PDA

View Full Version : Gotta Love KW's Pitching Thievery.


Thome25
07-18-2008, 07:39 AM
I was just sitting here thinking about the pitchers that KW has acquired through trade and I absolutely love what he has done.

His pitching trades have been one-sided to say the least.

Look at the Gavin Floyd trade from Philly or the Danks trade from Texas or even the Freddy Garcia and Contreras trades.

After looking at all of these trades I have absolute faith in the "under the radar, roundhouse kicking, Chuck Norris Ninja."

Alot of fans on here usually push the panic button when KW makes one of these types of trades especially when it's for one or two of our own young starters. But, look at his track record when it comes to acquiring other teams' pitching. It's amazing.

The only thing I worry about is after a while, other teams GMs may see him coming and look at KW's lopsided pitching trades and in the process not want to deal with him or the White Sox.

What do you think about this topic? After looking at this, I absolutely trust Kenny. (His track record shows it.)

ondafarm
07-18-2008, 08:03 AM
Absolute is a big word. IMHO, KW has earned a lot of slack with his very solid pitching trades. As I said elsewhere, I was a little concerned when he traded McCarthy for Danks and Masset, but this has obviously worked out. The Freddy Garcia for Floyd looked a little more promising on paper and has definately become a very good trade (for us.)

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-18-2008, 09:15 AM
I wasn't too happy about the Vazquez deal at the time it happened, and 2 years later I'm still not really impressed with it. He's been good at times, and he's better than a lot of starters, but he hasn't lived up to the expectation of a number one. I think the Contreras deal was a decent one, not just because of how he pitched in '05, but because we were trading for better potential. At the time, Loiza looked to be the better pitcher, but Jose had more upside, and for two half seasons it paid off. The Jenks deal was obviously a theft.

doublem23
07-18-2008, 09:27 AM
I wasn't too happy about the Vazquez deal at the time it happened, and 2 years later I'm still not really impressed with it. He's been good at times, and he's better than a lot of starters, but he hasn't lived up to the expectation of a number one. I think the Contreras deal was a decent one, not just because of how he pitched in '05, but because we were trading for better potential. At the time, Loiza looked to be the better pitcher, but Jose had more upside, and for two half seasons it paid off. The Jenks deal was obviously a theft.

The Vazquez deal is at worst a push right now. Even with his struggles, Javier is still an above average starter and would be a #1 or #2 starter on most teams. We simply have the luxury to bump him down behind Buehrle, Floyd, and Danks. As for what we gave up, El Duque and Vizcaino barely pitched a combined 100 innings in their illustrous Diamondback careers and neither was with the team 1 year after the deal went down. Chris Young still has awesome potential, and at only 24 still has a lot of room to grow, but he's not made an immediate impact the way a lot of nay-sayers said he would.

The Danks and Floyd deals were brilliant. McCarthy and Garcia have combined to throw about 160 IP in the 2 years since they've left the Sox and neither have pitched this year. John and Gavin have already thrown 225 innings this season alone for the Sox.

The Contreras deal was a steal, too, especially considering Loaiza was not pitching that well when the Sox dealt him. The White Sox don't win the World Series if that trade isn't made.

Jenks wasn't so much a deal as much as he was a great waiver wire find.

You can question some of his moves with position players, but at least in tems of pitching, KW's grade is an A+.

palehozenychicty
07-18-2008, 09:34 AM
I wasn't too happy about the Vazquez deal at the time it happened, and 2 years later I'm still not really impressed with it. He's been good at times, and he's better than a lot of starters, but he hasn't lived up to the expectation of a number one. I think the Contreras deal was a decent one, not just because of how he pitched in '05, but because we were trading for better potential. At the time, Loiza looked to be the better pitcher, but Jose had more upside, and for two half seasons it paid off. The Jenks deal was obviously a theft.


....which I think is the problem with Vazquez, that people still look at his stuff and have visions of grandeur. He's just about 30, and what you see is what you'll get with him. He's going to show flashes, and that's it. He still tends to nibble at corners rather than throw strikes consistently.

