Andre Ethier....

by High Heater on Aug 5, 2006 7:50 PM EDT

man i must admit i thought this guy had Kotsay type cieling but what hes showed this year in the minors and bigs totaly blows my mind. every time i boot up a dodger game for stats it has him hitting all the time. i thought this kid didnt project to be a .300+ hitter?

he's a pretty lefty swing to... man the dodgers got a steal with him for bradley.

Tweet Comment 57 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

He is definitely making a run at ROY in the NL

He needs to work on his K/BB ration, but hitting .350 with and OPS of .950 is awfully impressive.

by tt68 on Aug 5, 2006 8:05 PM EDT reply actions

very likely that

it is just a matter of time before they find the holes in his swing.

by novaoakland on Aug 5, 2006 8:12 PM EDT reply actions

Nice Try

Novaoakland is assuming there are holes in Ethier's swing for pitchers to find. There aren't. His perfect swing is what made the Dodgers want him in the first place.

I'm finding the sour grapes of Oakland fans over the Ethier trade very amusing.

by CanuckDodger on Aug 6, 2006 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions

How much of this is our undervaluing of him before

A large portion of Ethier's value thus far at the Major League level has been batting average, a statistic that I think has become almost undervalued after the long decades in which it was dramatically overvalued. I wonder how much of his value we overlooked looking only at his decidedly average power and speed potential. The fact of the matter is we have hear a 24 year old outfielder who batted consistently over .300 at every level he played in. Is his .349 average way above what he should be doing? Hell yeah. But it doesn't seem entirely implausible that he'll be a .315 hitter who walks a fair amount and hits for decent power. Not Miguel Cabrera but not quite Mark Kotsay either.

by OldProspects on Aug 6, 2006 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Certainly not a steal

Ethier has exceded expectations this year, and has more long-term worth to the Dodgers than Bradley has to the A's. But Bradley shouldn't be sold short. He has been the saving grace to the top of the A's batting order since returning from injury. The A's are postseason bound, whereas the Dodgers will be lucky if they finish over .500. Dealing a good prospect for a good three-hitter is the type of deal a contender is supposed to make.

by StickRat on Aug 5, 2006 8:18 PM EDT reply actions

Stickrat

The Dodgers' chances of finishing above .500 far exceed the chances that the A's will be going to the post-season, which is not to say that the A's won't go to the post-season. Again, just an A's fan showing sour grapes.

Of course the Ethier trade was a steal for the Dodgers. Bradley's recent hot performance is irrelevent when you consider how much time he has missed to his annual DL trip, and when you bear in mind that what Ethier has done for the Dodgers he could have been doing for the A's all the time that Bradley was down. And the fact that Bradley will be a free agent after 2007 while Ethier will be one after 2011 should not be minimized, especially given Oakland's questionable ability to resign free agents who perform well for them. Oakland fans who are more sober-minded are quite aware of just how much of a disaster the Ethier trade was for them.

by CanuckDodger on Aug 6, 2006 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm not an A's fan

Ethier wouldn't be hitting .344 in Oakland. He is a talented rookie who has thrived as part of an explosive veteran offense.

by StickRat on Aug 6, 2006 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions

explsove?

I don't disagree with everything you say, but I would stop calling the Dodgers offense explosive. They rank in the bottom five in HRs, hardly explosive. Ethier has been much more valuable to the Dodgers than Bradley would have been this season.

I don't know if this is a "steal", butit is pretty ridiculous to think that the Dodgers did not get the better end of the deal. They received the player who is performing better this season, does not alienate players in the clubhouse (just wait, Bradley will do it), is cheaper, and has actually been on the field. Bradley is a special talent - no question - but nobody can objectively look at this deal and say that the Dodgers did not get the better end.

by count sutton on Aug 6, 2006 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Depends on how you look at it

What is more important? Individual player performance or overall team performance? If you want to look at the individual specific stats, sure, the Dodgers got the better end of the deal. From an overall perspective though, the A's got a three-hitter out of the deal. Before anyone else sits here and condescends to me about a sport about which I know a few things, please explain to me how a team is supposed to compete without a three-hitter. That's the position the A's were in this offseason. Sure they had to give up a player of value to get it, but what they got was a player who has been the second-half catalyst of their offense. I HAVE looked at this deal objectively and I AM saying the Dodgers did not get the better end. What has Ethier's breakout season done thus far for the Dodgers? They are a .500 team for crying out loud. If you want to talk about young IMPACT players, lets talk about Justin Verlander, Aaron Hill, or Jason Bartlett ... guys whose great performances have helped their teams to win.

by StickRat on Aug 6, 2006 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Stick....

I know you have been here long enough to see that wins do not matter to the majority of the posters on this blogsite. What really matters are individual peripheral numbers. It doesnt matter if a pitcher can win 20 games a year if he doesnt have a K/9 over 8.

It doesnt matter if you are the #3 hitter for a division leading team. If you arent hitting 350/450/600 you are worthless! You need a VORP of at least two hundred to get love on this site lol.

by Boxkutter on Aug 6, 2006 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, yeah

I disagree with your examples, of course, but pitcher wins or being part of a winning team is most certainly not the best way to evaluate a player. Otherwise we'd have to argue that Ernie Banks is a worse player than the second string catcher of the 1953 Yankees.

by OldProspects on Aug 6, 2006 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Winning is a team stat

The issue with your example is that wins really are a team stat. It seems incredibly naive to think that one person is solely responsible for a team winning.

by count sutton on Aug 6, 2006 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions

See you did it again

Suggesting that I'm naive is just plain condescending. Of course one player isn't solely responsible for the A's success. Barry Zito and Joe Blanton have been nails. The middle bullpen has been the best as any in baseball. Jay Payton has been hammering the ball all year. Jason Kendall is having a remarkable year behind the plate. Since Bradley has returned to the lineup though, the A's offense has taken off. When you have 1,2, & 4 hitters all hitting sub-.275, and Bradley starts swinging it in the 3-spot, then yes; I am going to credit the guy for being largely responsible for the team's play.

by StickRat on Aug 6, 2006 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Just for the record,

Bradley's been batting from the 5,6, and 7 slot, not the 3rd.

Also, by my count, the A's have gone 26-21 with Bradley playing, and 34-30 without him. Even if we accept your assertion that the entire improvement of the As is due to Bradley's performance, then how much credit do we give him? 1 game?

Bradley is a good player, but I think you're dramatically exaggerating his influence and his effectiveness.

by OldProspects on Aug 6, 2006 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm an idiot

Sorry, when I was looking at the numbers for my last post, I managed to not look at half of the data. I have no excuse other than stupidity. Bradley has hit in the number 3 spot, but only in less than half of the very limited time he has been playing. He has spent almost as much time in the number 6 spot as the number 3 spot, for example.

Sorry for the confusion.

by OldProspects on Aug 6, 2006 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions

The A's are now ...

14-8 since Bradley's return, in which time he has hit for a .375 average.

by StickRat on Aug 7, 2006 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Look at the comment

I did not reply to you. So suggesting that this comment is condescending towards is not naive, but just plain wrong.

by count sutton on Aug 7, 2006 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, it's still condescending

Even if it wasn't aimed at me. No need to call people naive, or to suggest there is only one way (your way) to look at an issue.

by StickRat on Aug 7, 2006 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Re:

Isn't that what you're doing too? With statements like, "Before anyone else sits here and condescends to me about a sport about which I know a few things, please explain to me how a team is supposed to compete without a three-hitter." Wouldn't you agree that you're suggesting that you're way is the only way.

I don't care if you disagree with my opinion. That happens all the time around here and I think most people have thicker skin than that. But please do not make personal judgements about my character and call me condescending. You don't know me. I try to be careful about that and just try to critique people's opinions, but not insult them. Sometimes we all go overboard, but I don't think I did here. I stated my opinions about Bradley and the trade and I stick to those comments. In this latest reply, I was not even talking to you.

Like I said before, I don't care if you disagree with me, but keep your criticism to my comments and opinions only. Do not infer that I am a condescending person.

by count sutton on Aug 8, 2006 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Wins Matter

"Before anyone else sits here and condescends to me about a sport about which I know a few things, please explain to me how a team is supposed to compete without a three-hitter."

Was I condescending? I'm not sure what they comment means, but I would check that at the door. I am trying to look at a deal objectively and get that response in return. If your comment was meant for someone else, please reply to that person.

Back to baseball...there are things in an individual performance that cannot be measured. One of my items I mentioned is the fact that Bradley has been a distraction in both the CLE and LA clubhouses. He may seem fine right now, but this is the same act we've seen twice already. Also of concern is Bradley's contract status. The Dodgers get three years of Ethier at league minimum and control for three more, while Bradley is a free agent.

Is Bradley a good baseball player? Absolutely, and you'll never see me argue otherwise. But I will take Ethier contract, lack of make up concerns, and ability to play a full schedule over Bradley's free agent status, attitude problems, and half season on the DL.

Considering Drew and Lofton cannot play everyday, and both Werth and Ledee went on the DL for an extended period of time, the Dodgers could not have continued to win with Bradley. Why? Because he took his annual trip to the DL too. Ethier has been more valuable to the Dodgers and I believe if this trade not taken place, he would have been more valuable to the A's simply for the fact that he was healthy enough to play. I'm not looking at stat lines, but to answer your question earlier:

"Before anyone else sits here and condescends to me about a sport about which I know a few things, please explain to me how a team is supposed to compete without a three-hitter."

Well, you tell me because the A's have played half a season without Bradley.

by count sutton on Aug 6, 2006 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions

The A's have played ...

a majority of their games without a three-hitter. And look where there offense is. At the bottom of the barrel. The have faired much better with Bradley which shows how much they need him. Ethier coulnd't have provided that pop for them.

I think this debate boils down to one thing. Would the A's be better off getting 80 games out of a player that is going to directly contribute to them taking over first place, or with a young role player who is more prone to feed off the players who surround him in a lineup? Granted, Ethier is having a fantastic season, but there is a big diference between hitting .350 in a lineup chalked full of experienced .300 hitters, than being as productive in a lineup that has struggled to produce a .280 hitter this season.

And when you issue extreme ultimatum-type comments like: "but nobody can objectively look at this deal and say that the Dodgers did not get the better end", you come across as condescending. I suggest if anyone checks anything at the door, it should be those individuals who feel it's their place to tell people how to think and feel. THAT we're engaged in a debate about a topic is reason enough to respect there is more than one way to look at the issue.

by StickRat on Aug 6, 2006 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions

re: Certainly not a steal

thank you very much, billy beane. this was a tremendous trade for the dodgers any way you look at it . . .

by kinbote on Aug 5, 2006 8:38 PM EDT reply actions

A steal ...

A steal is when a team gets something for nothing, such as Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. Francisco Liriano for A.J. Piersynski. Ethier is having a superb rookie season, but he is also part of the best hitting lineup in the National League. There are half a dozen Dodger bats you can point to and say, 'That guy is swinging it'. The A's on the other hand are 30th in the bigs in overall offense. Yet, they are sitting atop the American League West, and have posted a 13-8 record since Bradley's return. I agree that it was a great trade for the Dodgers. But, it's working out pretty good for the A's too, who in return have gotten one of the most balanced switch-hitters in the game, who is currently carrying the offense of a first-place team on his back.

by StickRat on Aug 5, 2006 9:20 PM EDT reply actions

nothing?

Zambrano did more for the Mets and Pierzynski did more for the Giants than Bradley has done for the A's.

