PDA

View Full Version : Rogers: Sox made a mistake trading Vazquez and Swisher


thomas35forever
09-25-2009, 02:07 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/09/what-about-vazquez-and-swisher.html
I don't care. Swisher had an attitude and struck out a bunch last season and Vazquez only does well when he's not under pressure, and the Braves are not going to the playoffs. Seriously, Rogers has good credentials, but he puts out crap like this every once in a while.

FielderJones
09-25-2009, 02:10 PM
Stupid article. As was pointed out in another thread, who are you going to pitch to: Jeter, Rodriguez, or Swisher? Of course he raised his batting average 20 points.

Spot on about Javy; eats up 200 innings for you at a .500 clip, disappears in the postseason.

No thanks for either of them.

khan
09-25-2009, 02:18 PM
Rogers is a mope.

Swisher never should have been acquired in the first place. For all that KW gave to Oakland, the return wasn't sufficient. Beyond that, Swisher's kind of a jackass, and his jackassery rubs off on his team mates. [Look at how the yankees make utter asses of themselves when they win late in a game: That's "The Swisher Effect."]

As far as Vazquez goes, I would have preferred him to Colon/Contreras for this year, but he is at a high salary #. I could take or leave him, to tell you the truth.

jdm2662
09-25-2009, 02:32 PM
Stupid article. As was pointed out in another thread, who are you going to pitch to: Jeter, Rodriguez, or Swisher? Of course he raised his batting average 20 points.

Spot on about Javy; eats up 200 innings for you at a .500 clip, disappears in the postseason.

No thanks for either of them.

So, he's hitting .239 now? Fantastic!

PatK
09-25-2009, 02:33 PM
The problem with both trades is that they rid of a starting pitcher and regular player and got nothing that would help them this season.

Pear-Zin-Ski
09-25-2009, 02:35 PM
Peavy/Rios or Vaquez/Swisher? Hmmmmmmm

Konerko05
09-25-2009, 02:43 PM
Swisher is a lot of things Williams is looking for this offseason. He's a switch hitting, versatile, high OBP guy with some power who could replace Dye in RF at an affordable price. That seemed to be Williams plan all along. Things just didn't work out as planned.

I'm sure Williams would have given him another year to rebound if he didn't pull his sulking act in the dugout/clubhouse while the rest of the team was trying to win a division. I don't blame Williams for dealing him at that point. You can't keep one player around that the rest of the players and coaching staff have a problem with.

What a tool he turned out to be. Just seeing his face now actually irritates me.

veeter
09-25-2009, 02:54 PM
I love when articles are written "in hindsight". You've got to be kidding me. Rogers wrote no less than eight articles, saying trading Chris Young for Javy was a mistake. Where's Chris Young now? Now all of the sudden he loves Javy. Rogers is a sniper with no skills.

Hitmen77
09-25-2009, 03:09 PM
I agree with what others have already posted about Swisher. Mainly:
1) It's great to be a .250 hitter when you are surrounded by all-stars in your lineup (great job, Nick! :rolleyes:) and

2) his clubhouse attitude was terrible and wore out his welcome here as soon as the going got tough. I suppose his attitude is great now that he's on a $300 million team. (great attitude, Nick! :rolleyes:)
If we're going to rip on KW for a Swisher trade, it should be for trading for him in the first place.

As far as Javy goes, I could have sworn that Rogers was pretty critical of him when he was on the Sox. Maybe I'm getting the wrong Trib reporter, but I seem to remember him talking about how Javy pitches: If you score 1 run, he'll give up 2; if you score 5 runs, he'll give up 6; etc.

Javy was basically traded because the Sox needed to shed salary. If they were able to do so, I think the Sox would have much preferred to trade Contreras. But Javy was the one big salary that was most tradeable last offseason. My biggest gripe at the time was that they traded Vazquez for only prospects. Maybe Flowers will make this a great trade for us in the long run, but KW was really selling snake oil when he said that we were serious about competing in 2009 and yet he traded Vazquez for prospects.

fox23
09-25-2009, 03:09 PM
Peavy/Rios or Vaquez/Swisher? Hmmmmmmm

How about Peavy/Swisher? As much as Swisher sucked, he seems like the lesser of two evils right now based on Rios' contract. Come to think of it, how about just Peavy.

spawn
09-25-2009, 03:18 PM
How about Peavy/Swisher? As much as Swisher sucked, he seems like the lesser of two evils right now based on Rios' contract. Come to think of it, how about just Peavy.
Swisher was given a full season in a Sox uniform. Rios has been in a Sox uniform for about a month and a half. If he has a comparable season next year, then fire away. Right now, IMO, it is WAY too early too judge. :rolleyes:

CWSpalehoseCWS
09-25-2009, 03:29 PM
I think the return we got for Swisher was a joke. Vazquez got us Flowers, so you can't say that was a mistake.

Hitmen77
09-25-2009, 03:49 PM
Swisher was given a full season in a Sox uniform. Rios has been in a Sox uniform for about a month and a half. If he has a comparable season next year, then fire away. Right now, IMO, it is WAY too early too judge. :rolleyes:

I think the upside for Rios is much better than for Swisher. Plus Rios can play CF while Swisher really can't. Swisher has apparently turned into a great hitter this year in people's minds by hitting .250 in a lineup surrounded by all-stars.

No doubt, Rios has been awful for us since we got him. If he repeats that next year, then, yeah, it would be much better to have Swisher and Rios's contract will be a huge albatross for us. But if someone told me that the Sox had a chance right now to trade Rios for Swisher straight up, I'd hope KW would say no in a heartbeat.

Hitmen77
09-25-2009, 03:54 PM
How about Peavy/Swisher? As much as Swisher sucked, he seems like the lesser of two evils right now based on Rios' contract. Come to think of it, how about just Peavy.

By the way, Rios will only be making $3 million more than Swisher in 2010.

Of course, the 5 years remaining on his contract will be a huge problem for us if he continues his implosion next year. I guess we'll just have to hope he rebounds to something near his career norms next year.

mrfourni
09-25-2009, 05:13 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/09/what-about-vazquez-and-swisher.html
I don't care. Swisher had an attitude and struck out a bunch last season and Vazquez only does well when he's not under pressure, and the Braves are not going to the playoffs. Seriously, Rogers has good credentials, but he puts out crap like this every once in a while.

http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/professional/article_6bc1b195-04b1-517e-bbf2-e3002354d2cc.html

Same writer talking out of both sides of his mouth. It appears we have found a replacement for the Windsock.

oeo
09-25-2009, 05:19 PM
How about Peavy/Swisher? As much as Swisher sucked, he seems like the lesser of two evils right now based on Rios' contract. Come to think of it, how about just Peavy.

I like what Rios brings to the table a lot more. There's good plate discipline, and then there's Nick Swisher, who would rather walk than get a hit. I hated that, and it accounted for a lot of backward K's.

JB98
09-25-2009, 06:47 PM
Swisher is absolute garbage. He's a strikeout machine and a terrible situational hitter. Thank goodness he is gone.

You could at least make the case that dealing Vazquez was a mistake. I wouldn't agree with you, but you could make the case. Javy's 200 innings does have value. But over the long haul, we might be better off with Flowers. Jury is out.

soxinem1
09-25-2009, 08:24 PM
Hindsight is always 20-20. What Rogers fails to mention is that most of the components of the trade were minor leaguers that are needed for future teams, and that Vazquez is paid like an ace, put pitched like an ass for us. He choked down the stretch in both 2006 and 2008.

Swisher, on the other hand, has a .250-ish career average and is having a decent, but not impressive season. I'm not sure what the hoopla is about. Last year I cut him a little slack for playing CF, playing a solid 1B when PK was not available, and batting lead-off a lot early (which killed his RBI totals), but after the big garnd slam against DET, he disappeared with the bat.

It wasn't Walker's fault, Ozzie's fault, or the team's fault. It was Swisher's fault. He had AB's that resembled an American League pitcher down the stretch, and was benched in favor of a career AAA player for the playoffs. He hit .219 and looked awful doing so.

Trades like the ones these two were involved in, especially the trade with the Braves, need more time to judge, especially when the principles involves were AA players.

Domeshot17
09-25-2009, 08:38 PM
For all the bitching you guys are doing there are a few truths:

KW got ripped off for Nick Swisher Twice, thats a tough accomplishment

Swisher did try here. He came to a new city, played a position he doesn't play often, hit in a spot he never hit before. The guy never had a chance to settle in. If the Sox sign Derek Lee in the offseason and told him play RF or 3b and lead off, would you expect him to put up usual numbers? What if the Sox signed Figgins to play SS and hit clean up?

Also with Swisher, you never hear a player talk bad about him. You heard and saw players call out Cabrera a lot, Swisher I only heard the sulking thing from Ozzie.

Sox went to the playoffs with Nick Swisher last year. The Sox went to the playoffs with Cabrera and Javy. Without them, we wont win 80 games. I don't even like either them at all, but Rogers may have a point, in the short term, the trades did not make sense. Especially swisher who we got NOTHING in return for. Atleast Javy brought us Flowers.

Domeshot17
09-25-2009, 08:42 PM
Hindsight is always 20-20. What Rogers fails to mention is that most of the components of the trade were minor leaguers that are needed for future teams, and that Vazquez is paid like an ace, put pitched like an ass for us. He choked down the stretch in both 2006 and 2008.

Swisher, on the other hand, has a .250-ish career average and is having a decent, but not impressive season. I'm not sure what the hoopla is about. Last year I cut him a little slack for playing CF, playing a solid 1B when PK was not available, and batting lead-off a lot early (which killed his RBI totals), but after the big garnd slam against DET, he disappeared with the bat.

