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 |
180 comments
Comments
Damn
by aCone419 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:22 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
so much for beane not trading w/ AL teams
3 from swisher deal
carter
cunningham
marhsall/hernandez rule 5 picks
rogowski/wing milb FA's
Excellent Prospects
None
Very Good Prospects
- John Danks, lhp
- Ryan Sweeney, cf/rf
- Josh Fields, 3b
- Gio Gonzalez, lhp
- Charlie Haeger, rhp
- Aaron Cunningham, lf
- Lance Broadway, rhp
- Kyle McCulloch, rhp
- Chris Carter, 1b
- Nick Massett, rhp
by rayver723 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:23 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
That was last year
Five-Star Prospects
1. Fautino de los Santos, RHP
Four-Star Prospects
- Gio Gonzalez, LHP
- Aaron Poreda, RHP
- Chris Carter, 1B
- John Shelby, CF
- Jose Martinez, OF
- Jack Egbert, RHP
- Ryan Sweeney, OF
- Lance Broadway, RHP
- Brian Omogrosso, RHP
- Kyle McCulloch, RHP
by siddfynch on
Jan 3, 2008 2:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And now it looks like this
- Daric Barton, 1B
- Carlos Gonzalez, OF
- Fautino DLS
- Brett Anderson, LHP
- Trevor Cahill, RHP
- Gio Gonz
- Chris Carter, 1B
- James Simmons, RHP
- Aaron Cunningham, OF
- Henry Rodriguez, RHP
- Andrew Bailey, RHP
- Corey Brown, OF
- Jermaine Mitchell, OF
- Ryan Sweeney
by siddfynch on
Jan 3, 2008 2:38 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Holy sheets!
by siddfynch on
Jan 3, 2008 2:23 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Haul
by Yakker on
Jan 3, 2008 2:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Mark Ellis too
by rayver723 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:28 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it's Kevin Melillo time, baby
by ufoboy90 on
Jan 3, 2008 8:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For Mulder and Swisher
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?
by siddfynch on
Jan 3, 2008 2:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
variables don't
by overlord on
Jan 3, 2008 2:27 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
kenny williams has officially lost it
by larry on
Jan 3, 2008 2:29 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
How does this help the White Sox??
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Swisher is a better player...
by jfish26101 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
don't overrate BA
by guy incognito on
Jan 3, 2008 2:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Did I overrate BA?
by jfish26101 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:48 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
oops
by guy incognito on
Jan 3, 2008 3:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's very good but...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
do you see 5 good pitchers
by larry on
Jan 3, 2008 3:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
2005
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A fair answer
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Swisher only hit 22HR's last year. Not 35.
by rothe on
Jan 3, 2008 4:13 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I meant '06
by jfish26101 on
Jan 3, 2008 4:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
True, but still should be corrected.
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
AL outfielders
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah,
by rothe on
Jan 3, 2008 10:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
WSABs
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why Kenny?
by thowinsmoke on
Jan 3, 2008 2:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
we got robbed...
by The Wizard on
Jan 3, 2008 2:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Man, I like that deal for the As...
Great deal for the As, imo.
by beastball on
Jan 3, 2008 2:33 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
yep.
by wily mo on
Jan 3, 2008 2:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Anyone think Swisher and Ozzie have problems?
by jfish26101 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:37 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Perhaps the White Sox are thinking of life past
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!
by indiansfan on
Jan 3, 2008 8:19 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
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
actions
0 recs
They will be nowhere near as bad as the '03 Tigers
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OF
by yangels on
Jan 3, 2008 2:41 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Ho-Lee Crap.
by elrey34 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:43 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Man
by PujolsJunkie on
Jan 3, 2008 2:46 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Situation is important
by marcello on
Jan 3, 2008 2:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree
by PujolsJunkie on
Jan 3, 2008 2:58 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Rebuild
by marcello on
Jan 3, 2008 3:08 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
let me get this straight.....
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Mediocrity is not acceptable.
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Swisher is not a viable CF option.
by elrey34 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:58 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i think it has to do with the state of mediocrity
neither their lineup nor their defense is likely to be good enough to make up for the above stated fact.
by overlord on
Jan 3, 2008 3:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
vazquez likely to have ERA north of 5
by larry on
Jan 3, 2008 3:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just dumb
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.
by PujolsJunkie on
Jan 3, 2008 3:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Excuse me,
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree
by PujolsJunkie on
Jan 3, 2008 4:04 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Callis said...
by jfish26101 on
Jan 3, 2008 4:09 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Callis is just going by the tools he has now.
by elrey34 on
Jan 3, 2008 4:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nowhere did I say
by elrey34 on
Jan 3, 2008 4:18 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well if you want to get into the semantics of it..
by elrey34 on
Jan 3, 2008 4:25 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Swisher For DLS?
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 4:28 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thank you
by PujolsJunkie on
Jan 3, 2008 4:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't put words in my mouth.
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just an A-level pitcher
by RVachon on
Jan 4, 2008 12:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think value is relative...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think this...
by RVachon on
Jan 4, 2008 1:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Very Best?
