we can't find cheap talent (see: this offseason). QUOTE (Ranger @ Jan 6, 2011 -> 02:58 PM) But, I also have to say that if you have ever assigned the phrase "...but he did it in the NL" when talking about Peavy, you may not praise Hudson without attaching the phrase to him as well. Thank god I never did that, huh. And, I'm just curious, but have you seen Jackson's actual stats, Joe?

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 6, 2011 -> 12:03 AM) I hate this debate too. No matter if Jackson wins the Cy Young next year, people will still hate the trade simply because it means we don't have that extra 5 years of Hudson. In some people's minds, Jackson will never be able to produce well enough to justify 5 years of decent pitching in the National League. I feel like even if we traded Hudson for Roy Halladay, people would still complain because Hudson will have 5 years of control. It's just a no-win battle. And no matter what Hudson (or Holmberg for that matter) will always just be a crappy NL pitcher to others. It goes both ways, you know. I didn't like this trade initially mostly because of money (which doesn't matter now that we raised our payroll $20-30 million) and because Edwin Jackson has been mediocre at best his entire career save for half a year with Detroit and his few starts with us. If Coop fixed him and we are willing to pay big bucks to fill in the holes we create by not having any cheap prospects, I'm all for this trade. That being said, this will be my last post on the subject. Every post in here saying they are tired of it (me included) is doing nothing more than bumping the thread up for somebody else to maintain the same old tired arguments.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 6, 2011 -> 12:43 AM) $8.5M is really pretty cheap for Jackson. Last year, he put up a 3.8 WAR, which is worth about $15M. For comparison sake, Buehrle put up a 3.8 WAR last year, and was making $14M. All Jackson has to do, is put up a WAR of 1.9 next season to earn his contract, and considering he doubled that last year, he is fully capable of accomplishing that. Jackson at $8.5M or whatever he is making is actually a pretty good price, and to be a Type-A, I believe you have to finish in the top 20% in your league. For reference, Bronson Arroyo was considered a Type-A Free Agent, and he put up a 1.7 WAR. So I think the chances of Edwin earning Type-A status is actually pretty likely. You must have missed his 2010 season then.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) This is now, without a doubt, my most hated subject on Soxtalk that just won't go away. I have to agree with Milkman here. Watching people belittle Hudson because of 3 starts and playing in the NL drives me absolutely insane. It's one thing if you have a hard on for Edwin Jackson because Coop "fixed" him, but it doesn't mean you have to go and try to justify the trade by saying Hudson is some terrible pitcher.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 11:52 PM) thank you Bill James. I have a feeling the Sox are going to test your statement. We'll see how many games the Sox lose this year with no experienced closer and a lead in the ninth. So experienced closers don't blow games? Nobody told Mariano Rivera because he managed to blow five saves last year.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 06:09 PM) Meanwhile Oney finally got a hold of the story and he is letting BOBBY have it! Oney Guillen twitter. Wow, Oney has about 15 tweets on this in the last half hour.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) Can't raid another teams' inventories without having some inventory of your own. Also, why would KW just give Viciedo away for low value? We can still keep him. We dont have an urgent need for a High A pitcher, or really any other piece. If anything, Viciedo is traded to immediately assist the current Sox team. That is, and always has been, Kenny's MO. Whether he gets fair MLB value might be debatable but there is zero reason to just dump Viciedo, and it will never happen (unless he someday becomes a 28 year old AAAA failure...which will also not happen.) The problem with keeping him is that he's a man without a position. I'm definitely lower on Morel than many on here (read: Balta), but even if you wanted to move him to make room for Viciedo, Viciedo's defense is questionable even if he's as good offensively as he can be. Horrible defense can really bring your value down. Just look at Carlos Quentin. From what I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the things that Viciedo had the hardest time fielding were fly balls, which makes a corner outfield spot once pierre is gone seem like a bad idea as well. You could trade him as you suggested, but the only holes we have on this team are in the bullpen. And, the last time we traded a corner infield prospect for a relief pitcher many around here seemed to think we didn't get back nearly as much as we gave up. Tony Pena hasn't done a whole lot to prove them wrong either.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) I want Viciedo nowhere near 3B. Absolute butcher. Couple that with abhorrent platoon splits, weight issues, a complete lack of plate discipline and you have a prospect who is nothing more than average. If Dayan isn't traded he absolutely should be learning an OF corner next year. No reason to unseat Morel (if successful) unless Dayan magically acquires defensive aptitude. Considering the Sox moved him to 1B after one minor league season leaves me less than confident it will happen. I think it should also be noted that Viciedo had a very hard time fielding fly balls, if I remember correctly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 01:08 PM) That may have been one of the things mentioned in some of the discussions, but it never got to the point where they would have had to seriously choose between Dunn and Viciedo; the Nats kept demanding Beckham. But...honestly...if the Sox weren't willing to offer up Viciedo, there wasn't anything to discuss in the first place. Which brings us back to the premise of this thread...