Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Backing the Pack for NC State Fans!


Swisher to White Sox!!

A's Trade OF Nick Swisher to Chicago White Sox

Acquire LHP Gio Gonzalez, RHP Fautino De Los Santos and OF Ryan Sweeney

OAKLAND, Calif. - The Oakland A's today traded outfielder Nick Swisher to the Chicago White Sox for left-handed pitcher Gio Gonzalez, right-handed pitcher Fautino De Los Santos and outfielder Ryan Sweeney.

0 recs | Comment 180 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Wow
Don't know what to say.

by jfish26101 on Jan 3, 2008 2:20 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Damn
I guess really isn't gonna half ass this whole rebuilding thing.

by aCone419 on Jan 3, 2008 2:22 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+1
Talk about cashing out!  Beane's probably going to try and flip the assistant trainer for some rookie ball pitcher.

Seems like a nice haul for Swish.

by Yakker on Jan 3, 2008 2:26 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

so much for beane not trading w/ AL teams
he loves his white sox prospects lol

3 from swisher deal
carter
cunningham
marhsall/hernandez rule 5 picks
rogowski/wing milb FA's

Excellent Prospects
None
Very Good Prospects

  1. John Danks, lhp
  2. Ryan Sweeney, cf/rf
  3. Josh Fields, 3b
Good Prospects
  1. Gio Gonzalez, lhp
  2. Charlie Haeger, rhp
Average Prospects
  1. Aaron Cunningham, lf
  2. Lance Broadway, rhp
  3. Kyle McCulloch, rhp
  4. Chris Carter, 1b
  5. Nick Massett, rhp

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 2:23 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That was last year
Here is this year's list for the CHWSX

Five-Star Prospects
1. Fautino de los Santos, RHP
Four-Star Prospects

  1. Gio Gonzalez, LHP
  2. Aaron Poreda, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
  1. Chris Carter, 1B
  2. John Shelby, CF
  3. Jose Martinez, OF
Two-Star Prospects
  1. Jack Egbert, RHP
  2. Ryan Sweeney, OF
  3. Lance Broadway, RHP
One-Star Prospects
  1. Brian Omogrosso, RHP
  2. Kyle McCulloch, RHP
gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Jan 3, 2008 2:34 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And now it looks like this
Five-Star Prospects
  1. Daric Barton, 1B
  2. Carlos Gonzalez, OF
  3. Fautino DLS
Four-Star Prospects
  1. Brett Anderson, LHP
  2. Trevor Cahill, RHP
  3. Gio Gonz
Three-Star Prospects
  1. Chris Carter, 1B
  2. James Simmons, RHP
  3. Aaron Cunningham, OF
  4. Henry Rodriguez, RHP
  5. Andrew Bailey, RHP
  6. Corey Brown, OF
  7. Jermaine Mitchell, OF
  8. Ryan Sweeney
gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Jan 3, 2008 2:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hm...
That's kinda okay, I guess.

by aCone419 on Jan 3, 2008 2:47 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Holy sheets!
Whne the A's decide to re-stock their system, they don't screw around.  So what's the tally for Haren + Swisher?  Or more aptly, the tally for Swisher + Mulder?
gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Jan 3, 2008 2:23 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Haul
Wait until Blanton and/or Street go, then the tally will be even more impressive.

by Yakker on Jan 3, 2008 2:27 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

it's Kevin Melillo time, baby
I can dream, can't I?
This guy is Iran, however, but pitches in Japan.

by ufoboy90 on Jan 3, 2008 8:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Dude
No offense, but if your dreams involve Kevin Melillo, you seriously need to get out more.

;-)

by Yakker on Jan 3, 2008 8:37 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

For Mulder and Swisher
they have gotten:

3 years of Danny Haren
Daric Barton
Kiko Calero
Carlos Gonzalez
Brett Anderson
Aaron Cunningham
Chris Carter (Though not even Billy Beane knows which one)
Greg Smith
Dana Eveland
Fautino
Gio
Sweeney

That's really amazing.  You could say they now have the 3rd best minors system, eh?

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Jan 3, 2008 2:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

well
that gives them three five-stars per goldstein's system, which is i think more than anybody except the tampa bay absurd-farm rays out of teams he's done (so the AL).

by wily mo on Jan 3, 2008 2:34 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

variables don't
"i still don't have a good feel for gio gonzalez.  i can't see him as a power pitcher in the rotation, and i think his effectiveness would diminish greatly if his K rate fell to the 6-7 range, which is where i see it at the major league level.  i don't want to pigeonhole him as a reliever, but i think if he gets called up in 2008, that's the role he should fill, with a possible rotation spot in 2009 if he is successful.  a pitcher that i've looked at already, wandy rodriguez, has the same profile as gonzalez, a plus curve bordering on plus-plus, with a slightly above average fastball, and a workable changeup, coming from a frame under 6'.  rodriguez's K rate spiked in 2007 at about 8 per 9 IP, and i see that as being the peak for gonzalez, which is why i have a hard time seeing him as a successful power pitcher."
ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (new content)

variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Jan 3, 2008 2:27 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

kenny williams has officially lost it
what an awful trade for the white sox.

by larry on Jan 3, 2008 2:29 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How does this help the White Sox??
Being a Sox fan, I'm wondering how this helps the Sox.  We just traded 3 of our top prospects for a guy who hit .262 last year.  Unreal...

Where does Swisher play next year?  Is he the answer in Center field...I hope not!

The Sox just acquired Carlos Quentin, they have Jerry Owens (who isn't an everyday player), and resigned Jermaine Dye.  I don't see a spot for all of these guys.  Thome is stuck at DH.  Could it be possible that Williams could be dealing Konerko to play Swisher at 1st?

by thowinsmoke on Jan 3, 2008 2:37 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Swisher is a better player...
than you are giving him credit for.  His OBP was .381, he hit 35 HR last year...he simply hasn't put it all together yet.  He hit around .300 before the All-star break.  Has a good enough arm he can play RF, athletic enough he can play CF...he is a fine player.  I do think you gave up to much but he is a fine player.

by jfish26101 on Jan 3, 2008 2:41 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

don't overrate BA
swish has a high OBP. give him some protection in the lineup (he had big hurt 2 years ago and did pretty well, no protection last year, and the white sox will be the best lineup he's ever been in by far) and i suspect you'll get a .270/.400/.520 line from him. sox gave up a ton for him, but swish will do very well in chi-town.

by guy incognito on Jan 3, 2008 2:46 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Did I overrate BA?
Maybe that wasn't directed towards me though...

by jfish26101 on Jan 3, 2008 2:48 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

oops
directed at the above poster, not you...my bad!

by guy incognito on Jan 3, 2008 3:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He's very good but...
I do not see how this trade helps the White Sox compete for the division championship either now or in the future.

They are a better team in '08, with a devastating 3-4-5 slot in the lineup, but in a very tough AL Central, what does that get them?

by BIgMax on Jan 3, 2008 2:50 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

well
it gives them a puncher's chance.

there's a lot more variability in team performances than most people think. the tigers look pretty loaded, but weird things have been known to happen. what if the chisox pitchers all have good seasons out of nowhere again like in '05? i'm not saying it was worth it to sell the entire farm for that chance, but you could see why kenny might do it. especially since kenny might find himself out of a job if they win 70-odd games again next year.

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 2:54 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

do you see 5 good pitchers
with track records of success on the sox like in 2005? betting on not only danks but floyd (or whoever you want to throw at the back end of the rotation) to pitch well is a real big stretch.

by larry on Jan 3, 2008 3:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

2005
Look, I'm not defending this trade, but look back at the pre-2005 Sox rotation and see if that looked stable to you:

Buehrle - good and consistent.  Hard to argue that he was a true "ace", though.  Dropped his ERA by 0.77 from 2004.

Garland - 4.58/4.51/4.89 ERAs the previous 3 seasons.  Dropped his ERA by 1.39 from 2004.

Garcia - ERA's of 4.39 and 4.51 in Seattle (pitcher's park) in 2002/2003.  Started to look good in 2004, and Seattle shipped him out.  Posted a 4.46 ERA after joining Sox in 2004.  Lowered that by 0.59 in 2005.

Contreras - 5.50 ERA in his only full season (2004).  Lowered that by 1.89, and was pitching lights-out in the 2nd half when they needed him.

El Duque and McCarthy - hard to argue that El Duque (39 and coming off an injury), or McCarthy (21 with zero MLB experience) was showing a "track record of success".

The Sox rotation in 2005 was the perfect storm, really.  Not to mention Cliff Politte and Neal Cotts getting possessed by aliens.  