A 'steal' is when one team gets much more out of the deal than the other team, not "something for nothing." Most people would consider 6 years of a starting LF much more valuable than 300 PA of Milton Bradley.

by sanchez101 on Aug 6, 2006 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions

and

and sanchez, you can't say that for multiple reasons, the most obvious including that milton is signed for 07 and that Ethier (i'm not saying that he couldnt, but) is unlikely to hit .350 for his career, and could possibly hit nowhere close to that ever again.

I'll be the first A+ prospect...

by ufoboy90 on Aug 6, 2006 3:51 AM EDT up reply actions

bradley

is a free agent at the end of this season. He was first arbitration-eligible after the 2003 season. He avoided arbitration that year with Cleveland and after spring trainging was traded to the Dodgers. After the 2004 season he avoided arbitration with the Dodgers, and after being traded following the 2005 season to the A's, he again signed before arbitration. I have not heard or can find anything saying Oakland has signed him to any extension, and with three years of arbitration eligibility, and 7 separate MLB seasons; he will be a free agent after the 2006 season.

Ethier does not have to hit .350 ever again to justify this trade. He could hit .275/.335/.450 the rest of his career and this would be more than worth it.

by sanchez101 on Aug 6, 2006 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Bottom line ...

How many postseason games did Zambrano and Piersynski play in for the Mets and Giants? A big fat zero. Those are both classic examples of trades that favored the team that received young prospects, because the vets weren't able to help their respective teams into the postseason. Bradley has single-handedly sparked the A's offense since returning from the DL. And now the A's are in first place. That's precisely why the A's dealt for him, and I'm confident in saying that if you asked Billy Beane if he would make that trade again knowing what he knows today, he would make the trade in a heartbeat.

by StickRat on Aug 6, 2006 4:05 AM EDT up reply actions

Platoon

What I think mostly goes largely unnoticed with him is that he's basically a platoon player. 85% of his ABs have come against righties, and even though he has a solid average against lefties, the sample size may be too small to accurately judge.

Waiting for Travis Buck

by Furious George on Aug 5, 2006 11:46 PM EDT reply actions

Platoon?

He was a platoon player, but he has started all but one game since July 1st.

by tt68 on Aug 6, 2006 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Statistical Illusion

This would be a nice textbook example for a college stats class of how stats can misinform the uninformed -- drawing the conclusion that Ethier is a platoon player when he simply isn't. Ethier doesn't sit against lefties, because he proved he could hit them, and hit them hard. Of course when he was called up to the majors he was platooned, because ALL lefty hitting rookies are assumed to be vulnerable to lefties. The current stats are an aggregate that don't tell anybody that the FREQUENCY of AB's against lefties did not remain constant. Given their relative ability to hit left-handed pitching, Eric Chavez is far closer to being a platoon player than Ethier.

by CanuckDodger on Aug 6, 2006 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions

come on

CanuckDodger, how can you accuse everyone of being a one sighted A's fan when all you can do is look at the trade from one perspective? you're just as bad as the oakland fans.

now, just IMO...
this deal works as a plus for both teams, what a TRADE should do. (hence, it is no steal) i see it similar to the Beckett and Lowell for Sanchez and Hanley deal, simply for the fact that both teams got what they wanted (vets vs. prospects)

go brewers

I'll be the first A+ prospect...

by ufoboy90 on Aug 6, 2006 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions

A plus for the A's?

Ethier has nearly played twice as many games as Bradley and has clearly outproduced him.

by Sulla on Aug 6, 2006 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Ethier wouldn't have been in Oakland this year

Ehtier would be hitting .350 here in Sacramento, not in Oakland. That is why he was traded, the A's wanted somebody they thought would help this year, not next year.

When was the last time an A's position prospect made the jump from AA to the bigs? I can't remember it.

The plan (from what I can see) is to have Bradley until 07, when Buck should be ready.

by chri5 on Aug 6, 2006 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions

As a fan of both teams

I agree that the trade isn't a steal for the Dodgers. Like one of the previous posters said, a steal is getting something great for nothing. Bradley is hardly nothing. The trade favors the Dodgers, but when healthy (which isn't often), Bradley is an outstanding all around player. Bradley has been one of the best hitters in baseball since being activated from the DL. Without Bradley, the A's would have no chance of making the postseason.

by UncleMiltie on Aug 6, 2006 5:06 AM EDT reply actions

Definition

A "steal" (in the world of sports trading) is NOT "getting something for nothing." No team ever gets "nothing." That is what some people are failing to understand. Because of the issues ragarding service time before free agency, the value of what Oakland gave up far, FAR exceeds the value of what they acquired -- that is what makes the deal a "steal" for the Dodgers. And leaving those issues aside and just concentrating on 2006 productivity, Ethier's 2006 MLB contibutions far outstrip Bradley's, so it is not like Oakland can justify the trade by saying they were giving up part of the future for a present benefit. Oakland lost in the present as well as the future. That Oakland might -- MIGHT -- have squandered Ethier's 2006 productivity in Sacramento through a mistaken assesssment of his readiness to be a well-above-average MLB player is neither here nor there.

by CanuckDodger on Aug 6, 2006 7:31 AM EDT up reply actions

Christ...

give it up. I'm not a fan of either team, but the reality is that Ethier is likely playing way over his head. I seriously doubt he's a .350 hitter, perfect swing or not. He'll probably turn out to be a good player, but not a perennial allstar. And Bradley might have a huge season next year for the A's.

Right now this trade favors the Dodgers, but saying it's a steal is a bit silly.

by rp0806 on Aug 6, 2006 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions

Can he play defense?

I can read about his batting splits. Wondering what the board has to say about his defense? I have only watched one game and did not get a feel for his range/arm, etc. What's the book on his defense?

by klmstrat on Aug 6, 2006 11:11 AM EDT reply actions

"Steal"

Is sometimes a matter of opinion. Some people see Milton Bradley as an excellent player who can hit close to 20 HRs and steal just as many bases while getting on base a lot. Others see him as a wacko who can blow up at any time and also has a tendency to get injured. Some people see Ethier as a fine young player with a bright future as a well above average corner outfielder. Others see him as a bit flukish and as a guy who will ultimately settle in and be somewhere around mediocre for his position.

I don't know enough about Ethier to give a great answer, but I do know that I think Bradley is a wacko (a talented one though) and the Dodgers were better off without him. Getting a player who seems to have some real potential like Ethier only sweetens the deal.

Just thought I'd give the opinion of someone else who is in no way a fan of either the Dodgers or A's.

by mcq fesijiba on Aug 6, 2006 11:12 AM EDT reply actions

trade

it's rationalization pure and simple to try to make this trade into something resembling a fair exchange. did the dodgers get a little lucky with ethier? maybe--but logan white is a pretty shrewd judge of talent.

we [the dodgers] got one of the most productive young hitters in the league for someone we didn't even want on our roster.

by kinbote on Aug 6, 2006 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions

A lot of probables and mights...

on both sides of this deal. Short term, the Dodgers have the upper hand, but it's probably not realistic to think that Ethier is going to be a perennial .300+ hitter. I don't think Ethier has to be for the Dodgers to be winners long term in this deal. A more realistic long term prediction for Ethier is a .270-.280/.350/.450 guy, 20 HR's, 80 or so RBI's on average. That's pretty solid production.

Bradley's had 1 season where he had over 400 AB's, only 2 seasons with over 100 games played. In 2004, the season with career highs in games played and AB's, Bradley put up a .267/.362/.424 line with 19 HR's and 67 RBI's. A nice year, but it's a reach to say it was anything more than that. Bradley has a boatload of talent, but until he can stay healthy for an extended amount of time, he is what he is- a guy who might be able to put it all together and be a potentially great player, but until he does, you can't expect it to happen.