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 4:11 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah c'mon people
by wily mo on
Jan 3, 2008 4:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
DLS, as of right now, definitely has the tools to
by elrey34 on
Jan 3, 2008 4:23 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Damn, you beat me to it.
by siddfynch on
Jan 3, 2008 4:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
DLS vs Sosa
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 4:33 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I just got back from work and have to
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A Few Points
- De Los Santos has yet to pitch above A level. He's an A ball pitcher until he does.
- 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.
- It's not like Sosa is exactly pitching to contact. A K/9 of 9 is pretty darn good.
- Sosa had a lower BAA and an identical WHIP which translated into a much lower ERA in low A.
- The differences in their records in high A are best explained by league factors, the Cal League being much more hitter friendly.
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 4, 2008 11:24 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Extrapolating...
by RVachon on
Jan 3, 2008 5:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I dunno about that
Seriously.
by siddfynch on
Jan 3, 2008 4:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hate to nitpick
by bobbymcnally on
Jan 3, 2008 7:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
MIght have to agree to disagree here
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.
by siddfynch on
Jan 3, 2008 9:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thank you for at the very least
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Braves Scout
by McLovin on
Jan 4, 2008 8:38 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Potential
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 4:37 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're right...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
autocorrect
by jpahk on
Jan 3, 2008 5:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
HAAH!...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I Knew It!
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 9:18 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My guess is that he was speaking
by elrey34 on
Jan 4, 2008 4:36 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Again?
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sosa vs De Los Santos
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 9:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Have to respectfully disagree with you there...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Equal
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 10:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh yeah...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hmm
by overlord on
Jan 3, 2008 3:11 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree there
by PujolsJunkie on
Jan 3, 2008 3:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The A's better hope
by 2007 on
Jan 3, 2008 2:50 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
swisher's contract
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
actions
0 recs
When In The World Did...
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
actions
0 recs
re:
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree to a certain degree...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Supposedly...
by Vlad on
Jan 3, 2008 2:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
he only came to the US in 2007
by larry on
Jan 3, 2008 2:58 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Whether this works or not...
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
actions
0 recs
yeah
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You can still have fun watching a bad team.
by Vlad on
Jan 3, 2008 3:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
or the Devil Rays
by larryp2sickels on
Jan 3, 2008 10:23 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"Betting on young arms is risky"
by ozzman99 on
Jan 4, 2008 1:14 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
others too
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
After Harden has midseason shoulder surgery
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As a Gio owner...
by Boxkutter on
Jan 3, 2008 3:12 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
not to mention
by jpahk on
Jan 3, 2008 3:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sickles updated
# 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
actions
0 recs
My 2 Cents
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
actions
0 recs
DrB maybe GIants can get some youth
by rayver723 on
Jan 3, 2008 3:36 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Johnson For Hennessey?
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 3:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fire Sale
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...
by Azantor on
Jan 3, 2008 4:59 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chavez
by gogotabata on
Jan 3, 2008 5:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Too Much
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 8:51 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe, Maybe Not
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Rebuild
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Mulder
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 4:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yes
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OBP
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm sure Red Sox fans would disagree
by Galt on
Jan 3, 2008 5:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Everyone say it with me now...
by RVachon on
Jan 3, 2008 5:19 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
huzzah for condescension!
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the thing here
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Market Inefficiencies
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
don't know why i bother
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Deterioration
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Last Year
by GregJP on
Jan 3, 2008 10:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Injuries
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 10:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Credit
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 4, 2008 1:01 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i should ignore trolls, but
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
whoa
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A's
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh Yeah
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 10:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
White Flag
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Same Response As Above
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 4, 2008 1:02 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A Point
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There You Go Again
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Addendum: Inflection Point
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 4, 2008 2:29 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreement
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Part Way
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 4, 2008 11:10 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Are you Joe Morgan, or what?
by AucklandGM on
Jan 3, 2008 10:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh Yeah, I'm Joe Morgan.....
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 3, 2008 10:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I kind of agree with DrB...
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Playoffs
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Braves won their division 14 times in a row
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Playoffs
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
playoffs
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
:D Fixation with playoffs?
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
drafting
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- billy murphy. traded straight-up for mark redman, who was an okay 4th starter for the A's for 1 year.
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
up
reply
actions
0 recs
wait
if billy beane did it, it must be good.
there. :P
by jpahk on
Jan 3, 2008 3:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're Right!
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?
by Azantor on
Jan 3, 2008 4:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
CWS' home park is small enough that swisher
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.
by overlord on
Jan 3, 2008 4:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
quantity over quality
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
actions
0 recs
HRs
by Robinson Checo on
Jan 3, 2008 3:39 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Swisher could be a cult figure in Chicago
by McLovin on
Jan 3, 2008 3:59 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Question
Matt
by WayneCampbell05 on
Jan 3, 2008 6:47 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
whatever dude
by McLovin on
Jan 4, 2008 8:46 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well...
by doublestix on
Jan 3, 2008 4:43 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
haha. what a joke
by rangersfan24 on
Jan 3, 2008 6:58 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Hmm
by AucklandGM on
Jan 3, 2008 7:42 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
agreed
by RollingWave on
Jan 6, 2008 8:05 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
BA's take
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
actions
0 recs
I like it for the White Sox
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
actions
0 recs
+1!
by DrBGiantsfan on
Jan 4, 2008 2:27 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fielding Bible +/-
by BobbyMac on
Jan 4, 2008 4:38 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs







