southsider2k5 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 09:13 AM) I'm going to start making Bobby Bonilla threads. Why did we trade him!!! He was awesome in Pittsburgh! I won't rest until Oscar Gamble is avenged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (almagest @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 01:22 AM) There's no guarantee either player would've done as well as they have with their new teams. Even if they did, there's absolutely no way that would push us from 6 below .500 to 11+ above. We also wouldn't have Peavy, Rios, Flowers, and possibly Viciedo. I’m fine with the Javy trade, that’s a dead issue for me. I’m also not sure how this would have any effect on the Peavy trade given that we’ve been pursuing him for years and none of the players we got for Swish, or traded for Peavy had anything to do with each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Tommy John, Goose Gossage, who was the cat that was traded for Roy Sievers, it never ends with this s***ty organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 04:46 PM) Tommy John, Goose Gossage, who was the cat that was traded for Roy Sievers, it never ends with this s***ty organization. I thought at first you were saying Goose was traded for Roy Sievers who played for the Sox in 1960 and 61. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (almagest @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 06:22 AM) There's no guarantee either player would've done as well as they have with their new teams. Even if they did, there's absolutely no way that would push us from 6 below .500 to 11+ above. We also wouldn't have Peavy, Rios, Flowers, and possibly Viciedo. Trades are a bit more complicated in this era aren't they? I always am amazed at how several moves made or not made then magically allows us to trade for somebody else. Money becomes available, etc. But, when we hear about how the Sox (KW) has been trying to get someone for years and then gets that coveted player-of course the skills have diminished mind you-we are just so happy about it all. I like the idea of building from within, but how many of our so called prospects have surfaced as star players in other organizations? KW wanted Swisher real bad and then after they get him he gets dumped and is called a bad influence in the clubhouse. Thome is a great clubhouse presence and a super slugger and basically gets released (I don't care if we got some AAA player). We dump Uribe becasue of the money, etc, etc. Look at what happened to the Big Hurt, who arguably is the greatest hitter this organization ever has had and maybe ever will have. The point I am making is the game has changed so much that the old way of trading like Bil Veeck did by sitting in the lobby of the hotel with an open for business sign is long gone and will never be back. It is strictly a business decision for a GM in many cases. Edited September 28, 2009 by elrockinMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 04:09 PM) I’m fine with the Javy trade, that’s a dead issue for me. I’m also not sure how this would have any effect on the Peavy trade given that we’ve been pursuing him for years and none of the players we got for Swish, or traded for Peavy had anything to do with each other. I don't think it would have had any effect on the Peavy deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 10:09 AM) I'm fine with the Javy trade, that's a dead issue for me. I'm also not sure how this would have any effect on the Peavy trade given that we've been pursuing him for years and none of the players we got for Swish, or traded for Peavy had anything to do with each other.Okay, then how does keeping Swisher send us from 6 below to 11+ above .500? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) Trades are a bit more complicated in this era aren't they? I always am amazed at how several moves made or not made then magically allows us to trade for somebody else. Money becomes available, etc. But, when we hear about how the Sox (KW) has been trying to get someone for years and then gets that coveted player-of course the skills have diminished mind you-we are just so happy about it all. I like the idea of building from within, but how many of our so called prospects have surfaced as star players in other organizations? KW wanted Swisher real bad and then after they get him he gets dumped and is called a bad influence in the clubhouse. Thome is a great clubhouse presence and a super slugger and basically gets released (I don't care if we got some AAA player). We dump Uribe becasue of the money, etc, etc. Look at what happened to the Big Hurt, who arguably is the greatest hitter this organization ever has had and maybe ever will have. The point I am making is the game has changed so much that the old way of trading like Bil Veeck did by sitting in the lobby of the hotel with an open for business sign is long gone and will never be back. It is strictly a business decision for a GM in many cases.Peavy's skills haven't diminished. Rios is having an off-year, just like Swisher did last year. Thomas was continually hurt and we were looking for a