It wasn't Walker's fault, Ozzie's fault, or the team's fault. It was Swisher's fault. He had AB's that resembled an American League pitcher down the stretch, and was benched in favor of a career AAA player for the playoffs. He hit .219 and looked awful doing so.

Trades like the ones these two were involved in, especially the trade with the Braves, need more time to judge, especially when the principles involves were AA players.

Disagree about Swisher.

(1) Just the sheer value at the time of the prospects we dealt to oakland is sickening. It doesn't matter if DLS or Gio make it or not, they were 2 top 100 prospects at the time, and we gave them up for nothing. They could have easily been held on too and used to pick up someone else later

(2) Unless Johnny Nunez turns into a lock um down reliever, we got screwed on that one too. Betemit is gone and Marquez had an era so high it made Bartolo Colons cholesterol level look healthy. He wasn't just bad, he was downright pathetic.

Domeshot17
09-25-2009, 08:45 PM
I like what Rios brings to the table a lot more. There's good plate discipline, and then there's Nick Swisher, who would rather walk than get a hit. I hated that, and it accounted for a lot of backward K's.

versus what? Rios who shows up and picks up a paycheck. They both have sucked for us. One sucked with power, one sucked with speed

Frater Perdurabo
09-25-2009, 08:56 PM
I agree with the previous posts that both Swisher deals were terrible.

Put together, the Swisher deals are down there with Todd Ritchie and Bill Koch among KW's worst.

Sweeney and Gio could have been packaged in a different, better deal.

TommyJohn
09-25-2009, 09:49 PM
Second-guessing is the greatest sport of them all. Anybody can play.

Lip Man 1
09-25-2009, 11:07 PM
In fairness TJ I do recall some posters (was it Tragg or OEO?) who were condemning the deal at the time it happened here at WSI. Someone felt that De Los Santos was going to turn into a very good pitcher.

Lip

soxinem1
09-25-2009, 11:38 PM
Disagree about Swisher.

(1) Just the sheer value at the time of the prospects we dealt to oakland is sickening. It doesn't matter if DLS or Gio make it or not, they were 2 top 100 prospects at the time, and we gave them up for nothing. They could have easily been held on too and used to pick up someone else later

(2) Unless Johnny Nunez turns into a lock um down reliever, we got screwed on that one too. Betemit is gone and Marquez had an era so high it made Bartolo Colons cholesterol level look healthy. He wasn't just bad, he was downright pathetic.

I agree, but you make it sound as if I praised Swisher or the trade. I thought I ripped him pretty good. All I mentioned was that he deserved a little slack when he first came here because he was put in the CF/Lead-off position to start the season.

I also believe he came at too high a price, but even so, as a fan you want him to succeed. Then he fell to pieces when they needed him, hence, the low return for a guy who struggled to his .219.

Marqhead
09-25-2009, 11:48 PM
In fairness TJ I do recall some posters (was it Tragg or OEO?) who were condemning the deal at the time it happened here at WSI. Someone felt that De Los Santos was going to turn into a very good pitcher.

Lip

On a board with several thousand members, and a fan base with several hundred thousand (probably millions), you're always going to have people on both sides of a deal. With this of course will come people who wont make their stance known and then will praise/chastise a deal several months later.

I'm still a fan of both moves. Overall we lost the Swisher deal in terms of prospects given up/received, but there was no place for him here, and he needed to go. With Javy, he was a decent pitcher but getting rid of the salary opened up other options for KW and the team and I'm pretty happy with that return plus Flowers.

TDog
09-26-2009, 12:09 AM
The second Nick Swisher deal was a great deal. It prevented the White Sox from having to pay the rest of his contract, just as Oakland found the White Sox to assume the burden of the Nick Swisher problem Billy Beane created.

Kotsay is better than Swisher. Kotsay is better at all outfield positions. He is better at first base. He is a better hitter. Swisher seems to have more power, but he makes far less contact. The White Sox should have traded for Kotsay instead of Swisher when they dealt with Oakland in the first place.

Swisher wasn't the player the White Sox were looking for when they traded for Swisher. Kotsay was. Of course, Kotsay was coming off an injury, and there was concern about his health.

StillMissOzzie
09-26-2009, 12:18 AM
I love when articles are written "in hindsight". You've got to be kidding me. Rogers wrote no less than eight articles, saying trading Chris Young for Javy was a mistake. Where's Chris Young now? Now all of the sudden he loves Javy. Rogers is a sniper with no skills.

Hindsight is always 20/20 is right! I didn't mind when either were sent packing. Javy would have been a better 4/5 starter than the pathetic Contreras/Colon experiment, but he was getting 1/2 money undeservedly. Javy always seemed to get the tight sphincter in crucial games.

Hindsight is always 20-20. What Rogers fails to mention is that most of the components of the trade were minor leaguers that are needed for future teams, and that Vazquez is paid like an ace, put pitched like an ass for us. He choked down the stretch in both 2006 and 2008.

Swisher, on the other hand, has a .250-ish career average and is having a decent, but not impressive season. I'm not sure what the hoopla is about. Last year I cut him a little slack for playing CF, playing a solid 1B when PK was not available, and batting lead-off a lot early (which killed his RBI totals), but after the big garnd slam against DET, he disappeared with the bat.

It wasn't Walker's fault, Ozzie's fault, or the team's fault. It was Swisher's fault. He had AB's that resembled an American League pitcher down the stretch, and was benched in favor of a career AAA player for the playoffs. He hit .219 and looked awful doing so.

Trades like the ones these two were involved in, especially the trade with the Braves, need more time to judge, especially when the principles involves were AA players.

I agree with this part, when minor league prospects are involved you can never judge a trade in today's value alone. I would have thought that the Sox would have gotten SOMEBODY who was ready to play immediately, though.

And one more thing - was there a story like this by Rogers regarding Jason Marquis?

SMO
:?:

oeo
09-26-2009, 01:24 AM
versus what? Rios who shows up and picks up a paycheck. They both have sucked for us. One sucked with power, one sucked with speed

I'm talking about when both are playing at their norm. Obviously neither one has done that, but when they are at their best, I will take Rios over Swisher.

In fairness TJ I do recall some posters (was it Tragg or OEO?) who were condemning the deal at the time it happened here at WSI. Someone felt that De Los Santos was going to turn into a very good pitcher.

Lip

DLS was all munchman33. I liked Gio Gonzalez (still do), but also saw the need for the trade. We were the worst offense in the league, we needed a boost in OBP, and we also needed an outfielder. I never had a problem with the original deal. The thing I didn't like is we bought high and sold low a year later.

PatK
09-26-2009, 09:27 AM
Let's face it, when Swisher was brought in, he was more or less propped up as the face of the franchise. He was the go-to guy in the locker room interviews after the game. You'd go to the Majestic Custom T-Shirt shop at The Cell and there was probably more Swisher themed stuff than any other player.

Then, he started sucking, and his attitude didn't help.

When he went to NY, there was basically NO pressure on him. And with the short right field, he was gonna hit for better power than here. And being surrounded by the hitters he has, that definitely helped his average. But you still got a guy that's gonna strike out 130 times. Not good.

With Swisher, my biggest issue is we gave up more for him than we got in return for two trades.

The problem wasn't trading him away, it was trading for him in the first place, seeing what Sweeney has done.

Hitmen77
09-26-2009, 12:36 PM
I agree with the previous posts that both Swisher deals were terrible.

Put together, the Swisher deals are down there with Todd Ritchie and Bill Koch among KW's worst.

Sweeney and Gio could have been packaged in a different, better deal.

I agree that the combination of both Swisher deals were terrible. We'd be much better off with Gio and Sweeney than Nunez and Marquez.

But once the first mistake was made (trading with Oakland to get Swisher in the first place), I'm not so sure that the 2nd deal was necessarily all that terrible given the position the Sox were in. The Sox were stuck selling low on him because of his awful season and plus his unacceptable attitude meant he wasn't coming back. So it was basically a salary dump. Maybe Nunez will end up being good for us. Plus, by dumping Swisher, that allowed the Sox enough free salary to pick up Rios from the Jays in exchange for nobody.

....so perhaps the 2nd Swisher trade could be seen as Swisher for Nunez and Rios?

The problem wasn't trading him away, it was trading for him in the first place, seeing what Sweeney has done.

Agreed!

Craig Grebeck
09-27-2009, 07:58 PM
The second Nick Swisher deal was a great deal. It prevented the White Sox from having to pay the rest of his contract, just as Oakland found the White Sox to assume the burden of the Nick Swisher problem Billy Beane created.

Kotsay is better than Swisher. Kotsay is better at all outfield positions. He is better at first base. He is a better hitter. Swisher seems to have more power, but he makes far less contact. The White Sox should have traded for Kotsay instead of Swisher when they dealt with Oakland in the first place.

Swisher wasn't the player the White Sox were looking for when they traded for Swisher. Kotsay was. Of course, Kotsay was coming off an injury, and there was concern about his health.
There are stupid posts. There are completely asinine posts. There are completely short-sighted posts. And then, there is this post.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1042_1BOF_cseason_full_8_20090926.png

doublem23
09-27-2009, 10:17 PM
There are stupid posts. There are completely asinine posts. There are completely short-sighted posts. And then, there is this post.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1042_1BOF_cseason_full_8_20090926.png

You could have at least picked a stat based in reality.

Nellie_Fox
09-27-2009, 11:52 PM
What the hell is a wOBA?

Johnny Mostil
09-28-2009, 08:26 AM
What the hell is a wOBA?

The Western Ontario Badminton Association (http://www.acronymfinder.com/Western-Ontario-Badminton-Association-%28Canada%29-%28WOBA%29.html)! :redneck

Or maybe this (http://www.ask.com/bar?q=what+is+wOBA&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=3&title=The%20Joy%20of%20wOBA%20%7C%20FanGraphs%20Ba seball&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fangraphs.com%2Fblogs%2Findex.p hp%2Fthe-joy-of-woba) instead . . .