I think the move is ill-conceived and shows a lack of comprehension of reality on Kenny Williams' part, too.  But the quip about a "puncher's chance" is probably accurate.  They should now has an MLB offense, so they just have to hope for the stars to align for their pitchers again (as in 2005)... not likely, but not totally impossible.  I don't think anyone can - with integrity - point to 2005 and say they foresaw that pitching staff doing as well as it did.  It was a fluke, and it will take another fluke in 2008 for the Sox to compete again.

by BobbyMac on Jan 4, 2008 12:44 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A fair answer
It certainly puts them above 70 wins, and gives them an outside chance.  Not that I am saying he is doing this, because I don't know Kenny Williams, but I think it is tough when the GM seeks improvement to 81-85 wins to keep his job over more patient, long-term management.

Still, I went over last year's Sox OBP.  Swisher (and Thome) might want to do double duty as batting coaches -- there were some pretty ugly walk totals on that team last year.  

If this was the start of a change of philosphy, then it might very well be a good thing.

by BIgMax on Jan 3, 2008 3:11 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Swisher only hit 22HR's last year. Not 35.
Huge trade for the A's and a 'what the F' trade for the Sox.  2 very good to great young arms and a guy who isn't far removed from being a good prospect (though I think he sucks).

by rothe on Jan 3, 2008 4:13 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I meant '06
and I think it was fairly obvious but sorry for the confusion.  He had 36 2B in '06 as well to go with those 22 HR and an improved AVG/OBP (100 BB which was top 5 in the AL I believe).

by jfish26101 on Jan 3, 2008 4:24 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

True, but still should be corrected.
Didn't mean it to be rude.

Swisher is good, but I don't think he's even a top 10 OF in the AL.  I'm shocked they got all that for him.

by rothe on Jan 3, 2008 4:47 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

AL outfielders
Swisher is good, but I don't think he's even a top 10 OF in the AL.

this will be fun. i honestly don't know what i expect to find out.

win shares for AL outfielders, 2005-07 (since swisher became a regular):

guerrero 83
sizemore 81
ichiro 81
ramirez 78
ibanez 70 (whoa, did you know that?)
crawford 67
ordonez 67
damon 62 (but plummeting)
wells 61
dye 56
hunter 54
swisher 53
sheffield 52
granderson 52 (but rising)
rios 51 (but rising)

so... you're right, swisher is 12th. or so. of the guys ahead of him, i make him out to be pass damon, wells, dye, and perhaps hunter this year, but he may be caught from behind by granderson, rios, and younger guys like upton and markakis.

of course, the other question is how much of a boost he gets due to his desirable contract. would you rather have swisher for the next 4 years at $26M, or hunter for the next 5 at $90M?

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 5:23 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah,
I didn't really think about it before I posted it, but then went back and came up with 10 guys I'd rather have on my team next year.  I'm glad you put some evidence to it though.

by rothe on Jan 3, 2008 10:57 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yeah
the numbers i looked up aren't exactly the entire story (win shares, while reasonably convenient for this sort of thing, are just one stat), but it was still eye-opening. did you know that sizemore was basically the equal of vlad, even before you take age and salary into account? i sure as hell didn't. and ibanez, whoa! 5th-best AL outfielder over the last 3 years? geez. the other big surprise is (not shown) that carl crawford, while very good, actually hasn't improved at all from age 22 to 25. he's basically the exact same guy he was at 22--which, mind you, is a damn fine player.

as for swisher, i sort of expected him to scrape the bottom of that top 10, but he was just a bit worse than that.

by jpahk on Jan 4, 2008 12:52 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

WSABs
Any chance WSABs which account for the differences between the OF positions could make this list even more interesting?

In other words, I think WSABs currently (at least the ones I see at HBT) treat all OFs equally.  Find a way to account for the premium defensive value of CF, and Sizemore could look even better.

by Yakker on Jan 4, 2008 3:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why Kenny?
I used to trust Kenny Williams in these type of deals, but I'm real skeptical of this one.

by thowinsmoke on Jan 3, 2008 2:40 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

we got robbed...
pure highway robbery...

by The Wizard on Jan 3, 2008 2:41 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Man, I like that deal for the As...
I like Gio, think he could be a good mid-rotation guy, and as is probably well known, I think DLS could be great, got the stuff, got the performance, he could be an ace if he continues his development. Both should be in the mid-to-upper minors next year, and could see the majors by year's end.

Great deal for the As, imo.

by beastball on Jan 3, 2008 2:33 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yep.
it's sort of sad - the end of the moneyball era, in a way.  but it makes all kinds of sense.

by wily mo on Jan 3, 2008 2:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Anyone think Swisher and Ozzie have problems?
I'm not sure his fun loving, no care attitude is going to go over well.  He plays hard but Ozzie is a real hard ass.

by jfish26101 on Jan 3, 2008 2:37 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Perhaps the White Sox are thinking of life past
Ozzie, especially if the White Sox are out of contention again this season.

Hello jfish26101,

If the White Sox don't factor into the playoffs again within the next 1-2 seasons, I suspect Ozzie won't be there for the length of Swisher's contract (5 years, I think?)

I think Ozzie signed a contract extension just this past season, but that's still not a guarantee he'll remain there for the length of it, especially if the White Sox aren't a factor for the postseason in 2008.

Regarding the Swisher trade, I think it was a high price to pay for a team that had a thin farm system to begin with and will need 8-9 out of 10 things to go right for this team to make the postseason, let alone win a WS.  The Indians and Tigers are arguably still a few notches ahead of them, and the Twins and Royals are arguably on even or close to even par with the White Sox, even after adding Swisher, Quentin and Linebrink.  

The White Sox's bullpen has only seen limited improvement, and that's assuming that Scott Linebrink will bounce back from an inconsistent 2007.  As for the starting staff, there's question marks there as well.  

Therefore, I think the White Sox's gamble is a high one - with their razor-thin farm system, they're going to need to win within the next 1-2 seasons for this gamble to pay off.  Otherwise, they're looking at having to restock their whole organization plus try to find quality replacements for guys like Thome and Dye (unless he can bounce back and put up high numbers for another 3-4 seasons, and with his injury history and being 37-38 at that time, I doubt it,) the White Sox could be looking at a long rebuild (3-5 years at least.)  

Only time will tell if this gamble will pay off, but I'd be very skeptical of this move, being that the White Sox don't seem that close to competing for a WS title (they're arguably further away than they were after the 2004 season when Williams acquired Podsednik and others; the White Sox had won 80+ games in both 2003 and 2004, and at that time, only the Twins were a sure bet to contend for the division, whereas I think the Indians and Tigers are both solid to sure bets to contend, and it's not out of the realm of possibility for the Twins or Royals to be in the hunt for most of the season either, so the competition of the division is much greater now than when the White Sox made their bid for the 2005 season.)

It could pay off for them, but I think the chances are greater that this move could backfire on them in the long-term and the White Sox could face a much longer rebuild because of it - at least 3-5 years if everything works out right, and 6+ years if it doesn't.  

Just my 2 cents - no offense.

Take care and have a great day!

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jan 3, 2008 8:19 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

wow
um... wow.

so if he unloads blanton and street (and i'm not saying he shouldn't), will the 2008 A's rival the 2003 tigers?

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 2:38 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They will be nowhere near as bad as the '03 Tigers
That team was dreadful.

I see the 2008 A's as being more like the '06 Marlins than the '03 Tigers -- a team that is surprisingly competitive, but isn't able to sustain it and ends up with mid-70s win total.