He's a perfect #3.

KyWhiSoxFan
07-18-2008, 09:42 AM
KW's had some very, very successful trades, but not all have been winners. I love Danks. He'll be a mainstay for years in the rotation and may even be the No. 1 guy.

And the jury is still out on the Swisher for Sweeney, Gonzalez, and De Los Santos trade. All those results won't be in for several years. I was not a big fan of that trade at the time, but I'll give Swisher the chance to help take the Sox to the playoffs. He still has a lot upside and is the heir apparent to Konerko to play first, but it is steep price to pay in my opinion when you trade the top two pitching prospects, plus Sweeney, who I like.

white sox bill
07-18-2008, 09:56 AM
I'm not about to ruin the OP theory that KW is a great GM, although his first couple of yrs he had growing pains as they say.

I'd say he's among the best in baseball and has the hardware to prove it

jabrch
07-18-2008, 10:11 AM
KW's had some very, very successful trades, but not all have been winners.

Nobody will ever be 100%. But what he hasn't had is a complete failure - where he gave up a player who became a stud and got a bust back.

ChiSoxFan7
07-18-2008, 10:27 AM
... They haven't panned out, but it's not like GM's in baseball are used car salesmen trying to sell off shiny jalopies with rolled back odometers to novices. The Mariners scouts loved Reed and the Texas people loved McCarthy because of their own separate evaluations....

op said it best. we don't have to worry about our so called "lopsided trades" It's a scout that gets axed not KW.

KyWhiSoxFan
07-18-2008, 10:27 AM
Nobody will ever be 100%. But what he hasn't had is a complete failure - where he gave up a player who became a stud and got a bust back.

Well, the Todd Ritchie trade could be termed a bust. While Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, and Sean Lowe did not turn out to be studs long-term for another team, that was a bad trade because Ritchie was a bust.

But that was about as bad as it gets for KW's trades. Generally, he's been pretty good--or lucky, which you also have to be--with his trades regarding pitchers.

jabrch
07-18-2008, 11:02 AM
Well, the Todd Ritchie trade could be termed a bust. While Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, and Sean Lowe did not turn out to be studs long-term for another team, that was a bad trade because Ritchie was a bust.

But that was about as bad as it gets for KW's trades. Generally, he's been pretty good--or lucky, which you also have to be--with his trades regarding pitchers.

That was his worst - and Wells, Fogg and Lowe really didn't amount to much.

Konerko05
07-18-2008, 11:15 AM
That was his worst - and Wells, Fogg and Lowe really didn't amount to much.

That was a horrible trade.

I'd also put that one up against Foulke/Koch.
Durham/Adkins was pretty bad too.

It is amazing to me that Williams has grown into such a good GM. I'll admit I didn't have high hopes after his first couple years.

jabrch
07-18-2008, 11:27 AM
That was a horrible trade.

I'd also put that one up against Foulke/Koch.
Durham/Adkins was pretty bad too.

It is amazing to me that Williams has grown into such a good GM. I'll admit I didn't have high hopes after his first couple years.

Why was it a horrible trade? We gave up what amounted to very little and got very little. Wells had two good seasons - and we sure could have used him. But HORRIBLE? DISASTER? No way.

Durham for Adkins you have to recall was in the context of Durham being a FA after the year, deciding we didn't want him, and judging the value of Adkins vs draft picks. There's no way you can call that horrible.

As far as Koch/Foulke, that has been discussed here quite a bit. The fact that Billy Koch totally sucked here was a disaster. But what we traded was 1 year of Foulke (a FA after that) for Neal Cotts. Cotts gave us a great one year also. Was it a win for us? Nope. But it surely wasn't a disasterous trade.

Konerko05
07-18-2008, 11:32 AM
Why was it a horrible trade? We gave up what amounted to very little and got very little. Wells had two good seasons - and we sure could have used him. But HORRIBLE? DISASTER? No way.

Durham for Adkins you have to recall was in the context of Durham being a FA after the year, deciding we didn't want him, and judging the value of Adkins vs draft picks. There's no way you can call that horrible.

As far as Koch/Foulke, that has been discussed here quite a bit. The fact that Billy Koch totally sucked here was a disaster. But what we traded was 1 year of Foulke (a FA after that) for Neal Cotts. Cotts gave us a great one year also. Was it a win for us? Nope. But it surely wasn't a disasterous trade.

They were all bad trades before a game was even played because Ritchie, Koch, and Adkins were horrible players. Trading for horrible players is never going to be a good trade.

jabrch
07-18-2008, 11:39 AM
They were all bad trades before a game was even played because Ritchie, Koch, and Adkins were horrible players. Trading for horrible players is never going to be a good trade.

First off, I never said it was a "good" trade. I said it wasn't horrible. Second, Koch was not a horrible player before the trade. That's silly. Third, Todd Ritchie wasn't horrible either. He was throwing well while pitching for a horrible team. He wasn't great - but we didn't give up anything to make it a horrible or disasterous trade at all.

voodoochile
07-18-2008, 11:47 AM
They were all bad trades before a game was even played because Ritchie, Koch, and Adkins were horrible players. Trading for horrible players is never going to be a good trade.

That's crap. Ritchie had been a workhorse for Pittsburgh before the Sox acquired him and Koch had been a top 5 closer in the league plus they got Cotts for a guy they weren't going to re-sign anyway.

Konerko05
07-18-2008, 11:47 AM
First off, I never said it was a "good" trade. I said it wasn't horrible. Second, Koch was not a horrible player before the trade. That's silly. Third, Todd Ritchie wasn't horrible either. He was throwing well while pitching for a horrible team. He wasn't great - but we didn't give up anything to make it a horrible or disasterous trade at all.

I'm not calling them horrible because they are "disasterous." I'm calling them horrible trades because of poor player/talent evaluation.

Ok, I'll give you Koch wasn't horrible before the trade, but he wasn't even in the same class as Keith Foulke. All he had was a 100mph fastball, and without it well we saw what happened without it.

Todd Ritchie was horrible. I could pull up quotes from me arguing with Daver about what a bad trade it was the day it happened. Ritchie was no better than Wells at the time and he was 5 years older. That is bad player/talent evaluation to target a guy like him and trade away young talent for.

Adkins? I'd rather take the draft picks. If you can't draft more talent than Jon Adkins, your organization is in trouble.

pmck003
07-18-2008, 11:53 AM
KW has guts to go against popular thought and he has come up with winners more than losers. You can also give credit to White Sox coaches and scouts, but it takes a good GM to act on the data they give him appropriately.

jabrch
07-18-2008, 11:57 AM
I'm not calling them horrible because they are "disasterous." I'm calling them horrible trades because of poor player/talent evaluation.

That's fine - I think you are completely wrong, but that's fine. You are now combining player/talent evaluation with evaluating a trade. I said, "what he hasn't had is a complete failure - where he gave up a player who became a stud and got a bust back." I'll stand by that statement.

Ok, I'll give you Koch wasn't horrible before the trade, but he wasn't even in the same class as Keith Foulke. All he had was a 100mph fastball, and without it well we saw what happened without it.

That's untrue. Koch was effective.

Todd Ritchie was horrible. I could pull up quotes from me arguing with Daver about what a bad trade it was the day it happened.

You were wrong then - and you are wrong still. Congrats on your consistency. Todd Ritchie was not horrible with Pittsburgh.

Adkins? I'd rather take the draft picks.

Again - we gave up nothing and got nothing. Not a horrible move. Not a disasterous move. Not a deal where we gave up a stud and got a bust. You just seem smarter than KW. That's cool. I'm sure the team you represent is doing wonderful.

Adele_H
07-18-2008, 12:01 PM
I was just sitting here thinking about the pitchers that KW has acquired through trade and I absolutely love what he has done.

His pitching trades have been one-sided to say the least.

Look at the Gavin Floyd trade from Philly or the Danks trade from Texas or even the Freddy Garcia and Contreras trades.

After looking at all of these trades I have absolute faith in the "under the radar, roundhouse kicking, Chuck Norris Ninja."

Alot of fans on here usually push the panic button when KW makes one of these types of trades especially when it's for one or two of our own young starters. But, look at his track record when it comes to acquiring other teams' pitching. It's amazing.

The only thing I worry about is after a while, other teams GMs may see him coming and look at KW's lopsided pitching trades and in the process not want to deal with him or the White Sox.

What do you think about this topic? After looking at this, I absolutely trust Kenny. (His track record shows it.)

Big fan of Freddy for Gavin Floyd-Gio Carrangi trade. Scouts were expecting Freddy Garcia's (and Matt Clement's for that matter) arm to fall off for a while at that point and when he lost 7-10 mph coming into 2006 campaign, the writing was on the wall big-time.

I liked MaCarthy probably more than most but he is another guy with that jerky max-effort over the top delivery that just screams arm trouble. You could also see some regression in 2006 as compared to better stuff he showed both in ST and down the stretch in 2005, so I bet Kenny Williams knew what he was doing.

If I could change one thing, I'd substitute Broadway (capitalizing on his impressive cup of coffee at the end of '07, perhaps?) for Gio in the Swisher trade, but it's quite possible that Sox tried that and were rebuffed in the same way D-Backs probably weren't as interested in Brian Anderson in place of Chris Young in Vazquez deal....

Too bad Mike MacDougal can't seem to put anything together; we'd really be somewhere if he righted ship.

Konerko05
07-18-2008, 12:02 PM
You just seem smarter than KW. That's cool. I'm sure the team you represent is doing wonderful.

Oh come on dude. In my original post in the thread I was saying how good of a GM Williams has become. I don't know why you're getting an attitude now. I didn't know we couldn't argue baseball on a baseball message board. My fantasy team is doing quite well too. Thanks.

EDIT: Fix my quotes in your last post. Things you said are in my quotes.

whitesox901
07-18-2008, 12:06 PM
I was just sitting here thinking about the pitchers that KW has acquired through trade and I absolutely love what he has done.

His pitching trades have been one-sided to say the least.

Look at the Gavin Floyd trade from Philly or the Danks trade from Texas or even the Freddy Garcia and Contreras trades.

After looking at all of these trades I have absolute faith in the "under the radar, roundhouse kicking, Chuck Norris Ninja."

Alot of fans on here usually push the panic button when KW makes one of these types of trades especially when it's for one or two of our own young starters. But, look at his track record when it comes to acquiring other teams' pitching. It's amazing.

The only thing I worry about is after a while, other teams GMs may see him coming and look at KW's lopsided pitching trades and in the process not want to deal with him or the White Sox.

What do you think about this topic? After looking at this, I absolutely trust Kenny. (His track record shows it.)

I was just talking to my friend Mike at work about how our GM has fleeced other teams for our really good starters and how Garica, McCarthy havnt even pitched at all this year, all he could brag about is Verlander

doublem23
07-18-2008, 12:07 PM
Again - we gave up nothing and got nothing. Not a horrible move. Not a disasterous move. Not a deal where we gave up a stud and got a bust. You just seem smarter than KW. That's cool. I'm sure the team you represent is doing wonderful.

The A's turned Durham into the 26th and 33rd overall pick in the 2003 Draft.

Notables that were still on the board: Carlos Quentin, Adam Miller, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Adam Jones, Tony Gwynn, Jr., Andre Etheir, Chris Ray, Shawn Marcum, Ryan Garko, Jonathan Papelbon, Ryan Braun, Sean Marshall, Matt Kemp, Reggie Willits, Aaron Laffey

Any of these players would have been an improvement over Jon Adkins. That trade was essentially 2 top 35 draft picks (not nothing) for nothing.

Adele_H
07-18-2008, 12:08 PM
As far as Koch/Foulke, that has been discussed here quite a bit. The fact that Billy Koch totally sucked here was a disaster. But what we traded was 1 year of Foulke (a FA after that) for Neal Cotts. Cotts gave us a great one year also. Was it a win for us? Nope. But it surely wasn't a disasterous trade.

Good point.

Without Koch killing momentum every chance he got in 2003, Sox may have been able to edge Twins out and make the playoffs. That team could have done a lot of damage in postseason, but it wasn't meant to be for both us and the Northsiders that year, I guess.

But without Cotts's underrated contributions as a set-up man in 2005, Sox may have been edged out by the surging Tribe afterall and failed to qualify for postseason...

So it works both ways.

Adele_H
07-18-2008, 12:16 PM
The A's turned Durham into the 26th and 33rd overall pick in the 2003 Draft.

Notables that were still on the board: Carlos Quentin, Adam Miller, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Adam Jones, Tony Gwynn, Jr., Andre Etheir, Chris Ray, Shawn Marcum, Ryan Garko, Jonathan Papelbon, Ryan Braun, Sean Marshall, Matt Kemp, Reggie Willits, Aaron Laffey

Any of these players would have been an improvement over Jon Adkins. That trade was essentially 2 top 35 draft picks (not nothing) for nothing.

I know impending work stoppage lessened Durham's value, but, yeah, Kenny totally mis-scouted Jon Adkins. Like Masset never coming close to "touching 98 mph", Adkins never came close to 96 mph, had no secondary pitches and didn't have the feel for pitching to harness tailing movement on his fastball. I still remember how he overwhelmed Manny Ramirez at Fenway on three pitches, then calmly gave up a near 500 foot dinger to David Ortiz even though there were 2 outs, ases empty and a weaker RH hitter was on deck, not very smart.

jabrch
07-18-2008, 12:29 PM
Oh come on dude. In my original post in the thread I was saying how good of a GM Williams has become. I don't know why you're getting an attitude now. I didn't know we couldn't argue baseball on a baseball message board. My fantasy team is doing quite well too. Thanks.

EDIT: Fix my quotes in your last post. Things you said are in my quotes.

Fixed the quotes - thanks...We can argue - I think we are. :)

jabrch
07-18-2008, 12:30 PM
The A's turned Durham into the 26th and 33rd overall pick in the 2003 Draft.

Notables that were still on the board: Carlos Quentin, Adam Miller, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Adam Jones, Tony Gwynn, Jr., Andre Etheir, Chris Ray, Shawn Marcum, Ryan Garko, Jonathan Papelbon, Ryan Braun, Sean Marshall, Matt Kemp, Reggie Willits, Aaron Laffey

Any of these players would have been an improvement over Jon Adkins. That trade was essentially 2 top 35 draft picks (not nothing) for nothing.

I don't disagree with what you are saying - but my point was that KW has not yet made a deal where he traded a star for a bust. Now maybe he could have kept Durham, offered him arbitration, had him walk, and draft two studs. Maybe he would have drafted two duds. But he made a decision which did not come back to bite him in the ass.

My only point is KW has yet to make a move that was so easy to call a failure because it was a horrible disaster of the highest magnitude where you give up a guy who becomes someone else's MVP and you get nothing in return. Other GMs dealing with KW the past few years might be at risk of the inverse.

doublem23
07-18-2008, 12:32 PM
I don't disagree with what you are saying - but my point was that KW has not yet made a deal where he traded a star for a bust.

True... If the worst moves you're making as a GM are trading your crap for someone else's crap, you can't be doing that bad of a job.

jabrch
07-18-2008, 12:38 PM
True... If the worst moves you're making as a GM are trading your crap for someone else's crap, you can't be doing that bad of a job.

That's exactly my point. Thanks for rephrasing it.

Group his deals in three categories

Positive


Neutral


Negative


Even the ones in the negative did not end up costing him because he hasn't yet given up a star for junk.

In my opinion, his worst COULD have end up being Javy for Young, if Young ever learned to hit. And even that, Javy had one good season for us and one OK year. (shame he didn't have his good year in 06 when we needed it, and he was just about the only good thing we had in 07 when our team sucked)

That said, Chris Young is looking worse - not better. Still barely hitting my weight and still not OPSing over .300. SLG% and SBs are both down - so even that deal is looking better in hindsight.

Tragg
07-18-2008, 01:10 PM
Then there are Todd Ritchie, Bill Koch, David Wells, MacDougal. The former 2 arguably (possibly) cost us 2 playoff appearances.

It's Dankerific
07-18-2008, 01:26 PM
First off, I never said it was a "good" trade. I said it wasn't horrible. Second, Koch was not a horrible player before the trade. That's silly. Third, Todd Ritchie wasn't horrible either. He was throwing well while pitching for a horrible team. He wasn't great - but we didn't give up anything to make it a horrible or disasterous trade at all.

Kip Wells had a couple good seasons with a good ERA but a low W total (its the pirates).

Josh Fogg started in the WS last year.

Todd Ritchie sucked beyond belief.

That trade was certainly a failure.

Look, we can give KW lots of props for ALL the good things he does, but its ridiculous to pretend that he's never made mistakes. (BAD mistakes)

getonbckthr
07-18-2008, 01:39 PM
Bitching about KW because Koch fell apart is bull ****. Koch had some kind of physical medical problem that nobody saw coming. I forgot what it was but if I remember correctly the problem basically left you without energy.

getonbckthr
07-18-2008, 01:41 PM
The A's turned Durham into the 26th and 33rd overall pick in the 2003 Draft.

Notables that were still on the board: Carlos Quentin, Adam Miller, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Adam Jones, Tony Gwynn, Jr., Andre Etheir, Chris Ray, Shawn Marcum, Ryan Garko, Jonathan Papelbon, Ryan Braun, Sean Marshall, Matt Kemp, Reggie Willits, Aaron Laffey

Any of these players would have been an improvement over Jon Adkins. That trade was essentially 2 top 35 draft picks (not nothing) for nothing.
I'm just curious based on our drafting style at the time would have we even drafted any of those guys?

Adele_H
07-18-2008, 01:51 PM
Bitching about KW because Koch fell apart is bull ****. Koch had some kind of physical medical problem that nobody saw coming. I forgot what it was but if I remember correctly the problem basically left you without energy.
Mod Edit: Accusation when the facts proved otherwise.

I forgot about unearthing Loaiza, which gave us a chance to win World Series in 2003... then turning him into Contreras who gave us a chance to win in 2005-2006 before he got hurt. Nice job, K-Dub.

TornLabrum
07-18-2008, 02:00 PM
Mod Edit: Accusation when the facts proved otherwise.
I forgot about unearthing Loaiza, which gave us a chance to win World Series in 2003... then turning him into Contreras who gave us a chance to win in 2005-2006 before he got hurt. Nice job, K-Dub.

Actually he did have a medical problem, Morgellons Disease. So did his wife and three kids.

Please note that it's not good to make accusations around here without proof. It can put you on vacation.

PaleHoser
07-18-2008, 02:05 PM
Don't forget Matt Thornton for Joe Borchard!

NSFWSoxFan
07-18-2008, 02:09 PM
Mod Edit: Accusation when the facts proved otherwise.

I forgot about unearthing Loaiza, which gave us a chance to win World Series in 2003... then turning him into Contreras who gave us a chance to win in 2005-2006 before he got hurt. Nice job, K-Dub.Sheesh. I was going to ask Adele for some backup for her assertion about Billy Koch, but I see it has disappeared. So how can I ask now?

The whole Billy Koch thing was quite the mystery. People still dispute the validity of the disease process that Koch said he, his wife and his children all suffered from. Hard to be sick and have people call you crazy, too.

TornLabrum
07-18-2008, 02:17 PM
Sheesh. I was going to ask Adele for some backup for her assertion about Billy Koch, but I see it has disappeared. So how can I ask now?

The whole Billy Koch thing was quite the mystery. People still dispute the validity of the disease process that Koch said he, his wife and his children all suffered from. Hard to be sick and have people call you crazy, too.

Oh? Ask people from when I was growing up who suffered from asthma.

For a symptom of the disease and it's symptoms from a couple of years ago, coming form Mrs. Koch: http://www.ktvu.com/news/9264350/detail.html

NSFWSoxFan
07-18-2008, 02:41 PM
Oh? Ask people from when I was growing up who suffered from asthma.