(For informational purposes only; I'm not qualified to discuss its advantages or disadvantages . . .)

TDog
09-28-2009, 09:28 AM
There are stupid posts. There are completely asinine posts. There are completely short-sighted posts. And then, there is this post.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1042_1BOF_cseason_full_8_20090926.png

By "this post," you were referring to the post you were in the process of creating.

If you watched Nick Swisher and Mark Kotsay play baseball instead of watching obsbure stats, you would see that Mark Kotsay is a better baseball player.

DrCrawdad
09-28-2009, 09:32 AM
There are stupid posts. There are completely asinine posts. There are completely short-sighted posts. And then, there is this post.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4599_1042_1BOF_cseason_full_8_20090926.png

http://s.bebo.com/app-image/5580721943/5580611763/PROFILE/www.agbinternational.com/bebo/nerd_test/images/nerd_alert.gif

Hitmen77
09-28-2009, 09:55 AM
What the hell is a wOBA?

It's the stat that proves Grebeck is right, that's what it is! So, stop questioning him already!

For some reason, I'm vaguely reminded of Homefish's ill-conceived AJ graph from a few years ago.

spawn
09-28-2009, 09:59 AM
What the hell is a wOBA?
Wild Over Brian Anderson.

DrCrawdad
09-28-2009, 10:09 AM
it's the stat that proves grebeck is right, that's what it is! So, stop questioning him already!


now that's funny!

munchman33
09-28-2009, 11:29 AM
What the hell is a wOBA?

It stands for weighted on base average. It tries to take into account obp and slugging better than OPS (or so the creator would say). Here's a little bit on it. http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml

What I hate about this stat is it seems to unfairly categorize all-power/walk with a bad batting average guys as better than guys that can actually consistently make good contact with the baseball. Stat heads would never agree (and I wouldn't expect Grebeck to), but it really doesn't take into consideration how much more important a hit in a good location, or an out in a good location, can be compared to a walk or a strikeout. Of course it's not across the board, but this type of player in particular is notorious for not doing the right thing situationally.

dickallen15
09-28-2009, 11:30 AM
Who would you rather have:
Javy Vazquez, Nick Swisher, Clayton Richard, Adam Russell and Aaron Poreda

or

Jake Peavy, Alex Rios, Dayan Viciedo, Jhonny Nunez and Tyler Flowers?

That's basically what the trades come down to. Without the financial relief the Vazquez and Swisher trades brought, there is no way they go for Peavy and sorry, the White Sox need a CF and Rios fits far better than Swisher. Plus you have Flowers and Viciedo who can be studs and Nunez has a chance.

munchman33
09-28-2009, 11:31 AM
I'd also like to point out that we seem to be taking advice from the same man that thinks it's feasible we'd trade Jake Peavy for Carlos Zambrano.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

asindc
09-28-2009, 11:33 AM
I'd also like to point out that we seem to be taking advice from the same man that thinks it's feasible we'd trade Jake Peavy for Carlos Zambrano.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Excellent point. Rogers' column is worthy of a yawn, nothing more.

salty99
09-28-2009, 11:57 AM
and the Braves are not going to the playoffs.

Hold the phone on that one...

TDog
09-28-2009, 12:06 PM
...
What I hate about this stat is it seems to unfairly categorize all-power/walk with a bad batting average guys as better than guys that can actually consistently make good contact with the baseball. Stat heads would never agree (and I wouldn't expect Grebeck to), but it really doesn't take into consideration how much more important a hit in a good location, or an out in a good location, can be compared to a walk or a strikeout. Of course it's not across the board, but this type of player in particular is notorious for not doing the right thing situationally.

It is currently fashionable for people to overvalue the importance of on-base percentage and undervalue the importance of RBIs. A player with a high on-base percentage and a low batting average isn't nearly as valuable as a player with a high batting average. People will come up with statistical arguments to try to prove otherwise, but they tend to include the players who have high on-base percentages because they have high batting averages.

And any fan frustrated with the White Sox lack of scoring in many games this year must now have more respect for RBIs.

doublem23
09-28-2009, 06:50 PM
What I hate about this stat is it seems to unfairly categorize all-power/walk with a bad batting average guys as better than guys that can actually consistently make good contact with the baseball. Stat heads would never agree (and I wouldn't expect Grebeck to), but it really doesn't take into consideration how much more important a hit in a good location, or an out in a good location, can be compared to a walk or a strikeout. Of course it's not across the board, but this type of player in particular is notorious for not doing the right thing situationally.

I really don't like the fact that they're trying to even out OBP/OPS to cover changes in years, but I think OPS+ does a better job. Yeah, I know some people will tell you that OPS isn't a perfect stat (and it isn't), but at least it's based completely on stuff that happens on the field and doesn't try to hard by giving out bizarre coefficients that are more or less just pulled out of the air. I know OPS+ isn't perfect, but it's a better tool to use when looking at an all-around picture of a player.

doublem23
09-28-2009, 06:54 PM
It is currently fashionable for people to overvalue the importance of on-base percentage and undervalue the importance of RBIs. A player with a high on-base percentage and a low batting average isn't nearly as valuable as a player with a high batting average. People will come up with statistical arguments to try to prove otherwise, but they tend to include the players who have high on-base percentages because they have high batting averages.

And any fan frustrated with the White Sox lack of scoring in many games this year must now have more respect for RBIs.

Well the logical argument against using RBIs to evaluate individual players is that RBIs are very dependent on your teammates. Case in point, yeah, the 2009 Sox don't have a lot of RBIs but that's because we ranked 12th in the AL in at bats with runners on and runners in scoring position.

TDog
09-28-2009, 10:35 PM
Well the logical argument against using RBIs to evaluate individual players is that RBIs are very dependent on your teammates. Case in point, yeah, the 2009 Sox don't have a lot of RBIs but that's because we ranked 12th in the AL in at bats with runners on and runners in scoring position.

Read the postgame threads and you will see people ranting about how the Sox don't hit with runners in scoring position.

RBIs aren't necesarily predictive because they can be dependent on a player coming up with men on base (although the Sox currently have as many RBIs as the Orioles, who have hit 27 fewer home runs, so the last-place Orioles would seem to be hitting better with runners in scoring position).

There were a lot of RBIs that Sox hitters didn't pick up this year when they could have. What made Harold Baines a great offensive player was that he was an RBI guy who drove in those runs. People seem to diminish such accomplishments now by saying such hitters come up with men on base.

In the end, getting on base doesn't mean a thing unless someone drives you in.

MrX
10-02-2009, 01:52 AM
Rodgers bashed these trades and then today comes out with his latest deal that he says he'd do; Danks or Floyd, Hudson, and Jenks for Prince Fielder:roflmao:

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/10/turning-the-page-part-1.html

SOXSINCE'70
10-02-2009, 06:09 AM
Rodgers bashed these trades and then today comes out with his latest deal that he says he'd do; Danks or Floyd, Hudson, and Jenks for Prince Fielder:roflmao:

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/10/turning-the-page-part-1.html

Only if Ryan Braun is included.:kneeslap:

TDog
10-02-2009, 08:00 AM
Only if Ryan Braun is included.:kneeslap:

Because the Sox need his defense.

Hitmen77
10-02-2009, 08:19 AM
Rodgers bashed these trades and then today comes out with his latest deal that he says he'd do; Danks or Floyd, Hudson, and Jenks for Prince Fielder:roflmao:

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/10/turning-the-page-part-1.html

"4 or 5" pitchers (including a great young starter, our closer, AND 1 or 2 top pitching prospects) for Fielder? :o::thud:

WOW! Just, Wow! I'd love to have Fielder on our team, but if KW made this trade I'd be calling for his immediate firing!

asindc
10-02-2009, 08:30 AM
"4 or 5" pitchers (including a great young starter, our closer, AND 1 or 2 top pitching prospects) for Fielder? :o::thud:

WOW! Just, Wow! I'd love to have Fielder on our team, but if KW made this trade I'd be calling for his immediate firing!

So would I, and I'm a KW fan. Rogers writes as if he knows next to nothing about the Sox. Oh, wait...

Scottiehaswheels
10-02-2009, 08:49 AM
Articles like his, make me think the unemployment line needs to add one more.

Craig Grebeck
10-02-2009, 09:04 AM
Because the Sox need his defense.
Exactly. We got Kotsay. We don't need no stinkin' 25-year-old hitting machine.

voodoochile
10-02-2009, 09:25 AM
Exactly. We got Kotsay. We don't need no stinkin' 25-year-old hitting machine.

two starters (one a potential ace) and a closer is a pretty steep price to pay. If it means trading off one of our big 4 starters, I'm not interested in trading for anyone at the moment. That's the backbone that's going to take the Sox back to the promised land in the next 4 years.

SOXPHILE
10-02-2009, 09:43 AM
My God. The things Phil Rogers has wrote the last few years, and flip flopped, used pretzel logic, "invented a formula", ripped trades made or not made with clear 20/20 hindsight...somebody can't really be this ****ing stupid, can they ? I mean, does he wake up each day and try to invent the stupidest, most nonsense article he can imagine, just to see what people say ? I can't even count the number of times in the last 3 or 4 years I have read one of his articles, and thought to myself 'what in the name of holy hell is wrong with this guy ?" I mean, this takes real effort to continually write the crap he's come up with.

JermaineDye05
10-02-2009, 11:44 AM
As much as I hate that trade offered by Phil, I'd still love to see Prince with the Sox. The one thing is he's a loose cannon and he doesn't really upgrade our defense. Something tells me though that Kenny will be going hard after a first baseman this offseason, could be Fielder or it could be someone like Conor Jackson.

