I saw Hudson pitch twice against the Rockies last year after the trade, and he was lights out. Unless he's hurt, I think he'll get it together this year.

.

No, that had absolutely nothing to do with why anybody was angry with it. The people who didn't like the trade thought we didn't get adequate value for 6 years of well below market value for a mid-rotation starter, while leaving us with almost completely nothing in the minors in terms of pitching talent. Anybody who mentioned the "greatness" of Hudson was only responding to the idea that Hudson was only some sort of "NL" pitcher even though he was having a better year than Jackson, against better competition, in a more hitter friendly park. Hudson's ERA was less than 1/3 of Jackson's in Arizona, yet somehow Jackson was the only one possibly capable of handling the AL all of a sudden, which is absolutely absurd.

 

I'll agree to disagree on this issue, but my problem with this trade has nothing to do with how "great" Dan Hudson is. The point is that Hudson doesn't have to be better than Jackson for us to lose this trade. Even if he's only the 4-5 starter you pessimistically peg him as, and I agree he's not as good as he was last year, we could still lose this trade. The argument has nothing to with Hudson being better than Jackson. It has everything to do with money.

Nothing to do with it? Hudson wasn't good with the Sox last year, Jackson was. If Hudson had the same numbers last year with AZ he has this season, there would have been no b****ing.

Somebody mentioned it already, but it's hilarious that so few games is not enough to be worried about the Sox. But on the other hand, a few starts for the Sox last year was certainly enough to declare that Hudson would never cut it in the AL and a similar amount this year is sufficient to prove he's not good at all.

I wonder if Arizona's site has a "The GREAT Edwin Jackson" thread? So far, both pitchers are underperforming this year.

I wonder if Arizona's site has a "The GREAT Edwin Jackson" thread? So far, both pitchers are underperforming this year.

I think they're more regretting giving away Scherzer to get Jackson.

I think they're more regretting giving away Scherzer to get Jackson.

 

Didn't they basically get Ian Kennedy and Hudson for Scherzer?

Somebody mentioned it already, but it's hilarious that so few games is not enough to be worried about the Sox. But on the other hand, a few starts for the Sox last year was certainly enough to declare that Hudson would never cut it in the AL and a similar amount this year is sufficient to prove he's not good at all.

 

It sure was enough games to call the Hudson trade a complete failure last year, that's for sure.

I was going to contribute both an audible sigh and a facepalm at this thread, but i can see it's already been covered. Clearly the best part of an early losing streak is that we can play "Fun with Sample Sizes" anytime we want.

Does signing Mark to an extension help us retain Danks?

yuck, i hope this is his last year here. hes done a lot for the sox but hes done in the a.l.

It sure was enough games to call the Hudson trade a complete failure last year, that's for sure.

You can't really grade the trade for another 5 years or however much time Hudson is under team control, but it's fairly easy to say the Sox lost the trade last year because of how well Hudson pitched down the stretch and still having all that team control time left while pitching for pennies.

I saw Hudson pitch twice against the Rockies last year after the trade, and he was lights out. Unless he's hurt, I think he'll get it together this year.

 

You saw Hudson pitch twice last year. That's 2 starts. And you're sure he's going to turn it around.

 

Yet, Adam Dunn has hit 358 homers in 10 years, and he's chopped liver.

 

Oy vey.

You saw Hudson pitch twice last year. That's 2 starts. And you're sure he's going to turn it around.

 

Yet, Adam Dunn has hit 358 homers in 10 years, and he's chopped liver.

 

Oy vey.

 

Problem is dunn is on the white sox... and hudson is not.

 

Btw, you are on a roll today, i love it.

I think they're more regretting giving away Scherzer to get Jackson.

 

 

after Sunday's game I would be to

The GREAT Edwin Jackson: 5.86 ERA.

 

 

 

 

Fun with sample sizes!

I watched Hudson against I forget who his last start. I won't even check, for the sake of observation.

 

He was hit fairly hard. He didn't do great. In fact, he struggled hard

 

 

But watching him that start, and watching E. Jax today, the comparison is nil.

 

Both had little to offer. Both were way, way off. Only difference is Hudson salvaged a start. E-Jax is useless, meanwhile, for his what? 5th? 6th? team? He's useless. Period.

Trading Huddy for Jax was absolutely silly. The fact they added Holmberg is f***ing disgraceful.

I watched Hudson against I forget who his last start. I won't even check, for the sake of observation.

 

He was hit fairly hard. He didn't do great. In fact, he struggled hard

 

 

But watching him that start, and watching E. Jax today, the comparison is nil.

 

Both had little to offer. Both were way, way off. Only difference is Hudson salvaged a start. E-Jax is useless, meanwhile, for his what? 5th? 6th? team? He's useless. Period.

 

Thank you! That's what it's always been about for me. I could've easily bumped this thread myself but didn't because I don't want Jackson to suck. Bucket of suck wants Hudson to suck simply to prove us 'haters' wrong. I've followed Jackson for years. Studs don't get traded 4 times in 5 years. They just don't. We gave up years and money for a guy who's no better than the guy we gave up. Now if we trade Hudson, Holmberg and whatever for Dan Haren? s***. I don't care if Hudson and Holmberg turn into Strasburg and Kershaw. You make that trade EVERY single time. Jackson? Indefensible.

Edited April 29, 201114 yr by Jordan4life

I was a believer in Jackson. I truly thought he was going to do very well for us.

 

Back in 2006, I was also a fan of Javier Vazquez. It turns out that Javier Vazquez is just Spanish for Edwin Jackson.

I was a believer in Jackson. I truly thought he was going to do very well for us.

 

Back in 2006, I was also a fan of Javier Vazquez. It turns out that Javier Vazquez is just Spanish for Edwin Jackson.

 

Nicely done.

Edwin Jackson should be our closer and Sergio our main set up guy with Thornton.

Sale should be in the minors starting.

 

Edwin Jackson should be our closer and Sergio our main set up guy with Thornton.

Sale should be in the minors starting.

 

So we should have a three man rotation?

So we should have a three man rotation?

Greg is rebuilding about 2 months too soon.

 

While we're at it, why not make Santos a starter, too?

 

He has at least three "plus" pitches that he can throw for strikes.

 

It would be a lot easier to find a set-up guy in our minor league system or via trade (or the dreaded Royce Ring draft) if we're not going to use Sergio as the closer.

Edited April 29, 201114 yr by caulfield12

Greg is rebuilding about 2 months too soon.

 

While we're at it, why not make Santos a starter, too?

 

He has at least three "plus" pitches that he can throw for strikes.

 

It would be a lot easier to find a set-up guy in our minor league system or via trade (or the dreaded Royce Ring draft) if we're not going to use Sergio as the closer.

 

In all seriousness, you would need four to five years to make Sergio Santos a starter. It is like asking a 100 meter runner to run the marathon. He has zero conditioning in that arm right now.

In all seriousness, you would need four to five years to make Sergio Santos a starter. It is like asking a 100 meter runner to run the marathon. He has zero conditioning in that arm right now.

Yeah, and he doesn't even have the background of being a starter like other pitchers. The last time he was a starter was 2001 in high school, he simply can't move to a starter now.