http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2010121507078

 

As recently as this July, Rizzo had a deal done to send Adam Dunn to the Chicago White Sox at the trade deadline for pitcher Edwin Jackson, 27, who has only a 48-51 career record but catches Rizzo's scouting eye with his 96 mph heat. Former team president Stan Kasten preferred to keep Dunn and try to sign him - immediately - to the kind of $37.5 million, three-year deal that Paul Konerko just took to stay in Chicago with the White Sox.

 

Either solution would have constituted sensible baseball judgment. Tell Dunn: Sign by July 31 or we trade you for Jackson. Happens all the time. But the Nats did neither. The board followed Kasten's advice not to trade Dunn but didn't make an ultimatum and settle the issue.

 

Instead, they dawdled, lost Jackson, lost Dunn at the end of the year and now have two compensatory draft picks in June of '11 that might - with luck - turn into real players in five years.

 

lol. The Jackson/Hudson trade is even more despicable now.

lol. The Jackson/Hudson trade is even more despicable now.

It should have been done as a 3 way deal, all contingent on Dunn coming here. If Dunn didn't get traded to us, KW shouldn't have traded Hudson. KW is an idiot for trading him anyway.

 

If KW traded for EJax with absolutely 0% intention of keeping him, instead of just brokering a 3-way deal with WAS & ARI, then that's a borderline fireable offense.

So I guess it wasn't completely Rizzo's doing.

Seems like it was a bad trade, but I think its hilarious that some people are ready to call KW an idiot, or that the trade was a fireable offense, before we really know what Jackson and Hudson will turn out to be in their roles. Seems way, way premature and overreactive.

 

If KW traded for EJax with absolutely 0% intention of keeping him, instead of just brokering a 3-way deal with WAS & ARI, then that's a borderline fireable offense.

 

It could have been a calculated risk. He certainly wanted to trade for Dunn, but if that didn't happen, he was stuck with good pitcher that wasn't a 1 year rental. The only way this deal is a "fireable offense" is if they couldn't get Dunn because of EJax's salary hit. But that didn't happen.

I have a different take ... EJaxx had an awesome run with us last year and we now have him + Dunn this year. I would also say that there is a little post breakup hype over Hudson on the board, think Jackson just as good of a pitcher. Additionally, we can trade him mid-year when all other teams are looking for arms if Peavy returns to form ...

Seems like it was a bad trade, but I think its hilarious that some people are ready to call KW an idiot, or that the trade was a fireable offense, before we really know what Jackson and Hudson will turn out to be in their roles. Seems way, way premature and overreactive.

 

Not to mention when the trade happened, Hudson wasn't very good...at all.

It could have been a calculated risk. He certainly wanted to trade for Dunn, but if that didn't happen, he was stuck with good pitcher that wasn't a 1 year rental. The only way this deal is a "fireable offense" is if they couldn't get Dunn because of EJax's salary hit. But that didn't happen.

 

If it was a calculated risk, then that's different. If KW said, "I like EJax for Hudson, but I'd prefer Dunn" then I can live with that. But if they wanted nothing to do with Jackson, and strictly acquired him to move for Dunn and got played, then that's bad and a GM cannot be making decisions like that.

Listen, KW doesn't do Hudson for E-Jax unless he's ok with being "stuck" with E-Jax. Hudson looks every bit of a National League pitcher, while Edwin looked great for us.

 

We have both now, no need to sweat the small stuff.

Not to mention when the trade happened, Hudson wasn't very good...at all.

He had 4 starts with us, yes we were in a pennant race, but once Peavy went down we probably weren't going to win the division anyway. I think we all wanted to win the division last year, but I also think that we all knew that Minnesota was the better team last season. The only reason we were in it is because of an insane stretch between June 9 and the All Star break.

EDIT-I guess he had 3 starts with us

Edited January 5, 201115 yr by Elgin Slim

Listen, KW doesn't do Hudson for E-Jax unless he's ok with being "stuck" with E-Jax. Hudson looks every bit of a National League pitcher, while Edwin looked great for us.

 

We have both now, no need to sweat the small stuff.

 

What does an NL pitcher look like? Can you give me a detailed description so I know for future reference.

He had 4 starts with us, yes we were in a pennant race, but once Peavy went down we probably weren't going to win the division anyway. I think we all wanted to win the division last year, but I also think that we all knew that Minnesota was the better team last season. The only reason we were in it is because of an insane stretch between June 9 and the All Star break.

 

Yes, 4 bad starts.

 

I didn't look this up, so he may have had 1 good start...but IIRC, he gave up like 11 ER in 16 innings or something?

Edited January 5, 201115 yr by Y2HH

Listen, KW doesn't do Hudson for E-Jax unless he's ok with being "stuck" with E-Jax. Hudson looks every bit of a National League pitcher, while Edwin looked great for us.

 

We have both now, no need to sweat the small stuff.

I agree with everything but the bolded because I'm not really sure how you could make that distinction already.

I agree with everything but the bolded because I'm not really sure how you could make that distinction already.

 

I think he means that by basing it off the short time we saw both.

Yes, 4 bad starts.

 

I didn't look this up, so he may have had 1 good start...but IIRC, he gave up like 11 ER in 16 innings or something?

He made 3 starts. Two bad ones, one really good one.

He made 3 starts. Two bad ones, one really good one.

 

Fine, but my point was, when we traded him he wasn't very good, and at the time, nobody missed him.

 

This is all being argued with emotional hindsight.

Fine, but my point was, when we traded him he wasn't very good, and at the time, nobody missed him.

 

This is all being argued with emotional hindsight.

What now? People hated that trade from the get go.

and at the time, nobody missed him.

 

Many here (and at WSI) were in an uproar over the trade. Rightfully so in my opinion.

Well, I wasn't...and it's my world.

Jackson (post trade):

 

Tm 5 Lg W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF ERA+ WHIP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB

2010 26 CHW AL 4 2 .667 3.24 11 11 0 0 0 0 75.0 73 31 27 8 18 2 77 1 0 7 315 135 1.213 8.8 1.0 2.2 9.2 4.28

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2010121507078

Didn't you say earlier this morning that this was 100% not true?

I know we all like playing armchair GMs, and the Jackson/Hudson trade generated some of the most heated discussions in recent seasons. I wasn't a huge fan of the deal but was more forgiving than others. I understand the argument that the Sox took on too much money with Jackson. But, I still say the Sox got a good pitcher, a better pitcher in the trade. The reason why I'm less concerned about the trade now is that we still ended up with Dunn, Konerko, AJ, and Crain. My thought is that the money taken on by acquiring Jackson didn't affect the spending for free agents. I'm happy with Jackson in the rotation.

Didn't you say earlier this morning that this was 100% not true?

And he apologized and posted the article he found as a result.