Scottiehaswheels
10-02-2009, 11:51 AM
My God. The things Phil Rogers has wrote the last few years, and flip flopped, used pretzel logic, "invented a formula", ripped trades made or not made with clear 20/20 hindsight...somebody can't really be this ****ing stupid, can they ? I mean, does he wake up each day and try to invent the stupidest, most nonsense article he can imagine, just to see what people say ? I can't even count the number of times in the last 3 or 4 years I have read one of his articles, and thought to myself 'what in the name of holy hell is wrong with this guy ?" I mean, this takes real effort to continually write the crap he's come up with.My guess is he's either Rockabilly's dad or Rockabilly is his other pen name on here. Tsk tsk Phil. Not allowed to have multiple accounts on here.

voodoochile
10-02-2009, 12:12 PM
As much as I hate that trade offered by Phil, I'd still love to see Prince with the Sox. The one thing is he's a loose cannon and he doesn't really upgrade our defense. Something tells me though that Kenny will be going hard after a first baseman this offseason, could be Fielder or it could be someone like Conor Jackson.

I'd love to have Prince too, but not for Floyd, Hudson and Jenks. That's ridiculous.

Hudson, Jenks and Jordan Danks or Viciedo would be fine by me though.

dickallen15
10-02-2009, 12:27 PM
Phil never said to trade Hudson.

voodoochile
10-02-2009, 12:31 PM
Phil never said to trade Hudson.

It actually is suggested in the article. He doesn't recommend it, but he does put those three together as a possibility.

Edit: And he says he'd do it.

thomas35forever
10-02-2009, 02:45 PM
Nice to see Lip's comment at the bottom. You couldn't pay me to make that trade. If we get Fielder and trade those pitchers to get him, not only will the offensive philosophy not change, but our pitching depth will be gone. Rogers clearly does not watch our games.

spawn
10-02-2009, 03:12 PM
Nice to see Lip's comment at the bottom. You couldn't pay me to make that trade.
I loved Lip's comment in that article. He is 100% correct.

GAsoxfan
10-02-2009, 03:28 PM
I loved Lip's comment in that article. He is 100% correct.

Some of the other comments just confirms the fact that every fan base has idiots.

"Fielder isn't a good player"
"Hudson would have to bring back at LEAST Ryan Howard"

Priceless

Domeshot17
10-02-2009, 04:20 PM
Nice to see Lip's comment at the bottom. You couldn't pay me to make that trade. If we get Fielder and trade those pitchers to get him, not only will the offensive philosophy not change, but our pitching depth will be gone. Rogers clearly does not watch our games.

How do people not get our offensive philosophy DID Change and its why our offense SUCKED this year.

The Sox wanted More Speed. Less Strike Outs, Less Homers:

The Sox were in the top 10 in the mlb in Stolen Bases (good thing). Only 5 teams in the League struck out LESS than the white sox (amazing stat). The White Sox were also in the bottom half of the league of RBIs, THE WHITE SOX WERE DEAD LAST IN DOUBLES Bottom 6 In Triples Bottom half in Total in bases Bottom 10 in OPS and OPB and bottom half of Sugging. The White Sox were in the bottom 5 in total extra base hits, BELOW THOSE SLUGGING PITTSBURGH PIRATES.

Prince Fielder hit 298, 407 OBP 596 Slugging, OPS over 1000 44 homers 35 doubles 138 RBIs and 3 triples.

Just to give you an idea on how Prince is the type of player want to get away from:

Prince Fielder would be 3rd on our team behind Pods and AJ in Batting average.

He Would lead our team in EVERY OTHER MAJOR OFFENSIVE CATEGORY sans Triples, where he would be THIRD.

Put Prince Fielder on this team and we win he division.

Now okay, you don't want to deal him for Floyd, Its a coinflip, I will take an MVP hitter over Floyd (but maybe not the Floyd Hudson Jenks package). But it isn't that far off. But to say you just don't want Prince Fielder is an assanine statement.

The White Sox play in a home run ballpark. They need to hit home runs and doubles. They need athletic players who get on base to hit 1-2-7-8-9. 3-4-5-6 can be slow as long as they can hit 25 homers (2 needing to hit 30 or more) and drive in 85 runs (with 2 of the 4 needing to drive in 100+, one decently over 100 as well).

Lip Man 1
10-02-2009, 05:06 PM
Dome:

I don't fundamentally disagree with what your saying but to me they need more line drive, gap hitters in the middle of the order than necessarily home run hitters.

And Fielder does not run well. That's a given.

I'd love to have him but not at that cost and playing in the American League we'll see if he put up those same numbers, I don't think he would myself.

And your numbers don't add up for the middle of the order, the Sox basically had that this year in Dye, Konerko and Thome. 25 home runs, 80 RBI's or so each.

If you are going to continue with the 'home run or nothing' philosophy you better have guys like the Sox had in the early part of the decade...Thomas, Lee, Ordonez, a young Konerko, Valentin...guys who'd hit 35 home runs and hit .290 or so. They'd strike out a lot but they'd also hit a bunch of two and three run blasts.

The issue started when the Sox found themselves only hitting solo shots because the averages starting dropping into the .250's and .260's.

Those type hitters are rare to start with and you need three or four of them. The Sox don't have the chips to trade for three or four of them even if they were available.

Lip

Domeshot17
10-02-2009, 05:08 PM
Dome:

I don't fundamentally disagree with what your saying but to me they need more line drive, gap hitters in the middle of the order than necessarily home run hitters.

And Fielder does not run well. That's a given.

I'd love to have him but not at that cost and playing in the American League we'll see if he put up those same numbers, I don't think he would myself.

And your numbers don't add up for the middle of the order, the Sox basically had that this year in Dye, Konerko and Thome. 25 home runs, 80 RBI's or so each.

If you are going to continue with the 'home run or nothing' philosophy you better have guys like the Sox had in the early part of the decade...Thomas, Lee, Ordonez, a young Konerko, Valentin...guys who'd hit 35 home runs and hit .290 or so. They'd strike out a lot but they'd also hit a bunch of two and three run blasts.

The issue started when the Sox found themselves only hitting solo shots because the averages starting dropping into the .250's and .260's.

Those type hitters are rare to start with and you need three or four of them. The Sox don't have the chips to trade for three or four of them even if they were available.

Lip

You don't think Prince Fielder would be a machine in the AL????? Hitting at USCF I would bet 10000000000000000000000 bucks hed hit 40 homers easily. He may trade 5 doubles for 5 homers and go 30 doubles 50 rbi, but hes one of the 5 best hitters in the game. I would take him.

And my numbers do add up. The Sox Had PK and Dye hit 25 and 80, but they lacked the 2 hitters who need to hit 30 -100.

Also, how do you not get prince is a great gap hitter. He would lead our team in doubles!

khan
10-02-2009, 05:08 PM
How do people not get our offensive philosophy DID Change and its why our offense SUCKED this year.

The Sox wanted More Speed. Less Strike Outs, Less Homers:

The Sox were in the top 10 in the mlb in Stolen Bases (good thing). Only 5 teams in the League struck out LESS than the white sox (amazing stat). The White Sox were also in the bottom half of the league of RBIs, THE WHITE SOX WERE DEAD LAST IN DOUBLES Bottom 6 In Triples Bottom half in Total in bases Bottom 10 in OPS and OPB and bottom half of Sugging. The White Sox were in the bottom 5 in total extra base hits, BELOW THOSE SLUGGING PITTSBURGH PIRATES.
People should read the bolded part over and over and over and over and over and over until it sinks in. Then MAYBE we won't have all the clamoring for "speed" all offseason long. Without a suitable replacement JD's and without Thome's slugging, this is going to be a bad team in 2010, irrespective of how good the starting rotation will be.


The White Sox play in a home run ballpark. They need to hit home runs and doubles. They need athletic players who get on base to hit 1-2-7-8-9. 3-4-5-6 can be slow as long as they can hit 25 homers (2 needing to hit 30 or more) and drive in 85 runs (with 2 of the 4 needing to drive in 100+, one decently over 100 as well).

I agree with all of this. Which is why I'm more concerned with finding a secondary, reliable .850 or higher OPS-type guy in the lineup. As it stands, this team has only one probable .850+ OPS guy in Konerko, and one "maybe" in Quentin.

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I think KW has to think long and hard about maybe bringing back JD for next season. This is simply because I don't think that he has the financial wherewithal to pursue some of the other, more expensive sluggers in FA this offseason.

JermaineDye05
10-04-2009, 06:54 PM
Phil Rogers "All-City team"

Link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-04-rogers-all-cityoct04,0,55352.story)

Epic fail.

Tragg
10-04-2009, 09:50 PM
We're going to need Hudson. If not in next year's rotation (everyone has Garcia pencilled in - woo hoo) then next year's pen and the following year's rotation.
He's not excess in the least.
When people questioned trading Allen, supposedly first base prospects were "excess." Well, deal some of that excess and not what we need like pitching. But if the Brewers want to trade Prince, we need to listen.

I don't know that our offensive philosophy changed this year. Players just got old and we had some bad personnel in spots. We were slow, tired in spots and defensively poor. Face it, had TCQ not been TCQ in 2008, we would have won c. 78 then as well.

In 2007 it did change and that was a disaster. I think it caused Williams to overreat and get an anti-Ozzie player like Swisher in here (too much obp, versus Guillen's penchant for far too little).

Lip Man 1
10-04-2009, 09:58 PM
Had a long conversation with the next interview subject for WSI on Thursday. They had some revealing things to say about Swisher.

In a nutshell he wasn't the player the Sox thought he was and that the talent evaluating folks have to be held responsible for that (and the Wilson Betemit fiasco). He said Swisher had an issue with his batting stance and folks tried to get him to adjust and he refused to listen.

I was told about a specific incident where Griffey passed along a suggestion to Nick and Swisher just blew him off.