left-handed power bat. Thome was sent to LA as a favor to him, to give him a chance at a world series ring. None of us know what Swisher was like in the clubhouse, but it's pretty apparent that the organization didn't feel he was a good fit. Few (if any) of our highly-touted prospects have done anything since leaving the White Sox. Uribe was bad with us. His offense was putrid, and his defense was declining. I'm glad he's having his best season since 2004 with the Giants, but he was done here. I'm not sure I understand your point, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) Trades are a bit more complicated in this era aren't they? I always am amazed at how several moves made or not made then magically allows us to trade for somebody else. Money becomes available, etc. But, when we hear about how the Sox (KW) has been trying to get someone for years and then gets that coveted player-of course the skills have diminished mind you-we are just so happy about it all. I like the idea of building from within, but how many of our so called prospects have surfaced as star players in other organizations? KW wanted Swisher real bad and then after they get him he gets dumped and is called a bad influence in the clubhouse. Thome is a great clubhouse presence and a super slugger and basically gets released (I don't care if we got some AAA player). We dump Uribe becasue of the money, etc, etc. Look at what happened to the Big Hurt, who arguably is the greatest hitter this organization ever has had and maybe ever will have. The point I am making is the game has changed so much that the old way of trading like Bil Veeck did by sitting in the lobby of the hotel with an open for business sign is long gone and will never be back. It is strictly a business decision for a GM in many cases. We didn't dump Thome. Williams did the classy thing and found him a place where he could get his world series ring. We dumped Uribe because he was wildly inconsistent, and we had others coming through the system who were ready for a shot. Would you rather have Uribe playing 3B over Beckham? SS over Ramirez? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 05:45 PM) We didn't dump Thome. Williams did the classy thing and found him a place where he could get his world series ring. We dumped Uribe because he was wildly inconsistent, and we had others coming through the system who were ready for a shot. Would you rather have Uribe playing 3B over Beckham? SS over Ramirez? I would rather have Uribe still here as our super sub. A bad yeare with the bat doesn't mean someone is necessarily declining. People are to quick to condemn or dump a player for off years Edited September 28, 2009 by elrockinMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (almagest @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 05:27 PM) Peavy's skills haven't diminished. Rios is having an off-year, just like Swisher did last year. Thomas was continually hurt and we were looking for a left-handed power bat. Thome was sent to LA as a favor to him, to give him a chance at a world series ring. None of us know what Swisher was like in the clubhouse, but it's pretty apparent that the organization didn't feel he was a good fit. Few (if any) of our highly-touted prospects have done anything since leaving the White Sox. Uribe was bad with us. His offense was putrid, and his defense was declining. I'm glad he's having his best season since 2004 with the Giants, but he was done here. I'm not sure I understand your point, to be honest. I think you are to quick to pull the trigger and criticize. I never said anything about Peavy. I like the deal for him as expensive as it was in young pitching talent. He is a proven winner. Uribe was not declining with the glove and I don't see how you can say that at all based o 2008 and before. You made the point I was making with saying "none of us knew what Swisher was like". Trades are complicated and don't always work out. Now what was your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) I would rather have Uribe still here as our super sub. A bad yeare with the bat doesn't mean someone is necessarily declining. People are to quick to condemn or dump a player for off years All I have to say is look at the numbers from Juans first year with the Sox to his second, and third and forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 06:29 PM) All I have to say is look at the numbers from Juans first year with the Sox to his second, and third and forth. Some might blame Walker A change of scenery sure has helped Juan. I still maintain he is a very good glove man though. Edited September 28, 2009 by elrockinMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (almagest @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 12:20 PM) Okay, then how does keeping Swisher send us from 6 below to 11+ above .500? We had an offensive blackhole in CF until Pods came, and a blackhole in LF before Q came back. Swish is a 3.6 War player this year. That would put us back in the race wouldn't it? Edited September 28, 2009 by Thunderbolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) Some might blame Walker