For a symptom of the disease and it's symptoms from a couple of years ago, coming form Mrs. Koch: http://www.ktvu.com/news/9264350/detail.html
Asthma has been described in the medical literature since the mid-1800's. The disease has probably been recognized for centuries before that. What physician doubts its validity? "Morgellons Disease" can hardly be said to be widely accepted in the medical community. I've read information in the popular press such as what you linked to. I'm sure you understand that there is more than one view on this.

I don't doubt that Koch and his family suffer from something. What that is remains to be proved. Like I said, it's no fun to have people call you crazy when you're sick.

TornLabrum
07-18-2008, 03:02 PM
Asthma has been described in the medical literature since the mid-1800's. The disease has probably been recognized for centuries before that. What physician doubts its validity? "Morgellons Disease" can hardly be said to be widely accepted in the medical community. I've read information in the popular press such as what you linked to. I'm sure you understand that there is more than one view on this.

I don't doubt that Koch and his family suffer from something. What that is remains to be proved. Like I said, it's no fun to have people call you crazy when you're sick.

Asthma was widely considered to be a psychosomatic disease as recently as the 1950s or '60s that I recall. The patients were sick. They were called crazy.

At any rate, there is no confusing what some call Morgellons disease with what Koch was accused of by the poster, and it wasn't being crazy.

SoxfaninLA
07-18-2008, 03:30 PM
The A's turned Durham into the 26th and 33rd overall pick in the 2003 Draft.

Notables that were still on the board: Carlos Quentin, Adam Miller, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Adam Jones, Tony Gwynn, Jr., Andre Etheir, Chris Ray, Shawn Marcum, Ryan Garko, Jonathan Papelbon, Ryan Braun, Sean Marshall, Matt Kemp, Reggie Willits, Aaron Laffey

Any of these players would have been an improvement over Jon Adkins. That trade was essentially 2 top 35 draft picks (not nothing) for nothing.

I think part of the problem at the time was that the CBA was running out, and it was put out there that draft pick compensation for free agents was either totally going away or was going to be altered into a lesser form of compensation than what we see today. Basically, at the time it looked like in the new CBA that compensation was going to be eliminated, so Jon Adkins was looking better than nothing. Of course looking back they ended up keeping the whole compensation structure and the A's got two nice draft picks for him so Kenny kind of looks like an idiot, but the circumstances when Durham was traded were different.

To me hands down the worst trade was the Ritchie one. I didn't care for it at the time because I felt like Kenny has overpaid, and I really hated it when Ritchie promptly turned into a gascan every time he took the mound for us. Truly an awful pitcher, Navarro bad.

The Koch trade in hindsight looked pretty bad as well, but at the time I didn't mind the trade. I remember Foulke's last year here Manual had seemed to have lost confidence in him. He only had 11 saves on the year and 2 after June 27th, and it seemed to be turning into a situation where he was never going to be able to rebuild his confidence here.

Lip Man 1
07-18-2008, 03:37 PM
That is true... the compensation picks were supposed to be eliminated. In an effort to get some sort of deal and avert another labor impasse in August 2002, both the owners and the MLBPA agreed to table the compensation issue for later.

It was supposed to be worked out between the two sides and go into effect but they never could reach any kind of agreement with it and the compensation picks remained.

Lip

MisterB
07-18-2008, 04:33 PM
I think part of the problem at the time was that the CBA was running out, and it was put out there that draft pick compensation for free agents was either totally going away or was going to be altered into a lesser form of compensation than what we see today. Basically, at the time it looked like in the new CBA that compensation was going to be eliminated, so Jon Adkins was looking better than nothing. Of course looking back they ended up keeping the whole compensation structure and the A's got two nice draft picks for him so Kenny kind of looks like an idiot, but the circumstances when Durham was traded were different.



Well, it's not like the A's did much with those picks. One is now the Rockies' utility IF, the other is 26 and still can't hit his way out of AA ball.

