PDA

View Full Version : Swisher ?


NLaloosh
05-15-2009, 01:49 PM
Has Nick Swisher done more for the Yankees in the month of April than Marquez, Betemit and Nunez will do for the Sox the entire season ?

CashMan
05-15-2009, 02:00 PM
Has Nick Swisher done more for the Yankees in the month of April than Marquez, Betemit and Nunez will do for the Sox the entire season ?


Swisher is a corner OF, where did you want him to play, LF for TCQ?

TDog
05-15-2009, 02:06 PM
Has Nick Swisher done more for the Yankees in the month of April than Marquez, Betemit and Nunez will do for the Sox the entire season ?

The question is irrelevant because the White Sox are best rid of Nick Swisher regardless of who they got back in return.

But I just looked it up, and after hitting .312 and slugging .714 in April, he has gone 3-for-32 (.094) in May. His average for the season has dropped to .248. In 32 at bats in May, he has struck out 16 times.

Don't worry about Nick Swisher. Just be happy the White Sox don't have to pay his salary anymore.

Rocky Soprano
05-15-2009, 02:09 PM
Has Nick Swisher done more for the Yankees in the month of April than Marquez, Betemit and Nunez will do for the Sox the entire season ?

:rolleyes:

Didn't know April was all that counted.

doublem23
05-15-2009, 02:11 PM
Nick Swisher in May:

10 G, .100/.243/.233, 1 HR, 2 RBI, 5 BB, 16 K, 1 SF

Awesome. :thumbsup:

KenBerryGrab
05-15-2009, 02:12 PM
And we don't have to watch his disconcerting look-to-the-sky act before each pitch. That really bugged me.

NLaloosh
05-15-2009, 02:18 PM
The point is that he's already helped the Yankees win games. The guys that the Sox got back for him have done nothing and likely will do nothing this season.

Apparently, this guy was the biggest pain in the butt ever. Otherwise I can't see how trading him made any sense. The Sox really could have used him this year.

jdm2662
05-15-2009, 02:26 PM
What Nick Swisher has done is the same thing he did last year for the Sox. Started out hot in April, and then he fell off the face of the Earth as indicated by both TDog and Doub. But, I'm sure he has done plenty interviews and leads the team in high fives.

spawn
05-15-2009, 02:27 PM
Apparently, this guy was the biggest pain in the butt ever. Otherwise I can't see how trading him made any sense. The Sox really could have used him this year.
Yeah, because heworked out so well last year. Besides, the reason he did so well to start the season was because Joe Girardi is like, the best dude EVAH!!!

thedudeabides
05-15-2009, 02:31 PM
The point is that he's already helped the Yankees win games. The guys that the Sox got back for him have done nothing and likely will do nothing this season.

Apparently, this guy was the biggest pain in the butt ever. Otherwise I can't see how trading him made any sense. The Sox really could have used him this year.


We did fine in April without him. If you want to play the what if game, imagine how bad our lineup would be in May with him?

If you want to say he helped the Yankees win games in April, your right he did, but is he helping them lose games in May?

When all is said and done, I will be surprised if he even finishes the season with the Yankees.

dwalteroo
05-15-2009, 02:40 PM
And we don't have to watch his disconcerting look-to-the-sky act before each pitch. That really bugged me.

His look-to-the-sky thing may be the most annoying routine in all of baseball, for all time. I'm glad that is no longer a "White Sox tradition."

Brian26
05-15-2009, 02:44 PM
Has Nick Swisher done more for the Yankees in the month of April than Marquez, Betemit and Nunez will do for the Sox the entire season ?

Has Marquez contributed more to the Sox on the DL this month than Swisher did for the entire last six weeks of the season last year?

Rocky Soprano
05-15-2009, 02:45 PM
The point is that he's already helped the Yankees win games. The guys that the Sox got back for him have done nothing and likely will do nothing this season.

Apparently, this guy was the biggest pain in the butt ever. Otherwise I can't see how trading him made any sense. The Sox really could have used him this year.