A change of scenery sure has helped Juan. I still maintain he is a very good glove man though. I'd be willing to bet the offense takes a big drop off next year if he stays in the same place. This is the third team he has been with, and the third time he started out like gangbangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) Some might blame Walker A change of scenery sure has helped Juan. I still maintain he is a very good glove man though.His numbers in Colorado weren't all that impressive, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) We had an offensive blackhole in CF until Pods came, and a blackhole in LF before Q came back. Swish is a 3.6 War player this year. That would put us back in the race wouldn't it? Bolt, I don't understand why you are on this Swisher kick. Swisher wouldn't have made a difference this year. If anything we may have been out of it earlier. You have to look at the whole picture. He was an ass. And as far as onfield performance, he was an out machine in a Sox uniform. I get on tangents, but you are really on one with Swisher. You might consider dumping the repeat thoughts on Swish as I finally did on Rios. Swisher was a bad fit and is not a great baseball player. I don't even think he is a good baseball player. You do. Edited September 28, 2009 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:47 PM) We had an offensive blackhole in CF until Pods came, and a blackhole in LF before Q came back. Swish is a 3.6 War player this year. That would put us back in the race wouldn't it?3.6 wins? Really? Assuming our awful blackhole in CF is around 0 WAR, assuming WAR is actually valid in predicting wins and isn't just a semi-reasonable statistical estimate, and assuming Swisher actually produced with us, we'd be either 78-78 or 79-77, 5 or 6 games back of Detroit, and 3 or 4 games behind Minnesota, with 6 games to play. You honestly think this constitutes being "back in the race?" Even if our centerfielders had produced a negative WAR value, we'd still likely need to vault over both Minnesota and Detroit to win the division, and that's just not likely. You're relying on an awful lot of "ifs". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
son of a rude Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Bolt, I don't understand why you are on this Swisher kick. Swisher wouldn't have made a difference this year. If anything we may have been out of it earlier. You have to look at the whole picture. He was an ass. And as far as onfield performance, he was an out machine in a Sox uniform. I get on tangents, but you are really on one with Swisher. You might consider dumping the repeat thoughts on Swish as I finally did on Rios. Swisher was a bad fit and is not a great baseball player. I don't even think he is a good baseball player. You do. A .370 OBP and .490 SLG while be able to play a decent 1B, LF, and RF isn't good? I'll be damned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Rude, you are assuming he'd have woken up in a Sox uniform and played some ball for us. He wouldn't have. It was a bad fit. He was a total out machine in Chicago, do you not agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 10:29 PM) Rude, you are assuming he'd have woken up in a Sox uniform and played some ball for us. He wouldn't have. It was a bad fit. He was a total out machine in Chicago, do you not agree? He struggled at the end of the year for sure, but others on this team have struggled also. Swisher had a high on-base pct and you need folks on base ahead of the big hitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) Rude, you are assuming he'd have woken up in a Sox uniform and played some ball for us. He wouldn't have. It was a bad fit. He was a total out machine in Chicago, do you not agree? But Rios will wake up in a Sox uniform? Sounds like that is wishful thinking as well as Swisher offensively has outproduced Rios over the course of their careers. And the numbers a page or so back prove that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 06:21 PM) But Rios will wake up in a Sox uniform? Sounds like that is wishful thinking as well as Swisher offensively has outproduced Rios over the course of their careers. And the numbers a page or so back prove that. I guess people don't play defense anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) I don't think it would have had any effect on the Peavy deal. Javy makes $11 million. That's all you need to know if you really think they still would have picked up Peavy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 QUOTE (gatnom @ Sep 26, 2009 -> 08:53 PM) While Kenny didn't really "win" the second swisher trade, it was still a good move considering the circumstances. Swisher was not getting along with or listening to the coaches, and he was getting payed a good amount of money to do so. The real thing to criticize is trading for swisher in the first place; Swisher is just not a major league center fielder. Agreed. First Swisher trade was awful; Ryan Sweeney is a solid player who can play CF, and Gio will probably have a long career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.