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 12:32 PM) I think I have to disagree with the premise here. I got the impression that Kenny was willing to move Viciedo, and was willing to do so for less than I thought he should get for him (a 2 month Dunn Rental)...but he just didn't want to be jerked around or not dealt with honestly. If the Nats had been willing to actually sit down and hammer out a deal of Dunn for Viciedo + something else, I think it'd have gotten done quite quickly. For some reason, I remember the rumors being that we would give them anything in the minors short of Viciedo. I guess in either case it doesn't particularly matter because he soured on Hudson and Flowers in less than a years time, so he may very well decide to trade him even if he were unwilling to do so at the last deadline.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) That's a pretty mediocre comparison. Getz isn't that good defensively, isn't a good hitter, has no power, and doesn't really show patience. He is a hustle and heart kind of player who is best served on the bench. Brent Morel has shown throughout the minors that he's a good hitter, has showed doubles power, and hit a couple balls in the in the season that haven't really landed yet. Basically, Brent Morel can be a capable starting player whereas Chris Getz really can't. Morel is a defense-first type of player who will give you maybe slightly above average offense for his position, and I think we'll end up trading him away to make a spot for our bigger prospect, Viciedo. Obviously it's not a perfect comparison because, as you mentioned, Chris Getz isn't good at much of anything, but I think Morel still fits the mold of that maybe above average but not flashy kind of player. In the end, the town isn't big enough for the two of them. Considering how hard KW tried holding onto him at the deadline, I bet we'll be seeing Viciedo at third in Charlotte this season and in Chicago at the very latest next year.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 12:39 AM) I heard they are likening him more to Joe Crede, but whether that just stems from his defensive abilities at the same position, I am not certain. I was making more of a connection to him being a mediocre twins-like player who would be traded at the end of the season because he's blocking somebody with greater potential at the position.

Brent Morel is Chris Getz part 2.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:48 PM) Carter LH Free Agent Infante Nunez Crain Santos Thornton With Pena and Sale as your 4th and 5th starters, you are going to really tax your bullpen.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:52 PM) First of all, if you think a guy like Jackson is viewed in the same light as others that put up a 5 ERA, then I think you're mistaken. Secondly, I think you're ignoring the fact that you were only getting Dunn for 70 games or so. It's not like you were getting him for 1.5 seasons or more. I guess this is where we agree to disagree. He had only pitched one good half season prior to Coop "fixing" him.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:17 PM) That's bs Gatnom, and you know it. It's not like they went out and acquired Rodrigo Lopez or something. Do you expect Jackson to post an ERA of 5 this season? He proved he was capable of much more than that in his stint with us and I expect him to be even better this coming season. He's a guy that has struggled but has the potential to be a very solid #2, as he was in Detroit in 2009. You also have to consider the situation we were in. We were trying to reach the postseason and could not risk Hudson having growing pains, and so our hand was forced a bit. Regardless, I really don't want to have this debate again. If you believe a kid like Hudson doesn't have the ability to get you a good acquisition at the deadline, then we simply have a difference of opinion. I don't expect him to put up an ERA over 5, and I don't expect him to be as good as he was down the stretch for us. I have absolutely no idea what Edwin Jackson will pitch for us next year. He could be anywhere between our best starter and our worst starter, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it happen. At the time we acquired him, he was a pitcher who had been pitching with greater than a 5 ERA with one year left on his contract for way more than he was worth at the time. He also has little history of success with a career ERA of 4.62. I think Hudson could get you pieces, even pieces like Adam Dunn, you would need to surround him with more than just Brent Morel.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 10:08 PM) Buehrle Jackson Danks Pena Sale Say goodbye to your bullpen.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 25, 2010 -> 09:48 PM) Well, I think we probably could have gotten more if we really cared about maximizing the value of Dan Hudson. But KW doesn't care about that stuff. He targets a player we like, he makes the deal if he feels the offer is reasonable. Personally, and this is evident in the debate Balta referenced, I feel like Edwin is a hell of an arm to bring back for Hudson. But I don't really care to have that debate again. If what you're arguing is that a middle of the rotation starter isn't going to bring you back much in the trade market, than this entire discussion is fairly moot, because it's not worth trading these kids if you're not getting good value back, especially for a rental player. Sure he has a hell of an arm. He had one hell of an ERA too. There's a pretty big disconnect in your argument here shack. Either Dan Hudson is worth a lot, and KW overpaid considerably (Holmberg is a decent prospect, as well), or Dan Hudson isn't worth even a struggling back of the rotation starter.