Turn Off Ads?
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 201

Thread: Swisher to White Sox

  1. #151
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,837

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    I see redreads point. right now Bruce's perceived value may be higher than his actual value. He hasn't failed yet. He's the minor league player of the year. He has a hype machine behind him. Now he could go all Albert Pujols on the league in 2008, or he could be Lastings Milledge. The point is, to an extent, he's still a bit of a known unknown. Trading him is a gamble. Keeping him is a gamble. That gamble worked for the Cards, not so much for the Mets. It'll be worse for the Mets if Milledge revives his career in Washington too.

    it's always a you-never-know. But a lot of guys were clamoring for a trade of Bailey last year. I wanted the hype to dazzle another GM into giving the Reds a Kazmir or a Haren.

    As for Bruce... put it this way. If a deal involved Bruce for Kazmir, AND the Reds still had Hamilton, I'd do it 10 times out of 10. I'd never not do it. I'd accept the possibility that I was trading away a POSSIBLE future HOF player based on talent alone. I do it because Kazmir makes the Reds WS contenders, not just contenders in the division. It gives the Reds a dominating rotation, a 1-2 punch that really only 1-2 teams in the NL currently has. (AZ and SD).

    I don't want to trade Bruce, but I can see how his value can possibly go down.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #152
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    you're rambling, you know.
    Yeah, I realize that.

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    Value does build....
    Value can also fall. Value can also fall then build then fall then build. That's just life. You are gloom-and-doom always, but some of these players WILL increase their value. The key is knowing who will and who won't. But even guys whose value will decrease may be worth a lot to us. Even if Homer doesn't blossom, he's still a good arm. We can use that.
    Ok. But Wayne seems to have the philosphy of deciding that he wants to hold all the prospects.
    I'd be ok with saying Bruce is untouchable, but everyone else on the table is fair game to get Haren.. but that wasn't the case.
    He had to keep Ceuto as well.

    Your example of Haren is somewhat flawed. You say he was never worth three players. But at one time, he was worth Mulder.
    Of course, in hindsight, we can say Mulder was hurt, but at the time, that wasn't a given. I'm not so sure that the 6 Arizona prospects are worth as much as Mulder was percieved to be worth when he was dealt. Likewise, I doubt Oakland gets a star like Mulder out of that group of prospects.








    I don't recall your screaming to deal Homer last year, and I wasn't either. So don't tell me that Krivsky was dumb to not trade him-- it was not really even a thought.
    No, that's not the point. The point is that Homer's perceived value is a lot less than it was last year. A large reason for that is because Wayne got impatient (despite promising not to) and called him up. Homer was then exposed. Wayne and the rest of the GMs are now not as infatuated with him. There's a very good chance the same thing will happen to Bruce if he's thrown into a ML lineup at age 20-21, which the Reds seem to be planning to do.
    I didn't say last year that Homer should be traded. However, if the Reds could've gotten Haren for him last year, I would've said "do it".




    Things might be a little different right now, but we're still a Jr injury away from being a footnote. .
    And how will things be better in 2009? Jr will likely be gone. Maybe Dunn will too. Phillips and EdE will be going to arb.
    Gonzo and Ross will have another year of decline. Hopefully Harang and Arroyo will still be healthy and effective, but you never know.

    The Reds have a nice collection of talent right now. All they need is starting pitching. Instead, they seem content to squander the talent they have because they are too scared to make a move.
    If I could've gotten Haren and Bedard by trading the entire farm except Votto, I would've done it. IMO, Votto is underrated and serves a valuable purpose for us, so I'd try to keep him.
    Anyhow, the Reds then have at least two exciting seasons. 2011 might be rough, but that's ok.. The way things are going now, 2011 will probably still be rough...





    Also, other holes will appear, and they may differ from the holes that we see now. I'd love to have Haren, but we don't have him. So for now, I'm happy to let the four very young starters audition. No team with good young starters is ever hurting for a trading partner. Be patient.[/QUOTE]
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  4. #153
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    I can't believe that anyone is suggesting that Bruce will never have any more trade value than he has now.

    It's simply not true.

    If Bruce has any kind of success in his first shot in the major leagues, his value increases.
    I'm not saying that.

    I'm saying that if the Reds start him next year at the majors, the overwhelming probability is that his value will decrease. I'm not saying it will go down to zero, but it will decrease.
    And he may recover some or all of that value in years 2 or 3.
    But probably not.