The REAL point is that it was only the first month of the season.
So what you are saying is that it would of been worth keeping him just so he could of possibly helped us win some more games in April, right?

Who cares about May - October!

spawn
05-15-2009, 02:51 PM
The REAL point is that it was only the first month of the season.
So what you are saying is that it would of been worth keeping him just so he could of possibly helped us win some more games in April, right?

Who cares about May - October!
Here's the funy thing about him helping the Yankees win games in April...they're still a .500 team in 3rd place, so he obviously hasn't won them enough games to win the coveted April Word Series Championship.

kobo
05-15-2009, 03:00 PM
Apparently, this guy was the biggest pain in the butt ever. Otherwise I can't see how trading him made any sense. The Sox really could have used him this year.
And where would he have played? He can't play CF and he wasn't going to replace Dye or Quentin. If you think he would have sat on the bench look how that turned out at the end of last year. Simply put, he had no role on this team, and I'm glad him and his attitude are gone.

PalehosePlanet
05-15-2009, 03:04 PM
The truth is KW still sold low on Swisher. He basically just gave him away.

Had we kept him then traded him after he had an April completely out of his ass, we could have scored a much better return.

southside rocks
05-15-2009, 03:06 PM
The truth is KW still sold low on Swisher. He basically just gave him away.

Had we kept him then traded him after he had an April completely out of his ass, we could have scored a much better return.

Yes, it was very apparent last fall, while Swisher was being totally non-productive and a ginormous jerk to boot, that he would have a blazing April 2009.

Really, Swisher was one of KW's mistakes, one of his losing trades; and like any good trader, KW cut his losses on that trade and didn't let it ride. I give him props for that. But I do miss Ryan Sweeney. :tongue:

jdm2662
05-15-2009, 03:07 PM
The truth is KW still sold low on Swisher. He basically just gave him away.

Had we kept him then traded him after he had an April completely out of his ass, we could have scored a much better return.

And, if he did that, this whole board would go ape **** for trading him after an awesome month. Whether or not the Sox could've gotten more is debatable, but having him on the team this year was not an option, period. The only question that should be asked is why the Sox traded for him in the first place. I liked it at first, but I guess I didn't know the real Nick Swisher.

southside rocks
05-15-2009, 03:08 PM
Has Nick Swisher done more for the Yankees in the month of April than Marquez, Betemit and Nunez will do for the Sox the entire season ?

I can't answer this until I know what Marquez, Betamit and Nunez will do for the rest of the year.

And a peek at the winning lottery numbers for the next ten weekends would be nice, too.

thedudeabides
05-15-2009, 03:09 PM
The truth is KW still sold low on Swisher. He basically just gave him away.

Had we kept him then traded him after he had an April completely out of his ass, we could have scored a much better return.

The problem is, not many teams are taking on salary, so the trade partners were practically non-existant, especially when there were other free agent outfield bargains out there.

I don't think keeping him was even an option. He struggles and complains out of the gate and nobody would take him. Nobody.

The return wasn't optimal, but Kenny decided to cut his losses and get rid of the salary, and get what he could from the Yankees. The only team willing to pay his salary to be a potential bench player.

I'll say it again, I doubt he even finishes the year with the Yankees.

PalehosePlanet
05-15-2009, 03:13 PM
And, if he did that, this whole board would go ape **** for trading him after an awesome month. Whether or not the Sox could've gotten more is debatable, but having him on the team this year was not an option, period. The only question that should be asked is why the Sox traded for him in the first place. I liked it at first, but I guess I didn't know the real Nick Swisher.

Good points, I agree, it's just that I personally don't believe in trading/selling low. No one outside the organization knew what a turd he was so that shouldn't have hurt a potential trade.

NLaloosh
05-15-2009, 03:41 PM
I know that the Sox were cutting payroll over the winter but I've never seen a team with such a shortage of outfielders in the entire organization.

It would be something else if Kenny picked up a decent outfielder but to rely on Wise and Owens ? Un*******believable!

How is it Swisher was tolerable in Oakland for years ? The Sox should have kept him for one more year considering their dearth of OFers - especially since they gave him away for nothing.

TDog
05-15-2009, 03:44 PM
The truth is KW still sold low on Swisher. He basically just gave him away.

Had we kept him then traded him after he had an April completely out of his ass, we could have scored a much better return.

The White Sox had no choice but to sell low on Swisher. He couldn't be expected to have a great April. He wouldn't have had a great April in Chicago because he wouldn't have been playing enough. The longer the White Sox waited, the lower his value would drop.

The White Sox could have released Swisher, but would have had to pay his salary, or at least the bulk of it. The A's probably would sign him (as they do players who are mostly being paid by other teams, such as Frank Thomas last season when he had almost nothing left), despite the fact that the A's were better off without him.

I was angry about trading for Swisher the day the trade was announced. What the White Sox got for Swisher when they dumped him after the season is irrelevant. The key to the deal was not having Nick Swisher play for the White Sox ever again.

kittle42
05-15-2009, 04:00 PM
How is it Swisher was tolerable in Oakland for years ? The Sox should have kept him for one more year considering their dearth of OFers - especially since they gave him away for nothing.

When you're worth nothing, you draw nothing in return.

doublem23
05-15-2009, 04:06 PM
I know that the Sox were cutting payroll over the winter but I've never seen a team with such a shortage of outfielders in the entire organization.

It would be something else if Kenny picked up a decent outfielder but to rely on Wise and Owens ? Un*******believable!

How is it Swisher was tolerable in Oakland for years ? The Sox should have kept him for one more year considering their dearth of OFers - especially since they gave him away for nothing.

Except that Swisher is not a utility player in his mind. We all saw what happened the last weeks of last year when he was relegated to the bench, he pouted and lost all that "crazy fun charm" that everyone loved.

Obviously, if you want me to say I'd take Swisher's skill over Lillibridge's as the team's utility outfielder I will, but this isn't a video game, personalities and chemistry have to be taken into account, too, and Swisher, at this point in his career, seems unwilling to play the role of 4th OF. That's fine, we parted ways, and yes, we didn't get much of a haul for him, but KW was able to get the Yankees to take on his entire salary. That, in and of itself, made the trade a push.

KenBerryGrab
05-15-2009, 04:16 PM
When you're worth nothing, you draw nothing in return.

You're invisible now, you have no secrets to conceeeee-alllllllll.....

russ99
05-15-2009, 05:11 PM
The White Sox had no choice but to sell low on Swisher. He couldn't be expected to have a great April. He wouldn't have had a great April in Chicago because he wouldn't have been playing enough. The longer the White Sox waited, the lower his value would drop.

The White Sox could have released Swisher, but would have had to pay his salary, or at least the bulk of it. The A's probably would sign him (as they do players who are mostly being paid by other teams, such as Frank Thomas last season when he had almost nothing left), despite the fact that the A's were better off without him.

I was angry about trading for Swisher the day the trade was announced. What the White Sox got for Swisher when they dumped him after the season is irrelevant. The key to the deal was not having Nick Swisher play for the White Sox ever again.

Let's be honest here. Trading Swisher had very little to do with his numbers last year or his overall attitude. He was the easiest guy to trade with a larger salary in order to cut the payoll, as mandated by ownership. Considering Swisher's overall talent level, potential power-hitting upside, age, etc. do you really think Kenny would sell so low on him otherwise?

balke
05-15-2009, 05:50 PM
Hahaha. 3-32 in April and he's landed back on planet earth hitting .248.

Get over yourselves armchair GMs. Be glad the Sox dumped this salary. They will need money going forward to find a real future 1Bman, real 3B, or real Cf when it comes available.

DSpivack
05-15-2009, 06:24 PM
Let's be honest here. Trading Swisher had very little to do with his numbers last year or his overall attitude. He was the easiest guy to trade with a larger salary in order to cut the payoll, as mandated by ownership. Considering Swisher's overall talent level, potential power-hitting upside, age, etc. do you really think Kenny would sell so low on him otherwise?

Swisher blows. For $7 million or whatever it was, he blows even more. Trading him was a smart move, whatever your "Reinsdorf is cheap" thoughts be damned.

TDog
05-15-2009, 06:51 PM
Let's be honest here. Trading Swisher had very little to do with his numbers last year or his overall attitude. He was the easiest guy to trade with a larger salary in order to cut the payoll, as mandated by ownership. Considering Swisher's overall talent level, potential power-hitting upside, age, etc. do you really think Kenny would sell so low on him otherwise?

Trading Swisher was about payroll in the respect that the White Sox didn't Swisher's salary sucked into the black hole that his career has become. The White Sox traded for Swisher believing his contract was a bargain.

If Nick Swisher had the potential to be a productive hitter with versatile defensive skills, as the White Sox perceived him, he wouldn't have been traded. In fact, if the A's had confidence in Swisher being that player the White Sox had believed he would be, they wouldn't have traded him to the White Sox in the first place.

Billy Ashley
05-15-2009, 07:59 PM
Trading Swisher was about payroll in the respect that the White Sox didn't Swisher's salary sucked into the black hole that his career has become. The White Sox traded for Swisher believing his contract was a bargain.

If Nick Swisher had the potential to be a productive hitter with versatile defensive skills, as the White Sox perceived him, he wouldn't have been traded. In fact, if the A's had confidence in Swisher being that player the White Sox had believed he would be, they wouldn't have traded him to the White Sox in the first place.


What black hole? He's been a bad offensive player exactly one season. A season in which his BABIP was really low despite his line drive rates being virtually identical to his career norms. His OPS+ is close to 150 this year.

Sure, he's not a 900 OPS guy, but he's an .830-.850 type hitter. Argue he was a pain in the ass, argue that he didn't make sense on the White Sox- but the black hole comment's just about 100% incorrect.

JB98
05-15-2009, 08:19 PM
Just be glad the Sox don't have to pay Swisher to play mediocre baseball for the Yankees.

TDog
05-15-2009, 08:21 PM
What black hole? He's been a bad offensive player exactly one season. A season in which his BABIP was really low despite his line drive rates being virtually identical to his career norms. His OPS+ is close to 150 this year.

Sure, he's not a 900 OPS guy, but he's an .830-.850 type hitter. Argue he was a pain in the ass, argue that he didn't make sense on the White Sox- but the black hole comment's just about 100% incorrect.

Nick Swisher had a pretty good season in 2006. He fell off in 2007, and got progressively worse as the season progressed. He had a lousy 2008, and if striking out in 16 of 32 at bats in May is any indication, he is in store for an even worse 2009.

He has moments. His personality will make him popular with some fans, but he his career is falling down the drain.

I can't take credit for the "black hole" analysis. That came from sports talk radio in Oakland near the end of 2007 when he was still a member of the A's. And it's more true today than it was then.

thedudeabides
05-15-2009, 08:44 PM
What black hole? He's been a bad offensive player exactly one season. A season in which his BABIP was really low despite his line drive rates being virtually identical to his career norms. His OPS+ is close to 150 this year.

Sure, he's not a 900 OPS guy, but he's an .830-.850 type hitter. Argue he was a pain in the ass, argue that he didn't make sense on the White Sox- but the black hole comment's just about 100% incorrect.

I know your going to stick up for Swisher, because you were already patting yourself on the back for calling his rebound. And the only thing Swisher defenders have had to go on was his unlucky BAPIP and line drive %. If you watched him bat last year, it was clear his bat was very slow and his approach was awful. Pitchers new if you got ahead of him, he was an easy out. He was taking pitches to a fault and was never aggressive enough in the strike zone, especially with runners on base.

Now, I haven't seen him hit at all this year, but unless he changed his approach his career is going to continue to trend down hard. And if he continues to struggle and gets benched or boo'ed, it is not going to go well. Some of the veterans in the clubhouse have already been stirring about his act in New York.

balke
05-15-2009, 09:32 PM
What black hole? He's been a bad offensive player exactly one season. A season in which his BABIP was really low despite his line drive rates being virtually identical to his career norms. His OPS+ is close to 150 this year.

Sure, he's not a 900 OPS guy, but he's an .830-.850 type hitter. Argue he was a pain in the ass, argue that he didn't make sense on the White Sox- but the black hole comment's just about 100% incorrect.

He's Raul Mondesi with more walks and a lower batting average. I'd rather not see the sox spend 21 million on that.

Billy Ashley
05-15-2009, 09:57 PM
He's Raul Mondesi with more walks and a lower batting average. I'd rather not see the sox spend 21 million on that.

I actually agree with the comparison here. If you don't think that makes sense for the White Sox (and given the fact that he's not a good defensive CF, that position is more than defensible) than fine. But he's not a bad offensive player. Just not an amazing one.

As for his struggles in May. He's an incredibly streaky hitter. He's not as good as he looked in April, nor is as bad as he looks in May.

JohnTucker0814
05-15-2009, 10:03 PM
I'm glad his attitude is gone from this team. Did you see his reaction in the 9th inning tonight after Morneau made a real nice play on him. He stood down the first base line looking around like, that's not supposed to happen to me. He stood there like he was waiting for the umpire to tell him, it's okay Nicky... you'll get em next time! He just seems like a cry baby, and he proved it at the end of last year!

I just can't stand this guy!

Billy Ashley
05-15-2009, 10:04 PM
Nick Swisher had a pretty good season in 2006. He fell off in 2007, and got progressively worse as the season progressed. He had a lousy 2008, and if striking out in 16 of 32 at bats in May is any indication, he is in store for an even worse 2009.

He has moments. His personality will make him popular with some fans, but he his career is falling down the drain.

I can't take credit for the "black hole" analysis. That came from sports talk radio in Oakland near the end of 2007 when he was still a member of the A's. And it's more true today than it was then.

This would be correct if it were true. Sadly, most of it is not.

He actually posted a better OPS+ in 07 than he did in 06 (by a teeney weeney margin).

In 2009 he's had an amazing month and an awful one. His OPS still stands at .949 though.

He'll post an OPS around .850 this year and provide above average defense in right field. That's worth about 12-14 million dollars in any free agent market other than last off-season.

Kenny Williams trading Swisher may have been the right move because Dye and Quentin were better options/ would return less (obviously, I think the issue of return is more important in regards to Dye).

Nick Swisher isn't a CF. The White Sox needed one. Do I like the trade for the White Sox? Not really, but I'm willing to accept that last year was a very odd market and Williams needed to lose an outfielder. Was it a perfect situation? Not at all, but we'll never know what else Williams could ahve gotten for him.

canOcorn
05-15-2009, 10:38 PM
Has Nick Swisher done more for the Yankees in the month of April than Marquez, Betemit and Nunez will do for the Sox the entire season ?

Yes.

Nunez might pan out to be good reliever. We gave up huge trading chips, that could have brought an enormous haul to get Nunez. That looks pathetic at this point. :(:

TDog
05-15-2009, 10:55 PM
This would be correct if it were true. Sadly, most of it is not.

He actually posted a better OPS+ in 07 than he did in 06 (by a teeney weeney margin).

In 2009 he's had an amazing month and an awful one. His OPS still stands at .949 though.

He'll post an OPS around .850 this year and provide above average defense in right field. That's worth about 12-14 million dollars in any free agent market other than last off-season.

Kenny Williams trading Swisher may have been the right move because Dye and Quentin were better options/ would return less (obviously, I think the issue of return is more important in regards to Dye).

Nick Swisher isn't a CF. The White Sox needed one. Do I like the trade for the White Sox? Not really, but I'm willing to accept that last year was a very odd market and Williams needed to lose an outfielder. Was it a perfect situation? Not at all, but we'll never know what else Williams could ahve gotten for him.

OPS can be a deceptive statistic. Most statistics are like that. People who watched Nick Swisher play baseball when he was the A's regular centerfielder for most of 2007 could see that he was having a down year.

I know actually watching baseball is out of fashion, though.

It was like the White Sox didn't even scout him. Or if they did, they hoped getting out of Oakland would turn him around. Unfortunately, he had an even worse year in 2008. Statistically, he can't help but have a better year in 2009, but I don't see him hitting over .250. If he can't hit .250, I really don't care what his on-base percentage is.

JB98
05-15-2009, 11:01 PM
OPS can be a deceptive statistic. Most statistics are like that. People who watched Nick Swisher play baseball when he was the A's regular centerfielder for most of 2007 could see that he was having a down year.

I know actually watching baseball is out of fashion, though.

It was like the White Sox didn't even scout him. Or if they did, they hoped getting out of Oakland would turn him around. Unfortunately, he had an even worse year in 2008. Statistically, he can't help but have a better year in 2009, but I don't see him hitting over .250. If he can't hit .250, I really don't care what his on-base percentage is.

As we speak, his average is down to .248. So much for the hot start.

Billy Ashley
05-15-2009, 11:19 PM
OPS can be a deceptive statistic. Most statistics are like that. People who watched Nick Swisher play baseball when he was the A's regular centerfielder for most of 2007 could see that he was having a down year.

I know actually watching baseball is out of fashion, though.

It was like the White Sox didn't even scout him. Or if they did, they hoped getting out of Oakland would turn him around. Unfortunately, he had an even worse year in 2008. Statistically, he can't help but have a better year in 2009, but I don't see him hitting over .250. If he can't hit .250, I really don't care what his on-base percentage is.

I'm going to ignore most of this- as it is nonsensical. I do watch baseball, and I do think scouting is vital to baseball operations.

I'm certain the White Sox have scouted Nick Swisher since he was in the minors. He was a well regarded prospect. Furthermore, advanced scouts likely know his strengths and weaknesses as a hitter, his ability in the field and so on.

If one adjusted for the league- he actually had a better season in 2008 than 07. If one chooses to ignore ball park and seasonal adjustments (which doesn't make much sense) this following is true:

Swisher had a better batting average, more walks, more doubles and fewer strike outs in 08 than 07. The only area in which Swisher was noticeably better was his home run output. While I agree, that the home runs were a bit of a fluke- everything else appears real.

Swisher should have been better in 09. Leaving a hitter's hell to a hitter's heaven would usually be a precursor to big things. It didn't work out. His peripherals remained very consistent however, just further evidence that this game is impossible to predict at times.

Several posters have made it a habit to claim that I ignore scouts- I don't.

Swisher is generally seen as rating as a 50 or better in terms of power, running and fielding. Below 50 in batting average. He's a good fielding, Adam Dunn with significantly less power.

Scouts are people who've spent years developing the skills necessary to be good at what they do. Manny of them are former players had seen time in college, semi-pro and professional leagues. They spend hours tracking the speed of every pitch, monitoring the release point as a pitcher releases the ball, analyzing mechanical complexities of swings.

I have a hell of a lot more respect for scouts than the posters here who claim to be them. I would never claim to be as good as they are at their jobs.

Billy Ashley
05-15-2009, 11:21 PM
As we speak, his average is down to .248. So much for the hot start.

And his OPS would currently only best the top white sox batter by 100 points. As someone pointed out earlier, He's essentially Raul Mondesi.

Argue he didn't make sense on the white sox and Kenny had to deal him (that's very likely correct) but don't argue he's a worthless hitter, it's a foolish statement.

jabrch
05-15-2009, 11:25 PM
The truth is KW still sold low on Swisher. He basically just gave him away.

And we were lucky to have not to had to eat any of his contract...

Had we kept him then traded him after he had an April completely out of his ass, we could have scored a much better return.

Not necesarily...nobody is just taking on salary right now.

JB98
05-15-2009, 11:53 PM
And his OPS would currently only best the top white sox batter by 100 points. As someone pointed out earlier, He's essentially Raul Mondesi.

Argue he didn't make sense on the white sox and Kenny had to deal him (that's very likely correct) but don't argue he's a worthless hitter, it's a foolish statement.