Beane is getting a lot of really nice young players this winter.

by jonk1982 on Jan 3, 2008 7:39 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

OF
What happens with the CWS outfield?  Do you think Fields moves to 3B?  What happens to Quentin?  Very interesting moves for the CWS this offseason.

by yangels on Jan 3, 2008 2:41 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ho-Lee Crap.
What a haul! Beane really does know how to shit or get off the pot. He's really going all out on this rebuilding thing. The A's system has gone from bottom 10 to top 5 or 10. De Los Santos by himself would have been a good trade. Kenny Williams can't trade worth two shits.

by elrey34 on Jan 3, 2008 2:43 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Man
I understand that the Athletics are rebuilding and they made a deal that suits what they're looking for, but I disagree that the White Sox are crazy for it or anything. The Tigers just went nuclear with Miguel Cabrera in their lineup. They needed to add a bat, they wanted a strong one with a good OBP, and they got him. The only guy I'd miss from the trio they gave is Fautino, the only one with a chance to be something truly special. Gio's stuff doesn't do it for me, and I'm not going to sit here and act like just because they're good prospects, they're just going to pan out everytime. It isn't like we've even seen these guys get a major league hitter out. I think people here are seriously undervaluing Nick Swisher, a real good hitter who gets on base AND is capable of playing a decent center field, a position the White Sox desperately needed to fill. He is also under contract for a long while as well. I call this deal even at worst for the Sox, and I may even say it favors them slightly.
Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 2:46 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Situation is important
The Sox have close to ZERO chance of making the playoffs this year or the next.  This trade moves them from 3rd or 4th in the division to 3rd or 4th in the division.

by marcello on Jan 3, 2008 2:53 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I disagree
Who makes the playoffs will be decided on the field, not on paper. Good for the White Sox to try and compete and not lay down and die for the Tigers and Indians, two teams that are not unbeatable by any means. There's no reason not to go for it when the price is a lefty with decent but not great stuff and a 21-year old in A-ball. It isn't like Swisher is a rental either.
Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 2:58 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rebuild
Swisher isn't a rental, but the White Sox will be rebuilding during the later years of his contract.  They can probably trade him then, so there is some value they can get for him, but this deal was made for the next 2, maybe 3 years.  They don't have much chance with the way Detroit and Cleveland are built, not to mention beating out the Red Sox or Yankees for a wild card.

by marcello on Jan 3, 2008 3:08 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

let me get this straight.....
How to build a team to compete in the most competitive division in baseball

Sign mediocre SS to an extension (Uribe)
Trade your #2/#3 SP for a better shortstop (Garland for Cabrera)
Make shrewd trade for young OF (Quentin)
Trade away future to make sure young outfielder doesn't get to play (Swisher for "the farm")

You know, I think that there's a lot to be said about the way that the Twins and Blue Jays are trying to compete with the behemoths in their respective divisions.  You just can't get enough starting pitching.  Maybe if that's where you put your chips you might have something.  But, Kenny Williams hasn't really improved this team at all for 2008 at the expense of 2009 and beyond.  

This trade isn't Kazmir for "the forgotten Zambrano" bad, but it might be as bad as Pierzynski for "the farm" bad. In the sense that at least you can make a slight case that it will make the team better in the short term.

by Terry Ryan Jr on Jan 3, 2008 9:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Mediocrity is not acceptable.
Beane understands this. Williams doesn't. The Sox now are a "good" team, but they have to compete with two powerhouses in the division, another good team in the division with more promise than they have, and one of the two powerhouses to the east that doesn't take the division.

Two of baseball's best in its division and three for the Wild Card, not to mention other "good" teams in Minnesota, Seattle and Toronto. And conceivably Tampa Bay, who all my money is on for being a very big surprise.

by elrey34 on Jan 4, 2008 4:33 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Swisher is not a viable CF option.
And De Los Santos by himself is worth Swisher. Paired with Gio, a projected #3, and Sweeney thrown in, this was a heist. Also, to make things worse, the White Sox are not a Nick Swisher away from being as good or better than Cleveland or Detroit. Not to mention Minnesota.

by elrey34 on Jan 3, 2008 2:58 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i think it has to do with the state of mediocrity
that the current white sox team can only aspire to.  their pitching looks to be in the bottom third, with all of john danks, gavin floyd, jose contreras, and javier vazquez likely to have ERAs north of 5, and IP greater than 100.

neither their lineup nor their defense is likely to be good enough to make up for the above stated fact.  

ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (gio, fautino, and el nino)

variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Jan 3, 2008 3:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just dumb
Javier Vazquez is more likely to have another 200+ K season I'd say. Overlord, I love the way you defend Radhamez Liz because I'm a fan of his, but in this case, you should probably retract Javy's name from that statement.

The guy that said Santos alone is worth Swisher is out of his mind and doesn't grasp the concept of player value, and actual established players vs. a kid who's mowed down a bunch of guys that will likely never see Double-A. I will reiterate, I think Santos has the potential to be very very good, but Swisher is pretty much there already. Ken Williams in general is a tool, but in this case, I get the reasoning.

Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 3:10 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Excuse me,
Nick Swisher is one of the best outfielders in baseball, is young, proven, and cheap. De Los Santos is one of the very best pitching prospects in baseball, and in six months could very well be the best. Don't just label him as "a Low-A pitcher." You are by far underselling him and his talent and you absolutely know it for a fact. De Los Santos will be in the high minors this year and if he keeps impressing he has a chance at cracking the big league roster for a cup of coffee.

You have to overpay for pitching. De Los Santos is a premium pitching talent, and even though his and Swisher's actual value may differ in Swisher's favor, in market value they are near equals. Swisher for De Los Santos straight up would have been a good trade for both sides. You have to give up something good to get something good.

by elrey34 on Jan 3, 2008 3:56 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I disagree
I think you're greatly overstating what De Los Santos is and will be. There's way too much road for him to travel for me to see him the way you are, and if their market values were as even as you seem to believe, this trade never would have never happened. We've seen Swisher put up a solid OPS a few years in the big leagues now, while most people on this site have only seen Fautino pitch in the Futures Game (where he gave up a home run no less! LOL). You can't seriously tell me that they are even in trade value. I find it ludicrous to be honest with you.
Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 4:04 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Callis said...
on ESPN in his chat yesterday that he sess both Gio and Santos as #3 pitchers with Santos slightly higher.  Now that is pretty good but I wouldn't say he could be the top pitching spect in baseball or even close to it.

by jfish26101 on Jan 3, 2008 4:09 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Callis is just going by the tools he has now.
Awesome fastball and a plus outpitch with advanced control and command. The many people who see him as better than that see him making advancements on a third pitch to keep opposite handed batters honest. If he develops even a below average change or curve to change speeds, look out.

by elrey34 on Jan 3, 2008 4:17 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well if you want to get into the semantics of it..
then whatever. I'm saying that a Swisher-for-DLS trade, straight up, would be a fair swap.

by elrey34 on Jan 3, 2008 4:25 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Swisher For DLS?
An established major league hitter for a class A pitcher?  Now that's taking the overvaluing of prospects to a whole new level!

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 4:28 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thank you
I really feel like I'm alone in this, which I find absurd.
Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 4:40 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't say I'd take DLS over Swisher. I said a straight-up DLS for Swisher trade wouldn't be unfair because of DLS' talent level.

And Dr. B, please stop saying he's "just an A-level pitcher." He is way, way more than that, and unforeseen injury or events forbidden, he will prove it over the season. This kid is an uber-talent, and uber-talent pitchers take overpaying to acquire. Unless you're dealing with Kenny Williams.

by elrey34 on Jan 4, 2008 3:15 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just an A-level pitcher
Yes, DLS has talent.  But DrB is right when he says he's just an A-level pitcher.  And the reason to say he's "just an A-level pitcher" is precisely because of unforeseen injury or events.  He's not close to Major League ready, and as such, there is a lot that could go wrong between now and when he is ready.  Heck, I'm not even sure you can say "unforeseen injury" in regards to him.  When dealing with pitching prospects, I don't think any injury should be deemed unforeseen.  They're pitchers.  They get hurt.  It's what they do.  That's why a MLB level bat (of Swisher's caliber and price) is worth FAR more than an A-level arm.
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Jan 4, 2008 12:46 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think value is relative...
so why do I like this deal better for the As? Because they are rebuilding, and in the process dismantling their pitching staff, so they directly address their rebuilding needs by grabbing a couple of very promising arms which should be in the upper areas of the minors to start the season. So in terms of what the As got for Swisher, you really couldn't hope for better.

Then the reason I didn't really like the deal for the Sox is that my impression of their staff isn't that great, and they got a player that seemed to play in a crowded position, unless they make another deal. Meanwhile, it's not like they had the DRays minor league system, so it's left kinda stripped. So in the context of the Sox, it felt that they needed Gio and DLS more because of the state of their minor league system, and the state of their pitching staff.

Swisher will help, but how much will he help over his replacement?

Not to mention, as other people have, it doesn't really put them on par with the Indians or Tigers, so really why do the deal?

It would make a whole lot more sense if they trade someone to make more room for Swisher and add a pitcher.

by beastball on Jan 4, 2008 1:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think this...
Is the best summary of the trade I've seen thus far.
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Jan 4, 2008 1:45 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Very Best?
De Los Santos=Henry Sosa.  High ceiling, long ways to go.  Certainly not in the Bucholz/Price/Joba class of prospects, or Clay Kershaw for that matter.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 4:11 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yeah c'mon people
i mean kershaw was drafted by logan white for cripes' sake

by wily mo on Jan 3, 2008 4:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

DLS, as of right now, definitely has the tools to
jump to the next plateau, which will undoubtedly gain him much more publicity. I wouldn't say he has as long a ways to go as Henry Sosa. I didn't say I'd put him with Joba, Price, Bucholz or Kershaw; they're past the plateau DLS is about to jump onto. I meant that DLS has the talent to reach it, and soon advance to that level of status.

by elrey34 on Jan 3, 2008 4:23 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Damn, you beat me to it.
gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Jan 3, 2008 4:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

DLS vs Sosa
So maybe you could explain why you think DLS is so much more advanced than Henry Sosa?  If you really think Swisher for DLS straight up would be a fair trade, it's not surprising you'd say something like that, but I'd say that's a bit irrationally exuberant about De Los Santos.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 4:33 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I just got back from work and have to
go to bed 30 minutes ago for work tomorrow (damn back-to-back shifts for the new guy), but I'll get you the basics for now. DLS A) misses more bats, B) has demonstrated advanced command and tremendous control, especially for his age, whereas Sosa is not as advanced, C) Sosa is a year older.

Neither have developed a viable offspeed pitch, however, DLS' advanced command with his fastball and already filthy outpitch bodes well for an offspeed pitch to be developed well and contained. For DLS, all he has to do is develop one enough to keep opposite-handed batters off balance and from cheating on the velo differential, and he's golden. If not, well, at least he's a safe #2 or 3, or a shutdown closer. Sosa has to develop one and learn control of it while simultaneously learning control of his whole arsenal.

Really, if the Sox promoted DLS as he deserved, we wouldn't even have to have this debate. He pitched way better than the talent level of his competition and should be in Double-A right now. An aggressive GM would have had him getting a taste of Triple-A by last season's end. This is most definitely not an "A-Ball pitcher."

by elrey34 on Jan 4, 2008 4:22 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A Few Points
  1.  De Los Santos has yet to pitch above A level.  He's an A ball pitcher until he does.
  2.  You make it sound like Henry Sosa couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.  In fact, their walk rates are quite close- 3.3 vs 3.6. I think both Sosa and De Los Santos could use some improvement there.
  3.  It's not like Sosa is exactly pitching to contact.  A K/9 of 9 is pretty darn good.
  4.  Sosa had a lower BAA and an identical WHIP which translated into a much lower ERA in low A.
  5.  The differences in their records in high A are best explained by league factors, the Cal League being much more hitter friendly.
Conclusion:  Both Faustino De Los Santos and Henry Sosa are exciting pitching prospects with high ceilings with a ways to go to achieve said ceilings.  I would be very comfortable labeling both as 4 star prospects.  I reserve 5 stars for guys like Bucholz, Joba, Lincecum last year, Kershaw, etc.  De Los Santos and Sosa just aren't there yet.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 4, 2008 11:24 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Extrapolating...
So... if DLS for Swisher is a fair trade, I guess that means it would be fair to swap Joba or Buchholz (I'll hold off on Price, who has yet to throw a pro pitch) for A-Rod, straight up.  Right?
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Jan 3, 2008 5:14 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I dunno about that
It's hard to say someone is the next Joba/Hughes/Buchh/etc.  But fact is, someone like that does pop to the surface nearly every year.  And if anyone were to do it in 2008, I think it is FDLS.    I've been running some software classifications for work, and ran some baseball prospects thru there on a lark....FDLS' combo of stats, league, and age is really, really strong, and then when you consider he appears to have great (not just good) stuff, he breaks from the Kevin Slowey/Will Inman pack and joins the Buchholz/Bailey/Gallardo/Hughes/Etc pack.

Seriously.

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Jan 3, 2008 4:29 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

hate to nitpick
but slowey and inman aren't in the same class. inman is a notch below slowey. a better pair is a slowey/horne group
--http://yankeesfuture.wordpress.com Bobby Mcnally (alias) "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve."--Napoleon Hall

by bobbymcnally on Jan 3, 2008 7:02 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

MIght have to agree to disagree here
Horne hasn't put up anything nearly as nice as Inman's 2006 season, and there 2007 seasons put them all roughly in the same group - while Inman's 2007 was a little worse than Horne's, it wasn't as lopsided as it was in the other direction in 2006.    See my long post in the Carrasco/Liz/Masterson/McD diary, above.

I'm sure you can a case that their stuff is different...but so far, Horne hasn't done much more with his than Inman has, certainly not enough to give them meaningful separation.  

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Jan 3, 2008 9:57 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thank you for at the very least
seeing my logic. This is like someone looking at the ability of Gallardo before 2007 and claiming he really is of that talent level. Or when a Braves scout quit the organization after the 1999 draft when he told them over and over that this "Albert Pujols" kid from a community college was the greatest hitting talent of his generation, and ended up being passed up by every team a dozen times.

I'm just calling it: FDLS will be recognized as a very top pitching talent in 2008, because he already is.

by elrey34 on Jan 4, 2008 3:28 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: Braves Scout
Do you have a link for that supposed Brave Scout story? Sounds like B.S. I have a hard time believing a scout labeled an overweight kid at a Kansas Community college that no other scout was fawning over as the greatest hitting talent of his generation.

by McLovin on Jan 4, 2008 8:38 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree...
He doesn't rank with those guys right now, but given his scouting profile and performance, he could be compared with those guys when they were pitching at the same level as he is now, which means he could be in a position to take the same jump next year, and barring injury, it wouldn't surprise me.

Clay was someone I really liked last off-season and thought would make the leap, and I like DSL for the same reasons, although Clay did have a deeper repertoire.

by beastball on Jan 3, 2008 4:30 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Potential
Sure, DLS has the potential to jump to the next level, just like a lot of other A ball pitchers. Heck, the Giants have a couple in Henry Sosa and Waldis Joaquin just to name two.  He ain't there yet.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 4:37 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You're right...
he's not there yet, but I would argue he's got, by far, the best chance of making that jump from anyone in low-A or lower. As I said, he's got the unique combination of stuff and performance that puts him in the best position to make that jump.

Many other guys could make that jump, but for me, they either have questions of stuff or performance that make me not take them too seriously.

Very few guys did what DSL did statstically, and even fewer performed as well and have the stuff to back it up.

by beastball on Jan 3, 2008 4:41 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Oh...
Sosa is a good prospect, one I'm watching closely, but there are reasons I like DSL better.

For one, and even tho people want to discredit the top 20 lists, he does list 3, and Sosa 7.

Statically, DSL's K rate, and his domination rating were much better and his walk rate was slightly better.

Meanwhile, Sosa struggled with his promotion, while DSL did not.

Finally, and this doesn't matter a whole lot to me, just a little, but Sosa is in his fourth year, and DSL is in his first, and DSL still far outperformed him.

So that's why I think DSL is better than Sosa, even tho I do like Sosa.

by beastball on Jan 3, 2008 4:51 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

autocorrect
frankly, DSL is okay, but i much prefer cablemodem.

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 5:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

HAAH!...
dammit...

Oh, another reason to like DLS is he's with the As now, they have a good track record developing pitchers, and when they're done trading, he'll have every opportunity.

by beastball on Jan 3, 2008 5:07 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I Knew It!
I hope that was a joke.  If not, there you go again.  DSL is a better prospect than Henry Sosa because Billy Beane traded for him, so he must be.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 9:18 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My guess is that he was speaking
of Oakland's lack of pitchers lost to the attrition war.

by elrey34 on Jan 4, 2008 4:36 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Again?
I don't give a damn about Beane!

What I do like is that Oakland has shown the ability to successfully develop arms, and given their apparent rebuilding path, the major league rotation should have several empty slots, meaning DLS isn't blocked from moving as quickly as his talent deserves!

by beastball on Jan 4, 2008 8:48 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sosa vs De Los Santos
Henry Sosa was actually more dominant in low A ball and the high A league he graduated to is much more hitter friendly than the one De Los Santos graduated to.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 9:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Have to respectfully disagree with you there...
I don't know about the relative difficulty of the different A+ leagues they went to, so I'll concede that point, but in terms of dominance, I'll have to disagree, but let's run a side-by-side...

DLS had a superior K rate 11.1 vs 8.9
DLS had a superior walk rate 3.3 vs 3.6
Sosa had the superior BAA .144 vs .148
DLS had the superior WHIP .88 vs .89
DLS had the superior Dominance rating 1.44 vs 1.1

They are actually pretty close on every measure I use to statistically rate pitchers with K rate being the big difference, which is why I say DLS dominated more thoroughly than Sosa did.

I can't argue the point if you want to give Sosa ERA, and I take K rate, but just in my experience, ERA can be deceptive because it is influenced so much by situation and team.

I'll stick to my opinion however. I like Sosa a great deal (and even more from this thread, thanks!), but I still think the DLS has the best combination of stuff and performance in the low minors.

by beastball on Jan 3, 2008 9:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Equal
I think you just made a better case than I that De Los Santos and Henry Sosa are equal to the point of being almost indistinguishable.  They both dominated low A and were a bit less dominant after promotion to high A.  I think you would have to rank both of them considerably behind several pitchers who started out in low A and skipped high A to AA like Kershaw, Jake McGee and Wade Davis.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 10:27 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Oh yeah...
they rank below those guys, although Davis and McGee started in A+ ball this year, I would argue that both DLS and Sosa's performances from this year rank with those two. Kershaw is in a class by himself.

But, we'll just agree to disagree because I don't find that a difference of K rate by 2 between Sosa and DLS to be insignificant, and it's what causes me to rank DLS well over Sosa.

by beastball on Jan 3, 2008 11:28 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

hmm
maybe the pitching isn't as horrible as i thought.  it appears as though buehrle, garland, and vazquez were considerably above league average last year, and i do project a step forward from gavin floyd in 2008.  it's a shame they traded garland, as he would have given them a possible playoff quality rotation going into 2008.  
ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (gio, fautino, and el nino)

variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Jan 3, 2008 3:11 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree there
This would have been better if they'd kept Garland--I'm not defending prior moves, I just like this one.
Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 3:29 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The A's better hope
That these prospects pan out, for their rebuilding sake.

by 2007 on Jan 3, 2008 2:50 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

swisher's contract
(from mlbcontracts.blogspot.com)

Nick Swisher of-1b
5 years/$26.75M (2007-11), plus 2012 club option

    * signed extension 5/11/07
    * $0.5M signing bonus
    * 07:$0.7M, 08:$3.5M, 09:$5.3M, 10:$6.75M, 11:$9M,
      12:$10.25M club option ($1M buyout)
    * 2012 option increases to $12M with top 5 in MVP vote any year 2007-11
    * limited no-trade clause 2011-12 (Swisher may block deals to 6 clubs)
    * replaced 1 year/$0.4M deal for 2007 signed 3/07
    * 1 year/$0.335M (2006), re-signed 3/06
    * 1 year/$0.3165M (2005), re-signed 2/05
    * drafted 2002 (1-16), $1.78M signing bonus
    * agent: Joe Bick
    * ML service: 3.031

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 2:51 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

When In The World Did...
De Los Santos start to warrant so much hype...?

Don't get me wrong. I understand the guy has quality stuff and he pitched pretty well last year... but he did so at low A and at the age of 21.

Just curious as to why all of a sudden he's being considered one of the top pitching prospects in baseball...

by Angels and Demons on Jan 3, 2008 2:52 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

re:
The stuff matches the numbers.

His numbers are dominant, he has two plus pitches to go along with pretty good control.

I think the hype is warranted.  The only reason nobody heard of him before this year was because this was his first year in the United States.

by sportsman885 on Jan 3, 2008 2:56 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree to a certain degree...
But it wasn't really all of a sudden, Goldstein was talking about him during the summer, and then gave him a 5-star this winter.

He's not a top pitching prospect yet, but with his stuff and performance, it's not a stretch to see him being ranked in the top 10-15 prospects next year. His stuff and numbers comp well with some more recent prospects who vaulted to the top. I think he's the best low-A pitching prospect out there. And I think him being 21 should be another reason to like him, not dislike him, it means his arm didn't get alot of mileage when he was young, which, to me, reduces his injury risk.

So he's certainly my top slightly-under-radar pitching prospect.

But you're right, Swisher is the known quantity. However, given that and given the As rebuilding effort, I think they did really well in this trade. It may help the Sox, but as another poster mentioned, I don't know how Swisher fits with them, and imo, they needed pitching, which is what they traded.

by beastball on Jan 3, 2008 2:57 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Supposedly...
...mid-90s FB and a plus slider. That's good stuff.

by Vlad on Jan 3, 2008 2:57 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

he only came to the US in 2007
no one knew about him before then.

by larry on Jan 3, 2008 2:58 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Whether this works or not...
...Billy Beane has a pair of big brass ones.

Betting on young arms is risky, but at least there's a lot of upside to Gio and Fautino.

by Vlad on Jan 3, 2008 2:57 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yeah
it's actually kind of awesome to root for a team with a front office like this. billy's obviously not worried about job security, which gives him the freedom to do whatever he thinks is best for the team.

now, what that means about actually watching this team in 2008 is another matter. maybe i'll cancel my mlb.tv subscription...

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 2:59 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

or the Devil Rays
just don't watch after the 7th.....
people who think they know everything really annoy those of us that do

by larryp2sickels on Jan 3, 2008 10:23 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

"Betting on young arms is risky"
I think that's exactly what Beane is thinking.  Therefore, he adds Anderson, DLS and Gonzalez to go with Cahill and Rodriguez, and figures the odds are in his favor that at least a couple of them pan out.

by ozzman99 on Jan 4, 2008 1:14 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

others too
in AA/AAA

Gonzalez
Simmons
Bailey
Braden
Meyer
Eveland
Smith
Windsor
Madsen
Komine
Knox
Mazzaro

A+

Cahill
Anderson
Rodriguez
De Los Santos
Lansford
Italiano
Banwart
Deal
Webb

plus whatever they get if they make more trades w/ Blanton/Street/Ellis. what happens to Harden/Gaudin?

you would think they'd get lucky with 5 pitchers to form a future rotation over the next several yrs

by rayver723 on Jan 4, 2008 1:40 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

After Harden has midseason shoulder surgery
in 2008, which will knock him out through 2009, he will have his option declined and will be non-tendered. In 2010 he will attempt to make a comeback in someone's minor league system, hopefully Oakland's.

Gaudin is a guy I see as a constant; assuming he bounces back from surgery, he's got the stuff to be a top-of-the-rotation pitcher and seemed to have "the rest" together before he got hurt last year.

Then again, every time I think someone won't be traded, he gets traded...

Formidable crew of pitching prospects, though-- and you can add Alex Arnold Leon to the A+ list, too, as the team will be trying him out as a starter in 2008 per scouts.com.

by PaulThomas on Jan 4, 2008 3:02 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

As a Gio owner...
in my sim league, I like this deal for him. Oakland has a proven track record with pitchers. Just about every decent pitching prospect Beane trades for does well, and only Dan Meyer had any real injury problems, which I think would have happened anywhere he pitched. Oakland takes care of their pitchers, I like that. White Sox... not so sure they do. Very few pitching prospects coming up and doing well with that team. And as a sim team owner, I do really look to see how prospects in different organizations do. Some have a habit of not producing, and some do. That's why I have never, and don't plan on ever having any Texas Ranger pitching prospects.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Jan 3, 2008 3:12 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

not to mention
if you're going to have a lefty curve artist who doesn't generate grounders, you'd much rather have him ply his trade in the coliseum than in the cell.

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 3:17 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sickles updated
# Gio Gonzalez, LHP, Grade B+ (ranks second on Oakland list)
# Fautino De Los Santos, RHP, Grade B+ (ranks third on Oakland list)
# Aaron Poreda, LHP, Grade B+
# Jack Egbert, RHP, Grade B-  (A major sleeper)
# Ryan Sweeney, OF, Grade C+ (I don't think his power is going to develop. Ranks 12th on Oakland list)

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 3:25 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My 2 Cents
This pretty much confirms that Billy Beane has run up the white flag on the next 3 years.  This helps balance out the Haren trade which came up a bit short on pitching, IMO.  Still, not sure I like the trade for Oakland.

Not at all impressed by Sweeney.

De Los Santos could be a future frontline starter, but has a long ways to go.  Again, we're looking at at least two more minor league years and then a year or two to establish himself in the majors.

Gio could be a future #2, but his #'s last year were from a second try at AA level.

Anyway, it should now be clear that Billy is sacrificing the present for the future and is hoping that quantity eventually produces some quality.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 3:27 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Johnson For Hennessey?
I'd actually take Johnson for Brad Hennessey.  No thanks on Crosby.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 3:45 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fire Sale
Since it seems like everyone is available, why not take a chance on Chavez?  Sabes looks like a genius if he stays healthy and produces.  Besides, he's already on the hot seat anyway, and somehow seems to get something back when a guy is an expensive bust (Morris, Armando).

Sure he's got a big contract, but it's not like the Giants aren't willing to spend money in questionable ways (Zito, Rowand, Roberts, plus the earlier mentioned Morris/Benitez etc).  Might be able to snag him for Hennesey (who could close when Street gets traded or start when Blanton goes) and a guy like EME, (who clearly needs a change of scenery and looks to be a future DH anyway) and maybe some kid who's in A ball with some good numbers.  

I'm not exactly a GM though...

I'm proud to have seen #756

by Azantor on Jan 3, 2008 4:59 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Chavez
for Bowker, Tanner and a Bucardo.  Get it done.

by gogotabata on Jan 3, 2008 5:34 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Too Much
Chavez is interesting, but remember, the Giants would be taking on damaged goods and a big contract.  Those 3 prospects are way too much to give up for that.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 8:51 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Maybe, Maybe Not
It's still too much to give up for Chavez.

I'd take Bowker over Sweeney and Carter.

Tanner=Anderson

Bucardo is young, but probably has a higher ceiling than any pitchers the A's acquired in the two trades other than De Los Santos.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 10:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rebuild
I've been advocating for the Giants to rebuild for the last 3 years, why would I change my thinking now.  I've also been advocating for the Giants to get a new GM for at least 3 years, so I hope you are not trying to build  up Billy Beane by comparing him to Brian Sabean.

I guess I gotta give Beane some credit for admitting that "Moneyball " drafting and players he got for Mulder/Hudson weren't going to get it done.  For the A's sake, I hope these trades work out better than that.  He's still going to have to draft better in the future to make it all work out.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 3:52 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Mulder
No, I said I like the Mulder trade.  Of course it turned out well for the A's!  It's all  the other trades Billy has made that have sapped the A's of talent, or at least they haven't made up for his poor drafting.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 4:07 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yes
Moneyball didn't work.  Beane has learned his lesson.

The thought that it's valuable to place a greater importance on on base percentage instead of batting average has most clearly been debunked in MLB.

by Galt on Jan 3, 2008 4:12 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

OBP
Ah, but Moneyball wasn't about OBP, remember?

Seriously, even I agree that OBP is an important stat, it's just not the ONLY important stat.  Also, in the long run it doesn't pay in the long run to draft for OBP/OPS over athleticism and upside.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 4:17 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm sure Red Sox fans would disagree
Their 2004 roster with Trot Nixon, Youkilis, Mueller, Millar, Bellhorn was the epitome of a "moneyball" type of team.  They spent more money on guys who get on base.  Not amazing power or average.  Only Manny and Ortiz were perceived "star" hitters.

by Galt on Jan 3, 2008 5:14 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Everyone say it with me now...
"Moneyball" wasn't explicitly about OBP.  It was about exploiting market inefficiencies.  At the time, OBP was undervalued by MLB in general, so the A's focused on finding players with good OBP at a low cost.  OBP is no longer "cheap," per se, and thus is no longer the epitome of "Moneyball."
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Jan 3, 2008 5:19 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

huzzah for condescension!
Yes, I read the book.  I realize its plot.  But the comment to which you responded was explicitly about how drafting high OBP/OPS guys doesn't work.  Whether or not that is currently or used to be the tenet of Moneyball was not what was being discussed.

Second, I'll give DBgiants the benefit of the doubt and say that when he says that "moneyball" drafting and acquisition of like players "wasn't going to get it done" he wasn't saying that "exploiting market inefficiencies" wasn't going to get it done, because that makes no sense.

Of course exploiting market inefficiencies works.  It has been and will continue to always be a good idea to exploit market inefficiencies.  

by Galt on Jan 3, 2008 5:33 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the thing here
a key point here might be that there's a difference between "the 2004 red sox" and "drafting for OBP".  youkilis wasn't a starter yet in 2004, and none of those other guys were drafted by the sox.  they were just signed or traded for after already proving themselves to be high-OBP major league players.

how this plays into the discussion is up to you guys, i just think it's worth noting.

by wily mo on Jan 3, 2008 6:08 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Market Inefficiencies
I'm sorry, but every GM in baseball, except possibly Brian Cashman, is looking for good players that are undervalued by others.  I would submit that even Cashman, by drafting players like Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain and the dude from NC State(can't think of his name right not), was doing just that, drafting players other teams were undervaluing for one reason or another.  If that is all the book was about, there is no there there.

Moneyball was very liberating for people like us who take baseball seriously enough to pay attention to who our teams draft and who are coming up in the minor leagues.  The openness of statistical analysis trumped the "black box" world of scouting.  Suddenly, we could all be experts and take our GM fantasies one or two steps further.  We could opine on drafts, trades, etc, possibly even affect the outcomes(Lincecum for Rios?).

There were good things in Moneyball, but in the liberating euphoria of our new toy, many of us failed to look at its weaknesses, or realize that it would take a minimum of 4-5 years to see the end results.  Well, it's now 5 years later and the results, at least for the A's, are that they are blowing the whole thing up and going with a Florida Marlins bust to boom rebuild.  

I'm not saying that it's a bad idea.  I know I would be happy if the Giants were acquiring boatloads of prospects like this right now.  It does represent an admission by Billy Beane that the drafts and trades of the last 5 years fell short of goal and it's time to blow it all up and start over.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 9:06 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

don't know why i bother
but here are the last five years....

2003 96-66 (1st place, ALDS)
2004 91-71 (2nd place, wild card, ALDS)
2005 88-74 (2nd place)
2006 93-69 (1st place, ALCS)
2007 76-86 (3rd place)

so clearly you're not talking about their lack of success over that five-year period, because.....well, they've been extremely successful.

your hypothesis is simply that the moves they made led to a bad 2007, while simultaneously neither aiding their success in 2003-6 nor leading to their position to rebuild successfully for 2008 and beyond?

and, further, that record in 2007 had nothing to do with the fact their entire roster was injured? or else is was Beane's unforgivable fault for taking on injury-prone, or lacking the roster depth to win the division despite the injuries?

anyway, i've said my piece on this. i'll go back to biting my tongue for another 25 or so of your posts like this.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 3, 2008 9:17 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Deterioration
You know as well as I do that deterioration in a roster often starts years before you see the falloff in W-L record.  For example, if you looked closely, you could already see the rot beginning in SF as early as 2002, the year the Giants almost won the WS.  Things didn't fall apart there until Barry Bonds go hurt before the 2005 season.

The successes the A's had before last year were largely the products of what went on before the "Moneyball" drafts started.  Do you really think the dropoff last year was just a one year accident?  Apparently Billy Beane doesn't agree with you because he just blew the whole thing up and started over.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 10:23 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Last Year
Do you know what injuries are?

by GregJP on Jan 3, 2008 10:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Injuries
Yes, I know what injuries are.  If the A's problems are all due to injuries, how come Billy Beane couldn't see that and instead ran up a white flag on the next 3 years?

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 10:42 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Last Year
This upcoming year is different from last year.

He felt that last years team had a chance, but obviously decided that the 2008 team wasn't going to beat the Angels.

I'm not saying that he never makes mistakes, but at least he has a plan and doesn't try to plug gaping holes to try to keep his job for an extra year. (like a certain Mr. Williams)

by GregJP on Jan 3, 2008 10:49 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Credit
I agree that Beane deserves credit for knowing when the jig was up and it was time for a "tactical retreat."  I actually wish Sabean had come to the same conclusion at least 2 seasons ago when some of his vets still had some trade value.  IMO, Beane also deserves some blame for the team getting to the point where starting over was necessary.  I think that's where the Billy Beane apologists and I have a difference of opinion.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 4, 2008 1:01 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i should ignore trolls, but
the injuries from last year are still a factor in 2008, they are WHY beane ran up the white flag.  
beane does in fact "see that" and he's been quoted fifty f*cking times talking about it if you actually read a newspaper instead of spending all your time bashing the a's.  
chavez just had three surgeries, buck had surgery, harden still isn't healthy, the a's found out gaudin had to have two surgeries right before they decided to rebuild and traded haren. jesus...

by xbhaskarx on Jan 4, 2008 1:51 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

whoa
trolls is going way too far. drB is not a troll.

also, this business of injuries... look, we all knew, and billy knew, that when he assembled the team, it was a whole bunch of injury-prone guys. kotsay. milton bradley. he traded for chris snelling, for pete's sake. crosby. harden. the list goes on. i think billy was intentionally targeting injury-prone players in the hopes that he could get some good production below market value for them, the way he did with big frank in 2006. i'm not saying it was a bad strategy, but it definitely backfired in 2007.

the only genuinely unlucky one is chavez, who was a devastating player on both sides of the ball up until he signed his megabucks extension... and then starting having chronic back problems which have made him a shell of his former self. that sucked.

as drB has pointed out, the roster was decaying before 2007. i'm still surprised the A's did so well in 2006. injuries certainly accelerated the fall this year, but injuries aren't really the reason the A's were bad. it was just the end of their success cycle.

by jpahk on Jan 4, 2008 2:40 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+1
to all of jpahk's points here, though if I ever see a bridge with DrB under it, I'm going to make sure to say nice things about the Giants while I cross, at least. :>

by BobbyMac on Jan 4, 2008 2:29 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A's
It amazes me that some people still underestimate how "successful" Beane has actually been.

I guess it comes down to the fact that the A's haven't been in the WS recently, but that's bad luck more than anything.

Assuming that OBP is no longer undervalued to the extent it was 5 or 10 years ago, I wonder what the new frontier for Beane is.

It's amazing how he has the perfect sense of timing in terms of selling assets at the most opportune time. Haren, IMO, was kind of a product of the ball park, while Swisher might be slightly overvalued as teams like the White Sox (dead last in OBP last year) scramble to fill gaping holes.

It'll be interesting to see if he trades Street for normal quality relief pitcher value, or if some gullible GM will overpay based on the fact that he's a "closer" (a very likely scenario)

by GregJP on Jan 3, 2008 10:32 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Oh Yeah
Billy Beane is the all-knowing, all-seeing god.  He never makes a mistake, only runs into bad luck.  In his infinite wisdom, he just ran up a white flag on the next 3 seasons.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 10:40 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

White Flag
At least he realizes that his team, as presently structured, has a 90% chance of not making the playoffs.

There is no point in keeping Haren and Swisher for another year (lowering their value) and finishing with 82-86 wins.  

This way, in 2 or 3 years, when the Angels are bogged down with bloated payrolls and aging players the A's will be perfectly positioned for another 3 to 4 year run of being close to or in the playoffs.

(the Rangers seem to have a similar plan)

by GregJP on Jan 3, 2008 10:46 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Same Response As Above
Yes, I give Billy Beane credit for realizing he was in a corner and had to blow it up, but I also think he deserves some blame for the team coming to this point.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 4, 2008 1:02 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A Point
The A's finished 1st or 2nd in their division 4 years in a row, and then their 2007 season was ravaged by injuries.

What exactly should he be blamed for?

I think this off season might have played out in a similar way even if they had won 85 games last year.  Beane believes the team has reached an inflection point, and for the future benefit of the franchise he's doing what he has to do.

by GregJP on Jan 4, 2008 1:14 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

There You Go Again
I give Billy Beane some credit and get absolutely no credit for doing so.  Any comment that even dares to suggest that he might not be perfect is met with right cross to the ol' kisser.  Injuries are part of the game.  Every team has them.  They should not lead to a dismantling of the whole team unless there is an organization wide talent deficit to begin with.  

Brian Sabean can't be blamed for Barry Bonds surgical midadventure in 2005 and beyond, but he certainly can be blamed for allowing the Giants to become increasingly dependent on that one player.

Likewise, Billy Beane is not to blame for the A's injuries,but it's naive to think his blowing up the current team is due solely to the injuries.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 4, 2008 2:15 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Addendum: Inflection Point
I think we have common ground here in that Billy Beane does deserve credit for seeing that his team was indeed at an inflection point and he's doing what had to be done.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 4, 2008 2:29 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agreement
We agree on something!!!!!!  :-)

Seriously, I agree with most of what you are saying, and I think you agree with most of what I'm saying.

He's a very good GM.  Let's leave it at that.

by GregJP on Jan 4, 2008 5:45 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Part Way
I'll meet you part way and say Billy Beane is a good GM.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 4, 2008 11:10 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Are you Joe Morgan, or what?
Because I can't think of anyone besides him who seems to hate Moneyball, or in reality the common and oversimplified straw man of Moneyball, as much as you.

by AucklandGM on Jan 3, 2008 10:06 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I kind of agree with DrB...
but my opinions are probably different.  I liked Moneyball but the cult following it has generated really surprises me.  Sure Beane has been fairly successful but every team in baseball besides maybe the A's couldn't care less how many regular season games they won if they won the WS.  He (and his followers) basically just make excuses why they come up short every season.  

I think DrB is right in that the book changed the perception hard core baseball fans had of the game.  Along with the Fantasy Sports boom, I bet you there are a hundreds, probably thousands of people that check this site or ones like it that feel they would be far superior to the majority of the people in baseball front offices today (same with coaching).  Not only has it turned some people off of scouting as a tool for player analysis but a large percentage of the hard core baseball fans mock them with an almost hatred of traditional baseball ideals.  Many of these same people decided to make blogs to show their superior baseball intellect with their copy of Bill James' handbook by their side for reference.  Like camera phones and the interenet in general, it made everyone feel like they were the expert.

Don't get me wrong though.  The book (and others like it) did a few good things in that it helped shift baseball in the direction of a mix of statistical analysis along with scouting reports (not one or the other but a mix of both) and it brought new fans to the game that might not have been before (which is always a good thing).  Other than that, I don't really get the infatuation people have with it or Beane.  He has had years where he was near the top in draft spending, his payroll was close to 80 mill last season.  Until he can manage to keep a core of players together long enough to actually get somewhere in the playoffs, I just don't think he is the best GM in baseball (although he is closer now with the retiring of Ryan, Jocketty and JS).

by jfish26101 on Jan 3, 2008 11:47 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Playoffs
It's not making excuses.

You have to win 3 rounds of playoffs (including a best of 5)to win the WS.

Assuming the A's even had a 55% chance of winning each series (of that sample size), they only had a 1 in 6 chance of actually winning the whole thing.

The same argument can be made for the Braves.  1 in 6 chance over 12 years is 2 WS titles, so they really only came up 1 short of that.

The fact that the Marlins only made the playoffs twice and happened to win the whole thing each year is basically a statistical anomaly.

Or the other alternative is that Moneyball just doesn't work in the playoffs.  :-)

by GregJP on Jan 4, 2008 12:02 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Braves won their division 14 times in a row
and found themselves in the WS 5 times (and losing to the Marlins in '97 and D-Backs in '01 who both won the series) in that span.  

If you don't get there and say well it was my payroll or it was the injuries or our coaching staff dropped the ball or our star didn't show up...or whatever than you are making excuses.  The difference is the cult that follows Beane embraces that and still thinks he is a baseball god despite it.  He is a very good GM, a very smart baseball man and a great salesman but I just don't get the infatuation people have with him (which I don't have to understand it for them to believe in it).

by jfish26101 on Jan 4, 2008 12:20 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Playoffs
Do you know how much luck is involved in winning a best of 7 (or 5) playoff series?

Teams play 162 games over 5 months and even then are only separated by a few games.

The Braves could just as easily have won 3 WS with a break here or there, better BABIP, etc.

How a team does over 5 months says much more than what they do in a week.  Unfortunately, N.American sports fans seem to have this fixation with playoffs that is completely ludicrous.

Do you believe that if the Patriots get a couple of bad breaks in their first playoff game, and lose, that they still won't be the "best" NFL team of 2007?

by GregJP on Jan 4, 2008 12:38 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

playoffs
How a team does over 5 months says much more than what they do in a week.  Unfortunately, N.American sports fans seem to have this fixation with playoffs that is completely ludicrous.

couldn't agree more. that's why i love european club football (soccer), where the champions are the team that performed the best over the course of the entire season. there's no tournament afterwards, just glory.

then again, there is also something compelling about single-elimination formats. i mean, the world cup is by far the coolest sporting event on the planet, and the knockout stages of that are unbelievably intense.

by jpahk on Jan 4, 2008 12:49 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

:D Fixation with playoffs?
The Patriots of this year aren't the A's nor were the A's ever that far superior to their competition.  Plus in the NFL, every round is a 1 game series.  I could understand if that is the way it was in baseball but it isn't.  Sure you can run into a hot team but again winners win.  They show up when it counts and if you can't beat an opponent that you are far superior to 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 than no you weren't the best team.

