Sully to Chi Sox with $$$ For PTBNL

[pedro]

Originally posted by 37red
It sucks.

It does suck. But so did the reds this year and if things didn't change they were going to suck next year too. Now, I'm not ready to say things are all better yet, but if the reds still had the same roster and management as they did at all star break they'd have maybe won 2-3 more games than they have. maybe. now that sucks.

[Falls City Beer]

This deal is a turd.

We could have gotten an arm for Sullivan and cash. We didn't.

Very disappointing.

This team must single-mindedly pursue pitching.

Branyan should be our 3rd baseman next year; he's cheap and better than Boone offensively.

Silly trade.

[Hap]

Originally posted by westofyou
In 2002 the average salary in MLB was $2,024,677,522.

???????????????????????????????????

Two billion????????????????????????????

Are you sure??????????????????????????

:ipoke:

[westofyou]

Whoops, you're right Hap that's the TOTAL of all the salaries in MLB.

The correct number is:

$2,384,779 - 2002.

[RedSchmo2]

Originally posted by Red Storm
It won't take much time watching him to realize why he won't be playing much 2B anymore. So, I regard him as a 25 year old (in 3 months) corner IF, who is putting up solid but less than exceptional numbers at AAA. We've seen that Larson and Mateo's monster IL AAA numbers have yet to translate to much at this level, and my estimate is that Hummel's much less impressive numbers and modest skills will translate into even less.

We'll see I guess.

You are right Red Storm. We will see. If Hummel contributes to 15 wins for the Reds in the future, then its a good deal. That is about the maximum Sullivan may have done the rest of this year.

If you are right, Hummel will not even contribute that much.

But to say he has less than minimal value is a stretch. In the Spring of this year, Baseball America said of Hummel he is "considered a textbook hitter with an unusually pure righthanded stroke." Since that statement, he has hit .286 with 15 HR and 80 RBIs. Really, the guy has had 3 1/2 years in the minors with 1 bad year.

Here is what you don't know, nor does anyone. Can he carry that success to the next level? Some guys who hit 40 HRs in AAA cannot hit squat in the majors. Yet, some guys are stars in the bigs after never hitting .280 in the minors. We know Larson has not been able to adjust. We just don't know that about Hummel.

I do know this though, if he hits .285 with 15 HRs, 80 RBIs with solid but not spectacular defense in the bigs, he will be OK.

I think the theory of "25 years old and in the minors = dud" is a bit off-base, don't you? Also, this "tools" crap should be thrown out the window with Bowden.

After all, I am sure you would agree that Joe Borchard would have made this a great deal... but he is exactly the same age as Hummel, drafted in the same draft out of college, and by the way floundering in AAA this year.

[Oxilon]

Chris Reed, the creator of The Prospect Report, compared Hummel to none other than the Mets superstar, Ty Wigginton

4. TIM HUMMEL (3B) - DOB: 11/18/78 - ETA: 2004
(Triple A - 388 AB, .294/.362/.464) Hummel has bounced back from a mediocre 2002 with a very good performance in AAA-Charlotte. He's played second base and shortstop, but has spent the majority of his time at third base. There's no reason to think he couldn't put up Ty Wigginton-like numbers, or very possibly - better.

I'm no Bill James prodigy or anything, but we traded Scott Sullivan and cash for a Ty Wigginton player? Esh......

[PuffyPig]

Originally posted by Oxilon
Chris Reed, the creator of The Prospect Report, compared Hummel to none other than the Mets superstar, Ty Wigginton



I'm no Bill James prodigy or anything, but we traded Scott Sullivan and cash for a Ty Wigginton player? Esh......

We traded 5 weeks of Sullivan for a player descibed as "quite possibly putting up better than Wigginton numbers".

That's not bad. His OPS is about .020 worse than Boone's this year, so any improvement by Hummell over Wigginton'd numbers would put him ahead of Boone.

All for 5 weeks of Sullivan.

[SteelSD]

Originally posted by PuffyPig
We traded 5 weeks of Sullivan for a player descibed as "quite possibly putting up better than Wigginton numbers".

That's not bad. His OPS is about .020 worse than Boone's this year, so any improvement by Hummell over Wigginton'd numbers would put him ahead of Boone.

All for 5 weeks of Sullivan.

You're right, PP. This season, Ty Wigginton is right at ML Average for 3B (.263EQA, 0.0 Runs Above Position) and projects to improve on that.

ML Average- 2B

EQA- .263

ML Average- 3B

EQA- .262

Third Base as a "Corner Infield" position is actually perceived to be more about offense than 2B, but this season it's not.

Assuming that the player is Hummel, we may have a League Average (with potential for more) 2B or 3B. Those kind of projections at 2B would actually place Hummel just below Jimenez, Eric Young, and Mark Grudzielanek- and above Todd Walker.

Hummel has developed power this season, and overall he's displayed decent plate discipline in the Minors (1761AB/192BB)= 1BB/9.17AB) with an OBP of .350+ in all but one season (2002).

That's not a bad return for a couple months of Scott Sullivan, IMHO.

[Oxilon]

I'm not saying we shouldn't of traded Sullivan away; it was a good idea to trade him.

But if we can get a prospect of Matt Belisle for Kent Mercker, why can't we get even a better prospect for Sullivan (who's a better reliever) and cash?

I just thought we could of gotten more for him.

[Raisor]

Originally posted by Oxilon
I'm not saying we shouldn't of traded Sullivan away; it was a good idea to trade him.

But if we can get a prospect of Matt Belisle for Kent Mercker, why can't we get even a better prospect for Sullivan (who's a better reliever) and cash?

I just thought we could of gotten more for him.

Merker
a) was having a better season then Sullivan
b) was owed less for the rest of the season

[westofyou]

Merker
a) was having a better season then Sullivan
b) was owed less for the rest of the season

C. Atlanta had a weakness (no LH reliever aside from Ray King) and was willing to overpay for it.

[SteelSD]

Originally posted by Oxilon
I'm not saying we shouldn't of traded Sullivan away; it was a good idea to trade him.

But if we can get a prospect of Matt Belisle for Kent Mercker, why can't we get even a better prospect for Sullivan (who's a better reliever) and cash?

I just thought we could of gotten more for him.

Well, "better" really depends on what we actually think of Belisle. Personally, I'm not as high on Belisle as many are. Low Walk totals, but he's only had one season allowing less than 1 Hit per IP and will probably finish the year at about a 1/1 ratio or higher for his career.

Certainly he's young and is now almost two seasons removed from injury, but I'm not convinced that Belisle's upside is any higher than a guy like Hummel at this point. And very possibly, Hummel has more of a shot at being ML Average than Belisle does.

Not that I wouldn't take the good seasons of Brian Moehler though...

[PuffyPig]

At the time of the trades, Hummel was probablky a higher rated prospect than Belise.

I think both trades were great.

[Ga_Red]

2/09/07

[PuffyPig]

Originally posted by Ga_Red
PP,

I HOPE the trades turn out great as well!

BUT this Sullivan transaction was a salary dump,
pure and simple, with a prospect who COULD NOT MAKE
THE 2003 SOX TOP 10 LIST as a bone to
appease the Red's fan who thinks ALL CHANGE
is good.

Salary dump???????

That's simply not true. If the Reds wanted to simply dump salary, they could have allowed the Sox waiver claim, and been freed of Sullivan's entire salary.

Instead, they pay half his salary and get a prospect rated #3 at the 2003 midpoint by ProspectAlert.