I'll take my chances on Ethier posting consistent numbers like I posted above over Milton finally putting it all together.

by MrMajestyk on Aug 6, 2006 11:46 AM EDT reply actions

ethier wouldn't be in the majors this season

if the a's kept him...he'd be hitting very well in AAA. again, this is probably a trade that will work out well for both parties. bradley is healthy again and is doing quite well. ethier is having an incredible season. but look at ethier's track record...he's a very good hitter, but not a .350 hitter. holes will be found and i suspect his batting average will drop significantly next year. keep in mind that many believe travis buck is an ethier clone, hence why the a's were willing to trade one of their best prospects. bradley plays very good defense as well, ethier doesn't. dodgers "win" on the trade stat-wise this season, but being that bradley possibly helps oakland make the postseason and ethier wouldn't have, it's not that clear. plus, the NL is the kiddie league. if ethier played in the AL this season, i'd be shocked if he hit .300.

by guy incognito on Aug 6, 2006 2:09 PM EDT reply actions

come on

If Ethier was hitting in Sacramento even close to as well as he was hitting in Las Vegas, the A's would have to be complete idiots not to bring him up. You guys have been throwing out Payton, Kielty and Kotsay as their starting outfield this year. You can't tell me they couldn't find a spot for Ethier in that outfield. Kielty has "hit" the best out of any of them and his obp is .337.

I don't think people are understanding how much better Ethier has been than Bradley this year. According to Vorp, Ethier is outproducing every player in the A's lineup by a healthy margin (26 for Ethier while Frank Thomas is at 21).

And yes, Bradley is a better defender than Ethier. But he loses much of his value in the switch from center to right and Ethier has actually doing very well in left this year according to BP and scouts alike.

To say that the difference between the NL and the AL is 50 points in batting averages is just ridiculous and you know it.

by neutralluke on Aug 6, 2006 2:38 PM EDT reply actions

Well

"Complete idiots" or not, the A's philosphy on young players is at least one full year in AAA. Dan Johnson is guy who by the numbers was ready for the bigs in the middle of 2004, but didn't get his shot until a year later.

Ethier likely wouldn't have seen playing time this year if he was still in the A's organization. I don't agree with that philosphy personally, but it's what would have happened.

Besides all of that, if Ken Macha knew how to use a bench, Antonio Perez could have possibly contributed this year and balanced things out a bit. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

As an A's fan, I'd love to have Ethier in the system, because of the 6 years we could have him for. However, he's not a guy that's going to keep up this pace. I do see a .300/.370/.480 type future for him, and he will be better than average for years to come.

I think Billy Beane made this move with making a run at a World Series in mind, and as I mentioned before Ethier wouldn't have had a likely role in that plan. Getting two major league players, both of whom have showed the ability to hit when given the opportunity, was worth the risk for pushing for World Series win. I don't see this team winning it all, but that was the original plan I think.

I don't get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I'd rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV. -Joe Morgan, Emmy winning BASEBALL analyst

by gatling on Aug 6, 2006 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions

roll of the dice

Anyone who has played sim baseball has seen that a player "carded" to hit .295 could hit .335+ in one given simulation of the season. Then you could sim 10 more times and that same player might not exceed .310 in any of those trials. The same applies here. What if Milton reprised that .420 OBP season he had with the Tribe while Ethier struggled?

I do think the Dodgers seem to have won this deal b/c of the way the season has panned out. But it's foolish to think that this is the only way that things could have possibly unfolded.