Lip

JermaineDye05
10-04-2009, 10:03 PM
Had a long conversation with the next interview subject for WSI on Thursday. They had some revealing things to say about Swisher.

In a nutshell he wasn't the player the Sox thought he was and that the talent evaluating folks have to be held responsible for that (and the Wilson Betemit fiasco). He said Swisher had an issue with his batting stance and folks tried to get him to adjust and he refused to listen.

I was told about a specific incident where Griffey passed along a suggestion to Nick and Swisher just blew him off.

Lip

A hint at the next interviewee?!?!?!

Tragg
10-04-2009, 10:03 PM
In a nutshell he wasn't the player the Sox thought he was and that the talent evaluating folks have to be held responsible for that (and the Wilson Betemit fiasco).

I want to meet the man who evaluated and andd then told Williams that Betemit is a major league ballplayer.

doublem23
10-04-2009, 10:16 PM
I don't know that our offensive philosophy changed this year. Players just got old and we had some bad personnel in spots. We were slow, tired in spots and defensively poor. Face it, had TCQ not been TCQ in 2008, we would have won c. 78 then as well.

It goes both ways, if TCQ was TCQ in 2009 then we win 90 games and are preparing for the ALDS.

Gammons Peter
10-05-2009, 08:12 AM
It goes both ways, if TCQ was TCQ in 2009 then we win 90 games and are preparing for the ALDS.

That's exactly who he was

doublem23
10-05-2009, 09:07 AM
That's exactly who he was

You're basing that statement on his 454 PAs in Arizona, while completely disregarding 1635 PAs in his minor league career.

Gammons Peter
10-05-2009, 09:41 AM
You're basing that statement on his 454 PAs in Arizona, while completely disregarding 1635 PAs in his minor league career.


yes, i am

Tragg
10-05-2009, 08:39 PM
It goes both ways, if TCQ was TCQ in 2009 then we win 90 games and are preparing for the ALDS. Maybe 84 or 85. We were worse than 2008 defensively, offensively beyond Quentin as well.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 05:08 PM
Seems to be a pretty balanced opinion piece:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/1814064,afternoon-sports-club-baseball-08.article

Lip

doublem23
10-08-2009, 05:17 PM
Maybe 84 or 85. We were worse than 2008 defensively, offensively beyond Quentin as well.

The Doub Projections clearly indicate you are wrong.

#1swisher
10-09-2009, 03:24 PM
Seems to be a pretty balanced opinion piece:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/1814064,afternoon-sports-club-baseball-08.article

Lip

They're gone, no regrets.

I think we have all the pieces in place, as we do every year. IMO,the White Sox are missing the Motivational Quotient.

I remember when Cabrera said the team doesn't have the mentality of expecting to win. If Ozzie is incapable or too busy to motivate the team, he did say, no one is taking a leadership role in the clubhouse.

IMO,money (can't cost much) should be spent to hire a motivational speaker along with a conditioning instructor.

Captain Konerko said it's hard to stay motivated and IIRC, realized he was getting older and starting a new conditioning program last year, just one example.

Lip Man 1
10-09-2009, 03:50 PM
The next interview with WSI said that Kenny's top off season priority has to be to get a clubhouse leader, someone to work with the young players and bring out the best in others.

Lip

#1swisher
10-09-2009, 03:57 PM
The next interview with WSI said that Kenny's top off season priority has to be to get a clubhouse leader, someone to work with the young players and bring out the best in others.

Lip

Can't wait to read it!

Rdy2PlayBall
10-10-2009, 12:00 AM
Vazquez and Swisher turned into....

Flowers, Rios, Peavy, and basically Beckham (coming up early). I think some experience for Beckham and the other 3 additions beats those two nobody's by a long shot. :tongue:

Betamitt was a sad experience though, Bartoto too. :(:

SOXSINCE'70
10-17-2009, 08:51 AM
If TCQ was TCQ in 2009 then we win 90 games and are preparing for the ALDS.


You meant "If TCQ was TCQ of 2008", right??

voodoochile
10-17-2009, 09:42 AM
You meant "If TCQ was TCQ of 2008", right??

If he merely stays healthy the entire season and you extrapolate his 2009 stats to a full season, it might have been enough.

doublem23
10-17-2009, 09:54 AM
You meant "If TCQ was TCQ of 2008", right??

Or the TCQ that had been developing for the Diamondbacks for the past few years before we acquired him. I know he's got a knack for getting injured, but there is no denying that when he is healthy he is a monster offensively. People LOOOOOOVE to point out the Carlos has had only 1 healthy, productive season at the MLB level, but they never point out that he had a consistent track record at the minor league level over a few years. He didn't have a Herbert Perry-esque year, folks.

UChicagoHP
10-17-2009, 11:29 AM
Ridiculous, Swish, while a decent player, wasn't a fit. I doubt he has another decent season left in him, time will tell.

We all know Javy was a friggin head-case, and I'll take Flowers and his long-term potential over Mr. 6th Inning any day of the week.

cards press box
10-18-2009, 08:44 AM
Ridiculous, Swish, while a decent player, wasn't a fit. I doubt he has another decent season left in him, time will tell.

Assuming that the Sox keep Scott Podsednik (and not be able to sign Chone Figgins), the Sox will have a starting outfield of Podsednik, Alex Rios and Carlos Quentin next year. If the Sox don't keep Jermaine Dye and, instead, sign Bobby Abreu, then the Sox can mainly DH Abreu and occasionally DH Podsednik with the other player in LF on those days. The Sox will also hopefully re-sign Mark Kotsay to be the back up outfielder/first baseman. Podsednik/Rios/Quentin/Abreu/Kotsay would give the Sox a nice combination of power and speed. What's more, Rios gives the Sox a top defensive CF.

If the Sox can keep Podsednik and Kotsay and sign Abreu, the Sox outfield/DH, I doubt anyone would miss having Nick Swisher on the Sox.

We all know Javy was a friggin head-case, and I'll take Flowers and his long-term potential over Mr. 6th Inning any day of the week.

Tyler Flowers is the best catching prospect that the Sox have had in a long time. In trading Javy Vazquez, the Sox not only acquired Flowers but other prospects (Santos Rodriguez and Jon Gilmore) still in the minors and acquired some financial flexibility that made the Jake Peavy deal possible. In addition, the quartet of Peavy, Mark Buerhle, John Danks and Gavin Floyd looks very strong. The Sox have good options for the fifth starter with Freddy Garcia and rookie Dan Hudson. I don't think Sox fans will miss Vazquez.

Craig Grebeck
10-18-2009, 10:54 AM
Ridiculous, Swish, while a decent player, wasn't a fit. I doubt he has another decent season left in him, time will tell.

He just had a pretty above-average season. I don't see why he doesn't have another one of those in him.

SOXSINCE'70
10-18-2009, 01:28 PM
If he merely stays healthy the entire season and you extrapolate his 2009 stats to a full season, it might have been enough.

Especially the way he finished the season.
He was hitting the ball with more authority.

StillMissOzzie
10-18-2009, 02:20 PM
He just had a pretty above-average season. I don't see why he doesn't have another one of those in him.

Because he had a pretty crappy season the year before?

Will the real Nick Swisher please stand up?

SMO
:gulp:

eriqjaffe
10-19-2009, 09:30 AM
Because he had a pretty crappy season the year before?

Will the real Nick Swisher please stand up?http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/swishni01.shtml

2008 was the outlier. 2009 was pretty much a standard Nick Swisher season.

Craig Grebeck
10-19-2009, 11:16 AM
Because he had a pretty crappy season the year before?

Will the real Nick Swisher please stand up?

SMO
:gulp:
Look at his career and tell me which season looks like an outlier.

Smokey Burg
10-19-2009, 01:01 PM
I am confused. Rogers article seems to imply that the Sox got rid of the re-incarnations of Mickey Mantle and Dizzy Dean. Statistics listed on baseball reference indicate that both Swisher and Javy are mediocre players, i.e. good enough to stay in the major leagues. At the end of 2008 Javy appeared to me to be uninspired at best, while Swisher became a pouting cancer. Now, in 2009 both players had slightly better than average seasons, but not as good as their own personal best. Somebody is going to have to explain to me how Kenny should have had the foresight to see that two guys that couldn't get it together in 2008 were going to play near their career averages in 2009 but yet put the Sox over the top.

Craig Grebeck
10-19-2009, 01:06 PM
I am confused. Rogers article seems to imply that the Sox got rid of the re-incarnations of Mickey Mantle and Dizzy Dean. Statistics listed on baseball reference indicate that both Swisher and Javy are mediocre players, i.e. good enough to stay in the major leagues. At the end of 2008 Javy appeared to me to be uninspired at best, while Swisher became a pouting cancer. Now, in 2009 both players had slightly better than average seasons, but not as good as their own personal best. Somebody is going to have to explain to me how Kenny should have had the foresight to see that two guys that couldn't get it together in 2008 were going to play near their career averages in 2009 but yet put the Sox over the top.
You should look again.

Smokey Burg
10-19-2009, 06:13 PM
I just did. In 2009 Swisher batted .249 with a career average .245 and had 82 RBI while averaging 86 RBI during his career. The .004 "improvement" is impressive, slightly better than average BA while slightly under performimg on RBI. Javy was 15 - 10 for the Braves in 2009 and that put his career numbers at 142 - 139. His ERA in 2009 was 2.87 while his career average was 4.19. He pitched 219 innings, right at his average.

I guess my original statement about these guys performing slightly above average was wrong. Swisher was definitely average while Javy was better than average, but bear in mind he was in the NL. Also, with the way he was mailing it in at the end of 2008 how could anyone know that he would have a moderate turn around in 2009? Besides if he stays in the AL his ERA is likely around his average numbers. IIRC the Braves didn't make the playoffs.

So my original question stands, how do the Sox make the playoffs by keeping these two yutzes?

Craig Grebeck
10-19-2009, 06:47 PM
I just did. In 2009 Swisher batted .249 with a career average .245 and had 82 RBI while averaging 86 RBI during his career. The .004 "improvement" is impressive, slightly better than average BA while slightly under performimg on RBI.
Well, if you're defining a player by their RBI and batting average, I'm not going to bother arguing with you. It won't lead anywhere good. I'll just say that you should broaden your evaluation a bit, or a lot.

Also, you stated that each player had "slightly above average" seasons -- which I interpreted as slightly above average as defined by the rest of the league, which certainly isn't the case for either.

Javy was 15 - 10 for the Braves in 2009 and that put his career numbers at 142 - 139. His ERA in 2009 was 2.87 while his career average was 4.19. He pitched 219 innings, right at his average.

Yeah, that's an excellent season no matter how you try to spin it.

Swisher was definitely average while Javy was better than average, but bear in mind he was in the NL.
What do you consider average? Swisher was better than pretty much any definition for average.

Also, with the way he was mailing it in at the end of 2008 how could anyone know that he would have a moderate turn around in 2009?
Actually, yes. He had a solid 2008 up until his final three starts. It appears that he ran out of gas rather instead of "mailing it in."

Besides if he stays in the AL his ERA is likely around his average numbers.
An assertion you can't prove.

IIRC the Braves didn't make the playoffs.
Irrelevant in evaluating Javy in 2009.

So my original question stands, how do the Sox make the playoffs by keeping these two yutzes?
I would say it wouldn't have hurt the Sox to have Javy and Nick on the roster in 2009. Will we be better off with Nuņez, Flowers, Rodriguez, etc. in coming years? I hope so. The Javy deal was definitely a wash, but the Swisher trade is not looking good -- at least not yet.

Billy Ashley
10-19-2009, 07:42 PM
Swisher was worth about 24 runs above replacement on offense and worth about -.1 runs in the field. That's a pretty good player, worth about 17 million dollars.

Javy was one of the best pitchers in baseball, posting a FIP 2.77 over 200 innings. Now while I do believe he over performed and was aided greatly by the switch in leagues- it's clear that he's a pretty solid pitcher. According to WAR he worth just under 30 million dollars this year.

I wasn't a fan of either trade (I got hammered here a lot over my opinions). That said, it does seem as if there was more to the Swisher trade than simply value. It appears to put it mildly, he wasn't liked.

Theoretically, the Vasquez trade could still work out due to the talent they got in return but for 2009 standards I'm sure the Braves would do it again in a heartbeat.

Boondock Saint
10-19-2009, 08:06 PM
Swisher was worth about 24 runs above replacement on offense and worth about -.1 runs in the field. That's a pretty good player, worth about 17 million dollars.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Billy Ashley
10-19-2009, 08:20 PM
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:


It's not really that difficult to understand? Swisher was an acceptable defensive corner outfielder. He posted an OBP of .371 and a slugging of .498. That's significantly better than league average.

I know, I know he has a low batting average. He does just about everything else above average. Like it or not he his WAR (Wins above Replacement) of 3.7. If we accept that each win above replacement is worth somewhere between 4 and 5 million dollars on the open market as it was last year, than yes- Swisher was worth around 17 million.

Lip Man 1
10-19-2009, 08:38 PM
"There are lies, damn lies and then statistics..."

Lip

Billy Ashley
10-19-2009, 08:59 PM
"There are lies, damn lies and then statistics..."

Lip

Cliches are lame.

What's incorrect about the following statement-

"Nick Swisher is an acceptable defender in right fielder who gets on base at a better than average rate, creates fewer outs than a typical hitter and has some power."

Sure it would be great if he could hit .300 and walk 100 times a year but you know what, not many people do that. He's a good player who is prone to some ugly down periods and he can be incredibly frustrating to watch at times. But generally he'll give you a good result 3.8 at bats out of ten and that's better than most.

WhiteSox5187
10-19-2009, 09:09 PM
"There are lies, damn lies and then statistics..."

Lip

According to Literary-Reference.com, Twain's TWPS%, that statement is wrong.

Billy Ashley
10-19-2009, 09:30 PM
It seems that the batting average issue comes up often, I hope that a few recent examples may bridge the disconnect that we so often run in to. Who had the better year?

Player A
G PA AB R H 2b 3b HR RBI BB K AVE OBP Slug
161704672831943922812327100.289.314.478.792


Player B

139607490761212423110296166.247.377.494.871

If we don't look past the traditional Triple Crown Numbers, we might think Garrett Anderson's 2001 was better than Carlos Pena's 2008.

However, if we look at the number of plate appearances that Anderson had (704) and look at the percentage of time that such appearances turned into an out (.686) compared to Pena (.623) it becomes clear that a team of Pena's would outscore the hell out of a team of Andersons.

Every game, the offense has 27 outs. Each out is precious. Over 600 plate appearances Anderson would create 412 outs (or 15.3 games). Pena on the other hand would create 374 outs (or 13.8 games).

So before we even accounts for extra base hits per plate appearance and it's value (it's actually much less than OBP), Pena is already worth about 1 win more than Anderson just by not making outs. This is despite the .42 difference in AVE.

Billy Ashley
10-19-2009, 09:41 PM
Just an easier breakdown math wise-

Player A 300/325/500

Player B 225/375/500

Over 600 PA

Player A .675 * 600 = 405 outs. 405/27 = 15 games worth of outs.

Player B .625 * 600 = 375 Outs. 375/27 = 13.888 games worth of outs.

How is player A a better player than player B?

This isn't complicated, it's in fact easy math. BA is pretty much pointless without context. To argue Lies, damn lies and statistics in regards to this post would be dismiss what is learned in grade school as overly complicated math.

Lies, damned lies and stats has a lot more to do with substituting causation for correlation or forcing numbers or using flawed data from an unrepresentative sample than most of what goes on with the SABR crowd.

Boondock Saint
10-19-2009, 09:58 PM
It's not really that difficult to understand? Swisher was an acceptable defensive corner outfielder. He posted an OBP of .371 and a slugging of .498. That's significantly better than league average.

I know, I know he has a low batting average. He does just about everything else above average. Like it or not he his WAR (Wins above Replacement) of 3.7. If we accept that each win above replacement is worth somewhere between 4 and 5 million dollars on the open market as it was last year, than yes- Swisher was worth around 17 million.

The average salary of an MLB player was just above three million dollars last season. Are you telling me that Nick ****ing Swisher is worth almost fifteen million dollars more than the average player? That is absurd.

Billy Ashley
10-19-2009, 10:08 PM
The average salary of an MLB player was just above three million dollars last season. Are you telling me that Nick ****ing Swisher is worth almost fifteen million dollars more than the average player? That is absurd.


No- I said, that's his value on the open market. Your comment is absurd in that it shows how little you understand the economics of baseball.

I mean speaking of lies, damned lies and statistics that 3 million figure counts every player. Including the more than half of players with less than 6 years of service time. Players are not unrestricted free agents until they've either played 6 years or have been non-tendered. Therefore, when looking at the 17 million figure you must compare it to the market value- namely players who have accumulated enough time to become free agents.

Ever wonder why teams with low payrolls have so many young players? It's because first and second year players are "only" going to be paid in the six figures due to the current collective bargaining agreement. As they gain years they gain mandated raises until they can file for arbitration.

To compare all of major league baseball as a whole in an attempt to look at trends is foolish. You've got to look at what the market value is, as in what a team would be willing to pay for that production should it be freely available to sign with anyone.

ilsox7
10-19-2009, 10:12 PM
The average salary of an MLB player was just above three million dollars last season. Are you telling me that Nick ****ing Swisher is worth almost fifteen million dollars more than the average player? That is absurd.

According to WAR!, I am worth about $4.3MM on the open market.

Boondock Saint
10-19-2009, 10:23 PM
No- I said, that's his value on the open market. Your comment is absurd in that it shows how little you understand the economics of baseball.

I mean speaking of lies, damned lies and statistics that 3 million figure counts every player. Including the more than half of players with less than 6 years of service time. Players are not unrestricted free agents until they've either played 6 years or have been non-tendered. Therefore, when looking at the 17 million figure you must compare it to the market value- namely players who have accumulated enough time to become free agents.

Ever wonder why teams with low payrolls have so many young players? It's because first and second year players are "only" going to be paid in the six figures due to the current collective bargaining agreement. As they gain years they gain mandated raises until they can file for arbitration.

The first bolded comment is incredibly presumptuous, as well as insulting. You have no idea what I do and do not know. The second bolded comment still doesn't make Nick Swisher worth seventeen million dollars. The number is a ridiculous price to pay for what is barely an above average player, regardless of what the average salary is.

Lip Man 1
10-19-2009, 10:24 PM
Billy:

Nick Swisher is a clubhouse cancer who sulked and pissed and moaned about the fact that Ozzie wasn't playing him, which is strange because he was hitting terribly, yet he still thought he should play.

A guy who hits the occasional home run, but strikes out a ton and can't hit above .230 or whatever he hit for the Sox should give the club back the money he signed for...not supposedly be worth 15 million a season.

Those are the only statistics that matter to me.

If any computer formula thinks that he is, well that tells you everything you need to know about sabermetrics and the individuals who blindly bow down to them.

I think Daver has said it best in the past (paraphrasing) 'get out of the basement and actually watch a few games.'

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-20-2009, 05:58 AM
So this thread has turned into a debate about Fangraphs' methodology for evaluating performance wherein one side is making too many assumptions about the legitimacy of the numbers and the other side is making statements like this:

I think Daver has said it best in the past (paraphrasing) 'get out of the basement and actually watch a few games.'


Great.

Well, I still stand by my statement that Swisher was above average in 2009 while Vazquez was dominant.

Billy Ashley
10-20-2009, 06:23 AM
So this thread has turned into a debate about Fangraphs' methodology for evaluating performance wherein one side is making too many assumptions about the legitimacy of the numbers and the other side is making statements like this:



Great.

Well, I still stand by my statement that Swisher was above average in 2009 while Vazquez was dominant.

WAR isn't perfect that's for damn sure- I have not been pointing out my issues with it in this thread because many here dismiss things outright without even having a good reason. I felt discussing my issues with fielding metrics that are used in calculating value would be a waste of effort. I'd love to have that conversation but it's not likely happening here today.

I brought up the idea of value in relation to Wins Above Replacement player to back up your (as well as mine as well as any sensible human beings) opinion that Swisher does not in fact suck. He's not the super stat some thought he'd become but he's a damn solid player.

The other point, in which I think you'll agree and the point I hope most take away is that BA without context is useless. Nick Swisher creates a hell of a lot fewer outs per 600 PA than A. Ramirez, even when/if Ramirez hits .300.

Billy Ashley
10-20-2009, 06:26 AM
Billy:

Nick Swisher is a clubhouse cancer who sulked and pissed and moaned about the fact that Ozzie wasn't playing him, which is strange because he was hitting terribly, yet he still thought he should play.

A guy who hits the occasional home run, but strikes out a ton and can't hit above .230 or whatever he hit for the Sox should give the club back the money he signed for...not supposedly be worth 15 million a season.

Those are the only statistics that matter to me.

If any computer formula thinks that he is, well that tells you everything you need to know about sabermetrics and the individuals who blindly bow down to them.

I think Daver has said it best in the past (paraphrasing) 'get out of the basement and actually watch a few games.'

Lip

Read my above post. I don't think WAR is perfect, though I do trust it more than most on this board.

I've already stated that I don't believe Williams traded Swisher because of value but because of club house issues. People didn't like him, I get it. Though oddly enough, he's well liked in NY.

Again, you point out .230 like it means something. Explain to me how a guy who posts an BA of .230 but walks 100 times is worse than a guy who hits .300 and walks 25 times.

Most of the math I use doesn't require a computer- again refer to my post about creating outs.

Craig Grebeck
10-20-2009, 06:49 AM
WAR isn't perfect that's for damn sure- I have not been pointing out my issues with it in this thread because many here dismiss things outright without even having a good reason. I felt discussing my issues with fielding metrics that are used in calculating value would be a waste of effort. I'd love to have that conversation but it's not likely happening here today.
I understand you. I think WAR is a worthwhile stat, but sometimes it's not worth bringing into conversation when your peers will just malign it and say you live in your mother's basement or something. Arguments like that just aren't worth having, as neither side will change their minds. I'd rather just use something more accessible (like wOBA) to argue my point.

I brought up the idea of value in relation to Wins Above Replacement player to back up your (as well as mine as well as any sensible human beings) opinion that Swisher does not in fact suck. He's not the super stat some thought he'd become but he's a damn solid player.
The thing is there are just so many ways of doing this without using sabermetrics -- so I just haven't even bothered bringing it up in the thread. I understand your purpose, but there aren't more than a handful of people on this board who will give your position some pause when you bring up WARP. They dismiss it out of hand and know absolutely nothing about it.

The other point, in which I think you'll agree and the point I hope most take away is that BA without context is useless. Nick Swisher creates a hell of a lot fewer outs per 600 PA than A. Ramirez, even when/if Ramirez hits .300.
Of course. Not making outs is essential. Though I hope Alexei will get the slugging up enough so that his batting average isn't completely empty and meaningless.

I've already stated that I don't believe Williams traded Swisher because of value but because of club house issues. People didn't like him, I get it. Though oddly enough, he's well liked in NY.
Bingo. And he was well-liked in Oakland.

Again, you point out .230 like it means something. Explain to me how a guy who posts an BA of .230 but walks 100 times is worse than a guy who hits .300 and walks 25 times.
I don't really agree with this. While there are studies that can pinpoint the value of a walk versus the value of a hit, I don't think it's that simple. It's very case by case and it takes much more to evaluate a player's offensive (and total) performance. I know Tom Tango has talked at length about the more modern sabermetrician's intuition to undervalue the ability to make contact, and I tend to agree with him. While walks are valuable, and a player that hits .230 but walks one hundred times can be productive, let's not act as though he's on the same level as a player that hits .300. There are more factors than the ones you're examining here.

Most of the math I use doesn't require a computer- again refer to my post about creating outs.

Doesn't matter. I've been ripped for being too mathematical when using isoD -- which is simple subtraction.

asindc
10-20-2009, 08:50 AM
Read my above post. I don't think WAR is perfect, though I do trust it more than most on this board.

I've already stated that I don't believe Williams traded Swisher because of value but because of club house issues. People didn't like him, I get it. Though oddly enough, he's well liked in NY.

Again, you point out .230 like it means something. Explain to me how a guy who posts an BA of .230 but walks 100 times is worse than a guy who hits .300 and walks 25 times.

Most of the math I use doesn't require a computer- again refer to my post about creating outs.

I think this discussion got untracked a bit when you stated that Swisher's performance this year equated to a $17 million a year salary. That might be theoretically true, but do you honestly believe that any team would pay Swisher $17 million a year for let's say 3-4 years, even if the team was guaranteed the same level of performance each year?

With regard to 2008 Swisher vs. 2008 Alexei, 2008 Alexei could have walked only 10 times that year and still might have been more valuable than 2008 Swisher. I certainly agree that stats like batting average and RBI are essentially meaningless if not put into proper context. However, I think you have to put the totality of their numbers into proper context, and the only way to do that would have been to watch them play last year. Those of us who did watch them enough could plainly see that 2008 Alexei was clearly the better player.

I have no reason to doubt that Swisher is well-liked in New York and was well-liked in Oakland. There is also no doubt that he did not play as poorly in Oakland and has not played as poorly in New York as he did last year while with the Sox. If he had (or was), I seriously doubt that he would be liked any better in those two places than he is in Chicago. If 2009 Swisher had showed up last year, he would still be playing for the Sox. Period. He did not, so he is not.

munchman33
10-20-2009, 11:01 AM
Again, you point out .230 like it means something. Explain to me how a guy who posts an BA of .230 but walks 100 times is worse than a guy who hits .300 and walks 25 times.


On paper they are the same. To anyone that watches baseball they are completely different. There are situations where either can be better (though in truth, if one is better it's almost always the hit). But I'd take a .275 hitter with 50 walks before those other two, on the assumption he's not going up there:

1.) trying to walk or hit a home run only, like the first example
2.) trying to put every pitch in play no matter what, like the second example

cws05champ
10-20-2009, 11:09 AM
No- I said, that's his value on the open market. Your comment is absurd in that it shows how little you understand the economics of baseball.
Therefore, when looking at the 17 million figure you must compare it to the market value- namely players who have accumulated enough time to become free agents.

To compare all of major league baseball as a whole in an attempt to look at trends is foolish. You've got to look at what the market value is, as in what a team would be willing to pay for that production should it be freely available to sign with anyone.
So ask yourself this question: If Swisher were a free agent and the White Sox gave him $17M per year, even on a one year deal, would you think that is a good or fair deal?

TDog
10-20-2009, 11:44 AM
...

Again, you point out .230 like it means something. Explain to me how a guy who posts an BA of .230 but walks 100 times is worse than a guy who hits .300 and walks 25 times. ...

If that needs explaining to you, you don't watch enough baseball. But I've discussed an example that addresses this issue in another current thread.

Last year, Nick Swisher walked 100 times. Alexei Ramirez walked 18 times. Ramirez, who hit .290 (10 points off .300 as Swisher was 11 points off .230), was clearly the more valuable of the two players, although Swisher had a higher on-base percentage.

Of course, walks rarely drive in runs, especially with two outs and first base open. Disdain the players who drive in runs if you will, but they end up your most valuable offensive players.

Swisher was popular in Oakland with many fans because he had a great fan personality. But on Bay Area sports radio, there were hours of calls complaining about his approach to hitting.

WhiteSox5187
10-20-2009, 12:04 PM
Essentially this debate comes down to two major stragetical differences: would you rather get a hit or just avoid making an out? While I can appreciate the value of walks (that is about the only thing in the game I can do well and that's because I'm so damned short), I'd rather have a hit at the end of the day. Even making an out can be productive (and this gets into that Bill James argument, and I think that most people who play baseball would say "I'd rather have a guy bunt with runners on first and second then swing away if he's going to hit into a DP,"), but getting hits are far more valuable than getting walks. A runner on first can score on a hit if it's in the right place, the most a runner on first does with a walk is go into second. That's just my opinion.

Craig Grebeck
10-20-2009, 12:31 PM
Swisher was popular in Oakland with many fans because he had a great fan personality. But on Bay Area sports radio, there were hours of calls complaining about his approach to hitting.
And this is evidence of what? Sports radio is on par with youtube comments in being a cesspool of humanity.

TDog
10-20-2009, 01:52 PM
And this is evidence of what? Sports radio is on par with youtube comments in being a cesspool of humanity.

It is evidence that a good deal of A's fans were sick of Swisher's act. It is evidence that his vaunted popularity was not relative to his baseball abilities, having more to do with his charity work. It is a small point made to counter the equally irrelevant point that Swisher was popular with the fans in Oakland.

Of course, his lack of production in Oakland, Chicago and even New York is more relevant to the discussion.

Craig Grebeck
10-20-2009, 01:57 PM
Of course, his lack of production in Oakland, Chicago and even New York is more relevant to the discussion.
This argument has run its course. Your inability to appreciate power and plate discipline has been run through time and time again.

TDog
10-20-2009, 04:01 PM
This argument has run its course. Your inability to appreciate power and plate discipline has been run through time and time again.