    Right now, he's minor league player of the year, has 6 years of control ahead of him and is predistined to win multiple MVPs. That's why the O's are drooling over him. Odds are that he won't win any MVPs in his first three years. That's doesn't mean he'll stink, that's just life. Dunn will probably never win an MVP, but he's still good.

    How do you define success next year for Bruce? My guess is that many people are going to be disappointed in him next year, because the expectations are just too high.
    If Bruce can give the performance of an average ML CF next year, I will be very pleased. But if Bruce is just average next year, his percieved value will go down.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  5. #154
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,287

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Not to be snarky, but are we to presume that our prospects only have value as chips for acquiring other team's players? I think someone asked this a page or so back, but is it not possible that we may want to keep one of our own minor leaguers because they have value to us, helping us to be a winning championship team? I'm tired of everyone saying we've got to trade some up and coming player or two and not get the advantage of that player doing well with us. Of course, that's fraught with failure at times, but I like this assortment of players we're assembling.
    “In the same way that a baseball season never really begins, it never really ends either.” - Lonnie Wheeler, "Bleachers, A Summer in Wrigley Field"

    The Baseball Emporium - Books & Things, that's Rallyonion.com

    The Baseball Bookstore

    http://tsc-sales.com/
    http://tscsales.blogspot.com/
    http://silverscreenbooks.com/

  6. #155
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,345

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by nate View Post

    That's a pretty high bar you set for JB:

    Yet people are quoting Bill James projecting Bruce to OPS 960
    next year (or something like that). I'm not exaggerating that much by saying 1.000..

    If the O's GM thinks that Bruce can step in next year and hit like that, you trade him to the O's, because the O's are overvaluing him.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  7. #156
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,287

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    I'm not saying that.

    I'm saying that if the Reds start him next year at the majors, the overwhelming probability is that his value will decrease. I'm not saying it will go down to zero, but it will decrease.
    And he may recover some or all of that value in years 2 or 3.
    But probably not.

    Right now, he's minor league player of the year, has 6 years of control ahead of him and is predistined to win multiple MVPs. That's why the O's are drooling over him. Odds are that he won't win any MVPs in his first three years. That's doesn't mean he'll stink, that's just life. Dunn will probably never win an MVP, but he's still good.

    How do you define success next year for Bruce? My guess is that many people are going to be disappointed in him next year, because the expectations are just too high.
    If Bruce can give the performance of an average ML CF next year, I will be very pleased. But if Bruce is just average next year, his percieved value will go down.
    Your argument seems rather myopic and short term to be honest. You seem to look at a player mostly in the narrow window of the beginning of their ML career (although you tip your hat to Dunn being good albeit never to be an MVP. Are those are only gauges for determining a successful career? I don't think you'd say that, but why not keep the players that are good for ourselves?
    “In the same way that a baseball season never really begins, it never really ends either.” - Lonnie Wheeler, "Bleachers, A Summer in Wrigley Field"

    The Baseball Emporium - Books & Things, that's Rallyonion.com

    The Baseball Bookstore

    http://tsc-sales.com/
    http://tscsales.blogspot.com/
    http://silverscreenbooks.com/

  8. #157
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    Your example of Haren is somewhat flawed. You say he was never worth three players. But at one time, he was worth Mulder.

    YOUR example of Haren is flawed. He and two other players were worth Mulder. Now, he alone is worth six players.

    Values increase, values decrease. Haren grew. Swisher grew. Bruce will likely grow. Bailey might and might not.

  9. #158
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,294

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    I'm saying that if the Reds start him next year at the majors, the overwhelming probability is that his value will decrease.
    Really?

    Maybe the numbers won't be world beaters but the tools and the ceiling will be enough to get those who project a player beyond a 162 game window salivating. Players skill sets at Bruce's age are a more valuable indicator then coming on to the scene and being a world beater. The game is as littered with superstars who started slow as it is with guys who started fast and flamed out, not every prospect is an Al Kaline out of the gate.

  10. #159
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    19,138

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post
    Really?

