Add new comment

Before I say them, I'll agre with you that if it was Morrow+(not too much) for Ed. Jackson, I do that in a heartbeat and am dismayed that we passed that up for this.
Firstly, I never value or assess a trade (or potential trade) when it says something like "Morrow+ for Ed. Jackson," because in my limited experience, the "+" usually means "plus one of your five best prospects."  Not saying I didn't pay attention to the Morrow/Jackson rumors, but I'm not exactly going to get fired up over it one way or the other until I hear what the "+" means.
Second, I think it was someone on LL that outlined the need for a TOR and a BOR starter for the team, which forms a sort of paradigm in an of itself.  Not sure I agree with it, but if that was the case, then Ed. Jackson becomes redundant with the acquisition of Lee.  If it really is a situation where they wanted to take one (and only one) of "Lee, Halladay, Ed. Jackson, Javier Vasquez, John Lackey or Rich Harden," and one of "Bedard, Sheets, Marquis, Washburn or Davis," then I could see the rationale for passing on Ed. Jackson.
I think that in Jack's mind, the 25 man roster became more dependable as a result of this trade.  He has more confidence in League's 2010 performance than he did in Morrow's, and they'll likely provide similar ceilings for that time period.
None of this is to address the mounting sentiment that Jack is not-so-subtlely clearing the cupboard of Bavasi 'spects.