I liked the trade because I was never a fan of Chris Young as a prospect when he was here. (Jason and danman can attest to that)

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.

 

 

 

 

You guys aren't even mentioning the possibility that Jackson could very well keep us in the playoff hunt whereas Hudson might not?

That's exactly my standard for judging the trade's success/fail, if you recall.

That's exactly my standard for judging the trade's success/fail, if you recall.

Yeah, I'm frustrated with the J4L/Rowand camp...

Yeah, I'm frustrated with the J4L/Rowand camp...

 

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.

Regardless of how Hudson pans out down the line, it's difficult to argue that Jackson didn't give us a better chance to win last season. And that was the entire point of the trade.

 

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.

No when the trade first happened, the main b**** about Javy was that how could the Sox give up on The Chris Young.

 

The Sox traded El Duque for Vazquez plus cash

 

Vazquez was set to make $11.5 mil, El Duque was to make 4.6 mil + he had a 2 mil bonus on innings.

 

Thus when Vaz was first acquired his total cost in terms of money was 11.5-4.6 = 6.9 and the Sox got more cash on top of that.

 

He didnt become overpaid for the Sox until they resigned him to a new contract.

 

But lets not talk about facts.

 

(Edit)

 

Strangesox,

 

lol

 

Okay that makes a lot more sense, it caught me off guard because J4L quoted it like it was a serious statement and that it was actually a good argument.

 

I generally do take comments like that as humorous.

 

Most people liked the Vazquez trade, as I recall. Then he underachieved and was paid too much, so everyone justifiably turned against him.

I liked the Javy deal.

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.

 

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 liked the Javy deal.

 

Same here. We needed pitching more than we needed Chris Young back in 2006 and 2007.

 

That's what pisses me off right there. We keep coming up with the worst case scenario when it comes to Hudson but the best case when it comes to Jackson. Hudson doesn't have to become Clayton Kershaw to make this trade a loser from the Sox's end. No matter what Jackson does.

 

Actually that isn't true at all. The assumption has been pretty clear that Hudson will be a decent pitcher. Most of the Hudson talk centers around that assumption. If he isn't a decent pitcher, then he isn't a bargain at all.

Actually that isn't true at all. The assumption has been pretty clear that Hudson will be a decent pitcher. Most of the Hudson talk centers around that assumption. If he isn't a decent pitcher, then he isn't a bargain at all.

 

I dunno from most of the arguments I'm seeing J4L is pretty correct.

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...

I'm just trying to enjoy Jackson in the present and not worry about how we will likely lose him after the season.

I thought we overpaid, but what the hell. s*** maybe if he has a great year and we win something of significance he'll like Chicago and want to stay, giving us a Konerko discount.

I just don't really give two flying f***s how the trade looked at the time...

 

The same as it looks now if you think hard enough about it. Trust me, I was optimistic about Jackson; that didn't change the idea for me that it was longevity-wise and financially a pretty damn bad trade.

Jackson for Hudson will be an economic fail no matter what happens. That's the key. All thing being equal and I'd be fine with the trade. If Jackson has a breakout year then he's looking at 5 years and at least $70-75 million. And then we've still got the two giant elephants in the room that is Danks and Buehrle to worry about. And a farm in which Wite would be the team's top pitching prospect. And hes's garbage.

 

Played some catch today. I think I was getting my fastball into the 75-78 range, and my curveball was breaking about 3 inches. Just rounding into game shape.

I'm just trying to enjoy Jackson in the present and not worry about how we will likely lose him after the season.

I thought we overpaid, but what the hell. s*** maybe if he has a great year and we win something of significance he'll like Chicago and want to stay, giving us a Konerko discount.

 

Boras client...good luck with that

lol

 

 

Though old posts probably should be brought up. I'm sure we've all said some dumb-ass things for as long as some of us have been here.

 

Oh my goodness. You're gonna roast me over a post I made 6 years ago? lol. Different times and I was a different poster then. KW deserved the benefit of the doubt back then. But not now. And lol@my botched spelling of Javy's last name. Brutal.

Edited April 9, 201114 yr by Jordan4life

So if you project two years out, who is even likely to be in our rotation?

So if you project two years out, who is even likely to be in our rotation?

 

Gavin Floyd

Addison Reed

Jacob Petricka

Roadkill

Puke

I was going to say:

 

Peavy

Floyd

Sale

FA

Prospect

So if you project two years out, who is even likely to be in our rotation?

 

Jake Peavy

Chris Sale

Gavin Floyd

Gio Gonzalez

Carlos Zambrano

Buehrle

Floyd

Sale

Peavy

AAA guy or trade

So if you project two years out, who is even likely to be in our rotation?

 

I would bet there will be three guys not in the system right now.