    Maybe the numbers won't be world beaters but the tools and the ceiling will be enough to get those who project a player beyond a 162 game window salivating. Players skill sets at Bruce's age are a more valuable indicator then coming on to the scene and being a world beater. The game is as littered with superstars who started slow as it is with guys who started fast and flamed out, not every prospect is an Al Kaline out of the gate.
    Yes. I think more people would scratch their heads about Bruce if the Reds kept him in AAA then they would if he struggles during his rookie season.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  11. #160
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,939

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    Not much apparently. Reading between the lines, Wayne thought he could get a Bedard or Haren for either Hamilton or Homer.
    We got a report earlier that he refused to include Ceuto in a Haren deal. We know Bruce is off limits. Not much left for sale in the window.
    No, we know that he refused to deal a package including Cueto in the Haren deal. That never said he refused to deal Cueto, just that Cueto was a part of the package that he ended up keeping. Cueto may not have even been the stopping point on it because all we know is that he didn't pull the trigger on a package including Johnny Cueto.

    In the end, I think Wayne's tendency to hoard prospects will be his downfall. He'll always be too scared to move a prospect until the prospect overexposes himself and loses his luster.. ie Homer this past year. Homer is not worth as much now as he was a year ago. Bruce won't be worth as much next year as he is now, either, because he's not going to OPS 1.000 in the majors in 2008 at his young age, as people are now fantasizing he will. That's not saying Homer or Bruce are worthless, just worth less than their peak.
    Lets pretend for a second that you are right here (and I am not sure you are with at least Bruce, although Homer isn't as valuable as he was last year he is still very valuable). Their 'value' is only something to worry about if you are planning on trading them. Last year, who was available that was worth a Homer Bailey type value? This year there are a few actual pieces worth trading top end talent for, but the Reds have decided to keep the best prospect in baseball. So what if he doesn't OPS 1.000 in the majors next year (and I have yet to see anyone project that btw) , if the Reds have no intentions of moving him, then his 'lower' value means absolutely nothing.

    As for 'hoarding' prospects, I don't really think that is Waynes problem. He had traded a lot of minor leaguers since he got here. Just because he hasn't moved a top end guys doesn't mean he is hoarding them. A lot of teams don't trade their top end guys (and lets also realize that the Reds top 4 guys would be the top guy in a lot of other systems).

  12. #161
    High five! nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    6,976

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    If the O's GM thinks that Bruce can step in next year and hit like that, you trade him to the O's, because the O's are overvaluing him.
    That trade scenario (Bruce for Bedard) doesn't exist. The O's want _more_ than just Jay Bruce, they want Homer and Cueto and Votto (oh my!) The Reds cannot afford trading that many players (period, it doesn't matter where they rank on anyone's list) for one pitcher who is going to get very expensive and only be here for two years at the most.

    A move that involves Jay Bruce going away has the Reds potentially looking at no outfielders for 2009. At least, none that you'd want to play every day.

    Forget the hype, even if all of these "big 4 players" are league average, they're needed by the Reds for depth or as currency to trade for depth. I'd trade Votto and one of Bailey / Cueto for someone like Bedard, but not all 4 and certainly not them plus Jay Bruce.
    "Bring on Rod Stupid!"

  13. #162
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,450

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD View Post
    Beane's in churn mode. While many are surprised that he's not targetting players listed on BA's top 10 overall prospect list while churning Haren and Swisher, I'm not. He's acquired a large volume of 2nd-tier prospects. Some will hit. Some will fail. Way it goes. But he's not trying to shoot the moon, he's not grabbing handfuls of crap, and he's especially not trying to grab especially young kids with little track record.

    It's interesting. The Reds are clutching tightly to their tier-one prospects while teams like the O's do likewise with a guy like Bedard. In the midst of these potentially futile talent staredowns, Beane's been able to move through the market and find high-volume returns that, when combined, may actually represent more long-term production and/or value than the guys he traded away.

    Move Mulder for Haren and Barton. Get some performance out of Haren while your team projects to contend. Once that's over, divest Haren and Swisher while spreading out your risk over multiple targets. While I may disagree with some of the targets (I'm not thrilled with Gio Gonzalez, for example), I can't fault the methodology. While the majority of prospects acquired by the A's don't project the kind of ceilings of those teams are unwilling to move, a collection of players who may be more likely to actually hit their own ceilings of "above average" can win.

    Beane's casting his line into a generally ignored pond where fish are actually biting while others are clamoring around another fishing hole in the hopes of catching the "big one".
    I see where you're coming from, though I think Beane may have stuck his franchise on a conveyor belt here. In five years he, or his successor, may be seeking deals for de los Santos and Gonzalez similar to what Haren and Swisher fetched.

    I usually like his decisiveness, but, IMO, he's been hasty this offseason. I think he'd have been better served trying to see if Crosby, Chavez, Ellis, Harden and Street can build any trade value into the summer. In particular, Haren, Blanton and Gaudin could have given him the core of stable rotation into the next decade, something to build on. In fact, I think the Swisher deal would look a lot better if Haren were still in town.

    I'm not really sure what Beane's building on right now and I doubt he is either.

    So I agree Beane figured out how to operate in the marketplace, but I don't like the baseball component of the business he's doing.

    Interesting point about the best fishin' holes for actually catching fish. Yet I get the distinct feeling that the Reds are being forced into another pond by other teams. They have more to pay in terms of top end talent and no one's settling for their version of Carlos Gonzalez and assorted extras.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  14. #163
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by nate View Post
    That trade scenario (Bruce for Bedard) doesn't exist. The O's want _more_ than just Jay Bruce, they want Homer and Cueto and Votto (oh my!).

    we don't actually know that.

    if I were the O's, I'd do Bruce for Bedard straight up. I prefer pitchers, but I love the four extra years that I get to have Bruce

  15. #164
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,397

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    Yes. I think more people would scratch their heads about Bruce if the Reds kept him in AAA then they would if he struggles during his rookie season.
    I think that's reasonable. After all, I doubt that Alex Gordon holds substantially less value after a disappointing debut than he had while being ranked #2 on BA's pre-season 2007 prospects list. But then, I doubt that Tampa Bay had hoped a swap for Matt Garza would be the best-case scenario for the entirety of 2006's #1, Delmon Young. Of course Young's Milo-esque behavior may have chipped away at his peak value as much as anything else.

    IMHO, I think that the potential for value degradation for most top prospects is after season two. Should season three (or a portion thereof) be a continuation of below-expected play, you can probably bet that a guy has lost a decent chunk of value.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
    --Ted Williams

  16. #165
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,294

    Re: Swisher to White Sox

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...cleid=7030#OAK

    I may be coming at this the wrong way, but I hate this deal for the A's. Not because of what it represents—hey, they're rebuilding, we get it—but because of what they got. I know Gonzalez and De Los Santos were the best the Sox had left to offer. I guess I just start off with the assumption that any group of pitchers involves casualties and risk, and that makes me squeamish. Gonzalez or De Los Santos? Both have promise, both are very young, but as a matter of odds alone, it's as if you have to start with the assumption that one of them's going to bust something before the A's ever get a good look at him. Of course, with Jose Rijo on the Hall of Fame ballot, I'm also reminded how very exasperating an unfinished talented pitcher can be—not so much that I welcomed the deal for Dave Parker, though.

    So, De Los Santos has explosive velocity and a power curve, and he'll have to see what he can do against the Cal League and if he can master a changeup. That's the best of the lot. Then there's Gio Gonzalez; he'll be up sooner, certainly, but is he any more promising than, say, Dan Meyer was? I say that as someone who really, really likes Gonzalez, but again, we're talking about a guy who could make it up this year, and who might be a solid rotation starter. Admittedly, that costs more to find and keep in the face of the pressure of the open market than the A's would have paid Swisher, so that could turn out well. The problem is the 'could' and 'might' parts.

    Finally, there's Sweeney, who's seen as something more than a throw-in. I'm not unsympathetic to that opinion: Sweeney will only be 23 this season and already has considerable upper-level experience, can play all three outfield positions, and did hit International League right-handed pitching at a .285/.358/.458 clip. Maybe if you decide to be optimistic, that's a guy who turns into the new Todd Hollandsworth, minus the dopey BBWAA vote; a solid fourth outfielder with power who you can plug in every day for a couple of weeks at a stretch, or carry as a regular if you're getting a ton of runs from your infielders. Call me skeptical, but I don't really care for the likelihood of those possibilities, although I can understand how somebody could see them and get interested, especially when you're looking for that extra body to flesh out a deal. It doesn't balance it out, though.

    Now, I admit, there's a chance here that Sweeney just needs some extra instruction, and will get massively better if he works with somebody who helps him improve pitch identification. I doubt it, but let's move on. Maybe four years from now, Gonzalez and De Los Santos will be two-fifths of a very good rotation. It could happen, sure. You believe all that, balanced against the much greater certainty that Swisher's going to be an underpaid key to his team's bid for contention for years to come, and think it equals out? Me neither.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25