His only value as a hitter is that he sees a lot of pitches. That's really it.

I just don't think Swisher is a very good baseball player, in any aspect of the game.

TDog
05-16-2009, 12:38 AM
His only value as a hitter is that he sees a lot of pitches. That's really it.

I just don't think Swisher is a very good baseball player, in any aspect of the game.

The fact that a statistical argument can be made to the contrary is more an indictment of the statistics than Swisher's critics.

doublem23
05-16-2009, 07:24 AM
Let's be honest here. Trading Swisher had very little to do with his numbers last year or his overall attitude. He was the easiest guy to trade with a larger salary in order to cut the payoll, as mandated by ownership. Considering Swisher's overall talent level, potential power-hitting upside, age, etc. do you really think Kenny would sell so low on him otherwise?

This still fails to take into account he had nowhere to play. Not to many teams can afford to pay a guy several million dollars to sit on the bench and pout.

WhiteSox1989
05-16-2009, 07:34 AM
I can't believe this is a legit post.

DumpJerry
05-16-2009, 08:35 AM
I can't believe this is a legit post.
It's not. That is why it is in WTS.

thedudeabides
05-16-2009, 08:57 AM
I'm going to ignore most of this- as it is nonsensical. I do watch baseball, and I do think scouting is vital to baseball operations.

I'm certain the White Sox have scouted Nick Swisher since he was in the minors. He was a well regarded prospect. Furthermore, advanced scouts likely know his strengths and weaknesses as a hitter, his ability in the field and so on.

If one adjusted for the league- he actually had a better season in 2008 than 07. If one chooses to ignore ball park and seasonal adjustments (which doesn't make much sense) this following is true:

Swisher had a better batting average, more walks, more doubles and fewer strike outs in 08 than 07. The only area in which Swisher was noticeably better was his home run output. While I agree, that the home runs were a bit of a fluke- everything else appears real.

Swisher should have been better in 09. Leaving a hitter's hell to a hitter's heaven would usually be a precursor to big things. It didn't work out. His peripherals remained very consistent however, just further evidence that this game is impossible to predict at times.

Several posters have made it a habit to claim that I ignore scouts- I don't.

Swisher is generally seen as rating as a 50 or better in terms of power, running and fielding. Below 50 in batting average. He's a good fielding, Adam Dunn with significantly less power.

Scouts are people who've spent years developing the skills necessary to be good at what they do. Manny of them are former players had seen time in college, semi-pro and professional leagues. They spend hours tracking the speed of every pitch, monitoring the release point as a pitcher releases the ball, analyzing mechanical complexities of swings.

I have a hell of a lot more respect for scouts than the posters here who claim to be them. I would never claim to be as good as they are at their jobs.

If you are going to accuse others of being nonsensical, than you should at least proof read your posts. Because absolutely nothing you said in this post makes any sense.

You have your years all mixed up, and you talk about adjusting for league while he stayed in the American league?

If you want to be completely arrogant and tell everyone on a message board how much smarter you are than them, at least try to put forth a case for said superior intelligence.

Billy Ashley
05-16-2009, 10:37 AM
If you are going to accuse others of being nonsensical, than you should at least proof read your posts. Because absolutely nothing you said in this post makes any sense.

You have your years all mixed up, and you talk about adjusting for league while he stayed in the American league?

If you want to be completely arrogant and tell everyone on a message board how much smarter you are than them, at least try to put forth a case for said superior intelligence.

the 2006 AL was a different league than the 2007 AL. Players were different, trends were different- you have to adjust.

I meant 07 and 06 instead of 08 and 07 beyond that post makes perfect sense.

thedudeabides
05-16-2009, 11:24 AM
the 2006 AL was a different league than the 2007 AL. Players were different, trends were different- you have to adjust.

I meant 07 and 06 instead of 08 and 07 beyond that post makes perfect sense.