SoxfaninLA
07-18-2008, 05:24 PM
Well, it's not like the A's did much with those picks. One is now the Rockies' utility IF, the other is 26 and still can't hit his way out of AA ball.

Very true, the players themselves at this point aren't really worth anything. The fact that they were top 35 picks meant that at the time they were worth quite a bit. The fact that the A's pissed them away is a whole different discussion. Fact of the matter is considering the Sox recent draft track record we probably could have expected a similar outcome if we had received those two picks instead of Oakland having them.

FarWestChicago
07-18-2008, 06:21 PM
I can think of several WSI posters I would rather have as GM than Kenny.

Tragg
07-18-2008, 08:12 PM
Williams' specialty is finding guys who are a touched flawed, or who are not completely developed, that are relatively low in price that he can improve.
When he goes all in and tries to muscle a proven pitcher (or player), his trades are far less successful.
He paid a lot more for Swisher than for Quentin; for Ritchie than for Floyd; for MacDougal than for Thornton.
Sure many of the small trades haven't worked ....but then, few caused any harm either (we didn't lose anything)....some of the bad big trades did cause harm.

gr8mexico
07-18-2008, 08:47 PM
I wonder if the Sox could make an offer for Homer Bailey . He has been looking really bad in Cincy. But what would you give up for him? Maybe Branson Arroyo and Homer Bailey for Jose Contreras,Chris Getz, Clayton Richards. The Reds get rid of Arroyo's contract for the 2010 season and the team option in 2011.

SoxFan64
07-18-2008, 08:59 PM
Williams' specialty is finding guys who are a touched flawed, or who are not completely developed, that are relatively low in price that he can improve.
When he goes all in and tries to muscle a proven pitcher (or player), his trades are far less successful.
He paid a lot more for Swisher than for Quentin; for Ritchie than for Floyd; for MacDougal than for Thornton.
Sure many of the small trades haven't worked ....but then, few caused any harm either (we didn't lose anything)....some of the bad big trades did cause harm.

Makes sense and I generally agree with main point. However when you look at the Garcia trade in 2004 with Seattle there is a hole in the main argument . That was an established player coming here with Ben Davis for a prospect, Jeremy Reed, that was an earlier version of Chris Young, and a young catcher Miguel Olivo.

Tragg
07-18-2008, 10:38 PM
Makes sense and I generally agree with main point. However when you look at the Garcia trade in 2004 with Seattle there is a hole in the main argument . That was an established player coming here with Ben Davis for a prospect, Jeremy Reed, that was an earlier version of Chris Young, and a young catcher Miguel Olivo.
It's not a hole in the argument....I certainly don't suggest he's been o-fer in those trades. The Javier trade could be an exception as well. Soe of this stuff I read - give everything to get a declining Roy Oswalt (or whomever) is just silly.

Just a side point - Jeremy Reed was not the prospect Chris Young was. Reed was a darling of the staheads. Young was the darling of the stat heads and scouts. But he hasn't been able to cure his weakness....Ks

A. Cavatica
07-18-2008, 11:25 PM
Last year, KW had a series of small deals that failed: Cotts for Aardsma, Gload for Sisco, etc. This past offseason, almost everything worked.

Those of you who criticize Young-for-Vazquez should remember: if Arizona didn't have Young, they'd have had room in their outfield for Carlos Quentin. I'd rather have Quentin than Young and Vazquez than Chris Carter!

jabrch
07-18-2008, 11:31 PM
Last year, KW had a series of small deals that failed: Cotts for Aardsma, Gload for Sisco, etc. This past offseason, almost everything worked.

I'd disagree in calling those failures since we didn't give up anything of value...

Tragg
07-18-2008, 11:40 PM
Last year, KW had a series of small deals that failed: Cotts for Aardsma, Gload for Sisco, etc. This past offseason, almost everything worked.

They didn't cause any harm.
His success/not-success % is probably about equal on the small and large trades. The difference is that the rewards have been similar, but the risk has been far less on the small trades.
Jabrch takes a lot of stuff out of context because he has half the board on ignore.