Keep calling it luck all you want.  I've had this debate to many times on to many different sites and it's just a broken record.  At the end of everyone one of them the pro Beane supporters simply say "you are an idiot for not thinking the way we do" and just ramble on about how right they are.  Perhaps you wont do that but I wont be sticking around to find out.

by jfish26101 on Jan 4, 2008 1:34 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

drafting
i dunno, the A's drafting hasn't been so great since 2002, but the moneyball draft itself was pretty sweet. a lot of that, of course, has to do with having a bunch of picks, but none of them were higher than 16 overall. he cashed them into:
  1. swisher: three years of good-to-very-good performance for a total of $3M (1.78M signing bonus plus 3 years of near-minimum salary), plus FDLS, gio, and sweeney.
  2. blanton: three years of decent-to-good performance for a total of $2.5M (1.4M signing bonus plus 3 years of near-minimum salary), plus whatever he gets when he eventually deals blanton later this winter.
  3. teahen. became the centerpiece of the trade that brought dotel to the A's. dotel was okay for 1 year and then departed as a free agent.
  4. billy murphy. traded straight-up for mark redman, who was an okay 4th starter for the A's for 1 year.
that's pretty good for a single draft. having all those extra picks didn't help as much as it could have due to them going below-slot so often, but when they did spend they hit pretty big on 2 out of 4 (swisher, blanton; not so much mccurdy or fritz).

the 2003 draft sucked, i admit.

in 2004 they got street, undoubtedly one of the most successful picks of that entire class. they also have suzuki and windsor, who are low-ceiling but at least suzuki looks like a solid major league regular.

i think the jury is still out on 2005. pennington smells like a bust but buck has been great; the 3 HS pitchers are still too early to call but probably are about what you'd expect for HS kids drafted in the 2nd-3rd rounds.

the jury is certainly still out on 2006-07. cahill looks like a quality pick at this point. maybe simmons too. but who knows, it's way too early. it did hurt to lose the 2006 first-rounder for loaiza.

also relevantly, the A's haven't had a high pick since zito in 1999. i'm definitely anxious to see how they use the #12 this year.

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 4:19 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

wait
i forgot to post my analysis of the swisher trade:

if billy beane did it, it must be good.

there. :P

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 3:55 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You're Right!
But Chuck Norris could.

I've got an odd taste in my mouth on this one.  The Giants are my team and all, but it's no fun when both Bay Area teams suck, and it seems like it's gonna be that way for a while.  Looking at their roster, I understand that Swisher was the only position player that Beane might have been able to get some value for.  Chavez, Kotsay & Crosby have their issues, Ellis isn't worth much.  So I get it from that point.  

But for the White Sox?  Their Depth Chart on the team website has Swisher as their starting CF.  His range isn't great out there, and I have flashbacks of Marvin Benard realizing that the ball is about to hit off the wall at Pac Bell while he's already taken 4 steps in.  But, he's a hard nosed kid who plays like Aaron Rowand and I think the fans will enjoy watching him play.  

Anybody got some complicated math that shows how many +/- runs or wins Swisher's D is in center?

I'm proud to have seen #756

by Azantor on Jan 3, 2008 4:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

CWS' home park is small enough that swisher
is good enough to play center.  

i don't know how well he;ll hold up when he has to play in the fairly spacious KC or DET parks, and MIN has a tough CF, because of the turf and the bag.

ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (gio, fautino, and el nino)

variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Jan 3, 2008 4:45 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

quantity over quality
the only argument is not getting more mlb ready players

5 B+ prospects is not quality?

they are far from done either, with Ellis, Street, Blanton possibly traded too

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 3:35 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

HRs
I expect Swish to pop an extra 5-10 HRs just playing at Comiskey/ Cuellar or whatever it is. Williams gave up too much, but Chicago's offense was terrible and Swish will help it. I don't know if they can win a divison, but IF things break ok, they may be in wild card hunt.

by Robinson Checo on Jan 3, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Swisher could be a cult figure in Chicago
A city that has a bar seemingly atleast every two blocks is gonna love this guy.

by McLovin on Jan 3, 2008 3:59 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Question
Have you ever been to the South Side of Chicago?  Or even been to a game at the Cell?  You'd then realize what a ridiculous statement that is.  There are approximately 3 bars within a 2 mile radius of the park.  And the Sox are actively trying to shut down one of them (McCurdy's).  I wouldn't go to any of the other bars since outsiders tend to get their asses beat.  On either side of the Dan Ryan.  It's the antithesis of Wrigley Field.  Mahalo

Matt

I am one of the bad things that happen to good people.

by WayneCampbell05 on Jan 3, 2008 6:47 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comiskey
I was at the old Comiskey (and Wrigley) in the mid 80's.

There is no comparison at all.  Some of the south side of Chicago is freaking scary.

by GregJP on Jan 4, 2008 5:48 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

whatever dude
Did I say either immediate vicinity of the stadium or South Side? No, I just said Chicago. Spew your venom elsewhere.

by McLovin on Jan 4, 2008 8:46 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well...
This gives them a chance to not finish last in the division. :)
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Jan 3, 2008 4:43 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

haha. what a joke
the white sox are smokin something good that id like to get a hold of. im sorry, but santos has an EXTREMELY high ceiling. and i dont care what people say on here, gio will be better than a number 3. his numbers do nothing but suggest that. his era could come down some, but he has been pushed his entire minor league career. and im sorry, swisher isnt worth a damn thing. hes decent, but oh my god. great deal for oakland. beane's jaws probably hurt from laughing so much. i have gio, and am thrilled to see him go to oakland, but man oh man, if i were a white sox fan, id be demanding someone's head on a plate

by rangersfan24 on Jan 3, 2008 6:58 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hmm
I think this trade is stupid for the White Sox. Though this isn't really a poor trade for the Sox in terms of value (as Swisher is a good MLB player and all three of the guys the A's got could conceivably flame out before getting to MLB), but WHY is my problem. Why is this a good trade for the White Sox? They had an middling offense and a terrible pitching staff, and they gut the only help they could get in the next year or two for a bump in their offense. Did KW forget why the Sox won in 2005? Because their pitching was friggen awesome. And KW should know that by now, because the Chisox had raking lineups for most of the last 7 years but went nowhere because their pitching always sucked. The fact that the offense gets a little better and they got decent value for a couple of prospects doesn't change the fact that they still have a last place pitching staff, which now has absolutely no help in sight thanks to this trade.

by AucklandGM on Jan 3, 2008 7:42 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

agreed
It's not the trade itself that's stupid, it's the logic behind the trade ... i.e thinking that they're one good player away from contending in 08

by RollingWave on Jan 6, 2008 8:05 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

BA's take
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/news/265384.html
Oakland definitely is in rebuilding mode, having shipped former ace Dan Haren to the Diamondbacks for six players in December. Perhaps the White Sox should be doing the same. They won just 72 games last year and have an aging team. Swisher is talented and inexpensive, but this deal further weakens an already deteriorating farm system. Gonzalez (No. 1), de los Santos (No. 2) and Sweeney (No. 6) all factored prominently on our White Sox Top 30 Prospects list in the 2008 Prospect Handbook.

interestingly, they have gio over FDLS (as i would). they also (in the link) have swisher's contract status wrong; he's signed through 2011, with a club option for 2012.

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 11:42 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I like it for the White Sox
The White Sox aren't going to beat the Tigers or Indians this year, but they just picked up a good young hitter who's under club control for the next four/five seasons.  Will Chicago be good again in 2012, when Swisher is 31 and probably closing out his prime?  I'd take that chance.

Also: I know they gave up three of their best prospects, but let's look at that in real terms.  Sweeney is not going to pan out.  Gonzalez has now been traded twice by the same organization before he's reached the majors.  I like FDLS too, but so much can go wrong with a 21-year-old A-ball pitcher that I wouldn't let him stand in the way of acquiring ready major league talent.

If you're Oakland, it's not a bad flier.  Both of those arms are worth taking a chance on.  But a slam dunk for Billy Beane?  I don't see it.  Remember when the Marlins were loading up on high-ceiling young arms?  Everyone was saying, "If only two of Anibal Sanchez, Scott Olsen, Ricky Nolasco, Sergio Mitre and [etc.] pan out, they'll be in good shape."  These were not chumps, these were serious prospects.  How's that working out?

by whichthat on Jan 4, 2008 2:17 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+1!
Thank you for being a voice of reason here.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 4, 2008 2:27 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fielding Bible +/-
FWIW, The Fielding Bible +/- stats this year showed Swisher as +4 in CF, in 481 IP.  His arm was about average in terms of preventing advancement bases and getting kills.

by BobbyMac on Jan 4, 2008 4:38 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed
Start posting on Minor League Ball »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Favorite All-Time Tool?
Img_small
Vin Mazzaro 6/28 predictions
Pulp_fiction_small
Which team has the best young players in the MLB?

Recent FanPosts

Dewey_finn_small
Hope for Fausto Carmona?
Small
Tyler Pastornicky
Small
My Top 50 Prospects
Small
Who is the best available?
Small
BEST PROSPECT IN BASEBALL
Small
Smoak Promoted to AAA
27_small
Frederick's Top 50 Prospects
Small
Lars Anderson v. Chris Carter
Small
Braves Top 50 Mid Season Prospect List
Small
Who the hell is Robert Carson?

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Carew_small John Sickels

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports


Site Meter