You're right, behind all of the unclear explanations and mistakes, it makes perfect sense.

chisox77
05-26-2009, 05:41 PM
Dude Swisher - we hardly knew ye!

kaufsox
05-27-2009, 09:37 AM
the 2006 AL was a different league than the 2007 AL. Players were different, trends were different- you have to adjust.

I meant 07 and 06 instead of 08 and 07 beyond that post makes perfect sense.

That is a bit of a stretch. Yes, players change, but overall from one year to the next year, a batter is going to be facing many of the same pitchers that he faced the previous year. Also, he will be batting in almost all of the same parks as the previous year. Again, yes new stadia open, but it's not like 14 new ballparks come in every year. The amount of change from season to season is rather insignificant within either league. I have no idea what you mean by "trends" being different. Do you mean how a batter is pitched to? or how a defense plays him? Or do you mean more leaguewide trends? and how do those necessarily correlate to an indiviuals performance?

doublem23
05-27-2009, 09:46 AM
Yes.

Nunez might pan out to be good reliever. We gave up huge trading chips, that could have brought an enormous haul to get Nunez. That looks pathetic at this point. :(:

The guys we gave up for Swisher suck.

Sweeney, .250/.306/.327 in 42 G for Oakland
Gonzalez, 1-1, 4.75 ERA, 7 GS in AAA/ 0-0, 7.27, 8.2 IP in 8 G with Oakland
DLS, I assume is recovering from elbow surgery still, since I can't find any record of him playing this year yet.

kittle42
05-27-2009, 10:25 AM
The guys we gave up for Swisher suck.

Sweeney, .250/.306/.327 in 42 G for Oakland
Gonzalez, 1-1, 4.75 ERA, 7 GS in AAA/ 0-0, 7.27, 8.2 IP in 8 G with Oakland
DLS, I assume is recovering from elbow surgery still, since I can't find any record of him playing this year yet.

The argument isn't looking at what they've done now - it's looking at how they were regarded at the time of the deal. Could we have gotten more than Swisher for those three at the time we traded them? No one really knows, but the consensus then seemed to be yes.

voodoochile
05-27-2009, 10:34 AM
The argument isn't looking at what they've done now - it's looking at how they were regarded at the time of the deal. Could we have gotten more than Swisher for those three at the time we traded them? No one really knows, but the consensus then seemed to be yes.

At the time, Swisher's contract was viewed as a good thing. He was relatively cheap for his production and signed for several years at a very reasonable rate. You have to factor that part of it into the equation too...

doublem23
05-27-2009, 11:23 AM
The argument isn't looking at what they've done now - it's looking at how they were regarded at the time of the deal. Could we have gotten more than Swisher for those three at the time we traded them? No one really knows, but the consensus then seemed to be yes.

Fair enough, but you ultimately judge trades on what the players actually produce and so far, the haul the A's got for Swisher has been underwhelming. Sweeney is likely the only piece that we'd even plausibly use right now, but he's not even a natural CF, just a soft-hitting corner outfield young enough to cover the small CF at the Cell.

The thing that people always seem to forget when talking about Nick Swisher is that the Swisher deal went wrong when Carlos Quentin hit .288/36/100 last year, despite missing the last month of the season. Had Quentin not been acquired, or not panned out the way he did, Swisher would likely still be here, starting in LF. He became expendable when the Sox found themselves with 3 players to cover 2 spots.

Maybe people think we could have gotten a better haul for Gio, DLS, and Sweeney, but that's debatable. Some posters here fall in love with our prospects and really overvalue them. There were a few people here concerned if packaging Clayton Richard and Aaron Poreda was too much for Jake Peavy.

jabrch
05-27-2009, 11:27 AM
The argument isn't looking at what they've done now - it's looking at how they were regarded at the time of the deal. Could we have gotten more than Swisher for those three at the time we traded them? No one really knows, but the consensus then seemed to be yes.

So the consensus is that KW took a smaller deal than he might have gotten from some other team who was willing to trade a young, cheap hitter of a similar calibre to what Swish was thought of at that time? I can't think of who/what/how this would be.

What player better than Swish got traded for that type of package or less?