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on Aug 6, 2006 2:58 PM EDT reply actions

Also

The A's also got Antonio Perez in the deal, who was supposed to be some sort of supersub with speed and some batting ability.

by jahs34 on Aug 6, 2006 7:59 PM EDT reply actions

Ethier demanded a trade from oakland

because he was not pglease that they didnt promote him to AAA soon eonuh last season

also remember Ethier wouries to cruld have never been called up so early if not for injuries to cruz, werth, repko, drew, etc.

also i doubt he would've even been called up to oakland so soon if he stayed there. fr whatever reason they are very slow and take time promoting prospects.

no one doubt ethier be a good player, but he would've not done much in 2007 for the A's, probably a sept call up. also it doesnt help Buck, Hererra, Putnam, Robnett who were also higly regarded OF's in the As system all have been injured.

also who the hell expcted perez to hit like a little leaguer lol. his value was to give chavez days off and be a very good offensive player to maybe even take over at 2b. it hasnt worked out that way.

when braldey was out i wanted to strangle him and thought he's a soft player. he still has those issues, but coming back he's been a huge lift and added some structure in the A's lineup being the #3 hitter. maybe the loss of Ethier will hurt, a yr or two later when bradley leaves. but A's will probably get picks and replace him with Travis Buch who is considered a top 40 prospect by BA.

by rayver723 on Aug 6, 2006 9:11 PM EDT reply actions

ajsdkfl

Minor leaguers don't have the leverage to demand a trade and be taken seriously. If the organization is nice and likes the kid, they might oblige him, but Ethier didn't force the As to do anything.

Reports from the Dominican Republic! http://globalbaseball.wordpress.com

by jhelfgott @ Minor League Ball on Aug 7, 2006 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Hermida or Ethier

Given what we have seen from both so far this year, who do you think will be the better MLB palayer?

by Huskies on Aug 6, 2006 9:54 PM EDT reply actions

Hermida

has a much higher cieling.

i'd take him even tho i do like Ethier

by High Heater on Aug 7, 2006 4:14 AM EDT up reply actions

Agreed...

I think J has a higher ceiling and will be an overall better player then Either. Watch out for the Marlins, Rays and Dbacks in a few!

by ChrisRef19 on Aug 7, 2006 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

The trade

While you can argue that the A's got themselves a good deal as well, you cannot say the Dodgers didn't well for themselves as well without looking like an idiot. They didn't want Bradley anymore, and all reports pointed to him being non-tendered if a deal couldn't be reached.

If you want to say that Bradley has been invaluable to the A's over a 20 game stretch then more power to you. Still, Ethier has brought a lot to the Dodgers and is a big part of their league leading offense. Plus he will be cheap and not a free agent for years. Even when he does come back to earth he should be a cheap and useful player to have around. Not a bad haul for a guy the team couldn't wait to get rid of.

There simply is no debating if the Dodgers got a good deal on the trade, they did. If you want to say Ethier never does this for the A's and that Bradley has been invaluable while missing half the season that's fine, but there is no way the Dodgers didn't do well for themselves with the deal. The best you can say is the A's did well for themselves as well.

by MindRevolution on Aug 6, 2006 10:25 PM EDT reply actions

I agrei 101%

Whti what rly sade

by doubledribble @ Minor League Ball on Aug 6, 2006 11:32 PM EDT reply actions

!!!omoh uoy kanhT

by rayver723 on Aug 7, 2006 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions

Well last year the A's first baseman, Dan Johnson

was said to have a sweet swing, and was 1st team All-Rookie, and this year the scouts have figured him out. If Ethier does it next year, then talk.

by theblackpearl on Aug 7, 2006 1:11 AM EDT reply actions

All-rookie

That DJ was selected over Ryan Howard was pretty ridiculous.

Waiting for Travis Buck

by Furious George on Aug 7, 2006 3:55 AM EDT up reply actions

Talk

When Bradley qualifies for only his second batting title in his career.

by MindRevolution on Aug 7, 2006 1:24 AM EDT reply actions

Original diary on the deal

Just reviewed it, and it's something interesting to look at. My original take was that it was worth it to the Dodgers to get Bradley off the team because of his personality, and I still feel that way. Ethier's performance, while probably above what he will produce in the future, is just a bonus. Looks like an excellent deal for LA, for now and the future.

Here it is if you'd like to take a look...

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/12/13/171939/69

by jc3 on Aug 7, 2006 1:20 PM EDT reply actions