Ted Williams had plate discipline. Nick Swisher just takes a lot of pitches.

A hitter who strikes out more than 25 percent more than he walks, should never be confused with plate discipline.

Billy Ashley
10-20-2009, 05:18 PM
I think this discussion got untracked a bit when you stated that Swisher's performance this year equated to a $17 million a year salary. That might be theoretically true, but do you honestly believe that any team would pay Swisher $17 million a year for let's say 3-4 years, even if the team was guaranteed the same level of performance each year?

With regard to 2008 Swisher vs. 2008 Alexei, 2008 Alexei could have walked only 10 times that year and still might have been more valuable than 2008 Swisher. I certainly agree that stats like batting average and RBI are essentially meaningless if not put into proper context. However, I think you have to put the totality of their numbers into proper context, and the only way to do that would have been to watch them play last year. Those of us who did watch them enough could plainly see that 2008 Alexei was clearly the better player.

I have no reason to doubt that Swisher is well-liked in New York and was well-liked in Oakland. There is also no doubt that he did not play as poorly in Oakland and has not played as poorly in New York as he did last year while with the Sox. If he had (or was), I seriously doubt that he would be liked any better in those two places than he is in Chicago. If 2009 Swisher had showed up last year, he would still be playing for the Sox. Period. He did not, so he is not.


I don't think I'd offer him that contract for a single year, let alone 3 or 4. Teams don't give out (or shouldn't) give out salaries for past performance but for what they project in to the future. Swisher had a year that I suspect is at the very peak of his performance.

The fact that the relationship between Swisher and the CWS doesn't mean that he's a total dick or that the White Sox are a bad organization. Instead it just means for whatever reason it didn't work out. It sucks, but it happens to every team. All you can do is deal with it.

Billy Ashley
10-20-2009, 07:20 PM
If that needs explaining to you, you don't watch enough baseball. But I've discussed an example that addresses this issue in another current thread.

Last year, Nick Swisher walked 100 times. Alexei Ramirez walked 18 times. Ramirez, who hit .290 (10 points off .300 as Swisher was 11 points off .230), was clearly the more valuable of the two players, although Swisher had a higher on-base percentage.

Of course, walks rarely drive in runs, especially with two outs and first base open. Disdain the players who drive in runs if you will, but they end up your most valuable offensive players.

Swisher was popular in Oakland with many fans because he had a great fan personality. But on Bay Area sports radio, there were hours of calls complaining about his approach to hitting.

I don't understand how this point makes any sense- You've deliberately picked out the season in which Swisher had the worst slugging percentage of his career, ignored the fact that he didn't walk 100 times and hit .219 that year. I guess beyond that, you've got me dead to rights.

Ramirez was in fact a better hitter that year, because Swisher didn't get on base as he usually does, by a significant margin.

PS I do watch baseball.

Frater Perdurabo
10-20-2009, 08:28 PM
A walk only generates a run if and when the bases are loaded.

But there are many situations when a single can score a run.

At the plate, I'd rather have AJ Pierzynski (good average, low OBP, puts the ball in play) than Swisher (low average, high OBP, high strikeouts)

JB98
10-20-2009, 08:40 PM
As I've said many times before, Swisher is awful. Thank goodness he is gone.

gosox41
10-20-2009, 09:02 PM
Billy:

Nick Swisher is a clubhouse cancer who sulked and pissed and moaned about the fact that Ozzie wasn't playing him, which is strange because he was hitting terribly, yet he still thought he should play.

A guy who hits the occasional home run, but strikes out a ton and can't hit above .230 or whatever he hit for the Sox should give the club back the money he signed for...not supposedly be worth 15 million a season.

Those are the only statistics that matter to me.

If any computer formula thinks that he is, well that tells you everything you need to know about sabermetrics and the individuals who blindly bow down to them.

I think Daver has said it best in the past (paraphrasing) 'get out of the basement and actually watch a few games.'

Lip


Not sure what his market value is o nthe open market and it doesn't matter. I think $15MM sounds high, but time will tell when he's a free agent.

But on the flip side, he is a productive offensive player and does provide above average OBP. That is valuable. And hitting 20+ HR's a year is hitting more then just the occastional home run. The peak home run years are over, and I think 30-40 HR seasons are going to be the considered great power hitting seasons for awhile.


Bob

Billy Ashley
10-20-2009, 09:27 PM
Not sure what his market value is o nthe open market and it doesn't matter. I think $15MM sounds high, but time will tell when he's a free agent.

But on the flip side, he is a productive offensive player and does provide above average OBP. That is valuable. And hitting 20+ HR's a year is hitting more then just the occastional home run. The peak home run years are over, and I think 30-40 HR seasons are going to be the considered great power hitting seasons for awhile.


Bob

I very much doubt he gets anything close to 15 million AAV once his current deal is up. 2009 is about what we should expect from Swisher on good years. Otherwise, he'll just be slightly above average offensively and ok in the field. He's signed to a fairly team friend contract and by the time that's done (after 2012, if he has his option picked up) he'll be like showing some severe regression due to the fact that he's already leaning pretty heavily some "old man skills." Chances are, once his bat speed slows down a tick, he'll be in real trouble

I do agree with you that home runs will be on the down turn. Though I don't think it has as much to do with PED's as some will surely point to. It seems more teams are starting to realize that there is just too much value in good defense to field a team of beer league soft ball sluggers (as fun as those teams are) and are going to emphasise more athleticism in the near future. Furthermore, these things are also naturally cyclical and we've had a pretty long run of boppers in the MLB.

We've had a number of excellent power hitters advance in age recently and while there are some younger sluggers it's unlikely that we'll see as many as we did only a decade ago.

Smokey Burg
10-21-2009, 01:34 PM
When Swisher was with the Sox he was marginally acceptable as a major leaguer and then he beacme a pouting, sulking club house cancer. Once a player goes that route, he stands a good chance that he will be somewhere else next spring. What is the guarantee that Swisher would have performed for the Sox as he did for the Yankees in 2009 if he had been able to stay? None, and besides some people here seem to imply that he had an MVP year. Far from it. He is an average schlub who is just good enough to be a 4th or 5th outfielder, no way is this guy bound for the HOF.

Also, if the Yankees were winning because of everyday heroics by Nick Swisher, I'll change my tune. Sure, the guy is capable of flashes of brilliance but then even a blind pig can still find acorns. While watching the game last night, Swisher got picked off 2nd base, but the ump called him safe. Maybe the guy had a horse shoe this year.

Javy had a decent season with the Braves in 2009, not doubt. But once again will that equate to a decent 2009 season with the Sox? No. With the way he finished 2008, even a casusl observer had to think of several possibilities such as 1) is he hurt? 2) did he just run out of gas? or 3) does he care anymore?

I don't fault Kenny for getting rid of these two under performers. Swisher was a well documented cancer and Javy was a suspected head case who appeared to give it up with over a month left in 2008. There were no gurantees or even indications that these two would have moderate turn arounds in 2009.

If Kenny kept these guys and they repeated their respective 2008 seasons, I would suspect that some Sox faithful would be burning Kenny effigies throughout the off season. Besides, a GM is supposed to go out and try and make the team better during the off season. One way that happens is to dump the under and non performers, which is precisely what he did.

Craig Grebeck
10-21-2009, 02:32 PM
...some people here seem to imply that he had an MVP year. Far from it. He is an average schlub who is just good enough to be a 4th or 5th outfielder, no way is this guy bound for the HOF.

1. Show me this supposed implication that he had an MVP year. Please.
2. Just good enough to be a fourth or fifth outfielder? Are you talking about Nick Swisher or Ben Francisco?
3. No one ever said he was bound for the HOF. Inventing an argument to dispute it is pretty lame.
Javy had a decent season with the Braves in 2009, not doubt. But once again will that equate to a decent 2009 season with the Sox? No. With the way he finished 2008, even a casusl observer had to think of several possibilities such as 1) is he hurt? 2) did he just run out of gas? or 3) does he care anymore?
Define decent, please. It was one of the four or five best pitching seasons in the NL.

I don't fault Kenny for getting rid of these two under performers. Swisher was a well documented cancer and Javy was a suspected head case who appeared to give it up with over a month left in 2008. There were no gurantees or even indications that these two would have moderate turn arounds in 2009.
Sigh. Look at his splits again. You're wrong.

WhiteSox5187
10-21-2009, 04:37 PM
1. Show me this supposed implication that he had an MVP year. Please.
2. Just good enough to be a fourth or fifth outfielder? Are you talking about Nick Swisher or Ben Francisco?
3. No one ever said he was bound for the HOF. Inventing an argument to dispute it is pretty lame.

Define decent, please. It was one of the four or five best pitching seasons in the NL.


Sigh. Look at his splits again. You're wrong.

He had a 6.25 ERA with a 1.389 WHIP...what exactly about those stats are redeemable? Did he have a nice VORP? A nice ERA+/-IP? Or was it just bad voodoo on him so those stats don't count?

Craig, he had a great year this year, but he SUCKED last year down the stretch and had a miserable attitude to boot. He was a fairly mediocre at best pitcher for us and with his contract and in this market, he just wasn't worth keeping. Essentially it boils down to would you rather have Javy or Peavy?

Smokey Burg
10-21-2009, 05:40 PM
Thank you WhiteSox 5187. I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who saw that.

Rogers article strongly implies that had the Sox kept these two guys they would have made the playoffs. I see it otherwise. Swisher never got it going in 2008 and instead of taking advice and/or working on problems he pouted and whined, or at least thats what I saw and/or heard about the guy. Good riddance.

The end of 2008 was a disaster for Vazquez, and with a lifetime W - L record about .500 indicates that he was at best a #3 starter.

Both of these guys had decent years in 2009, neither one had an MVP year and neither the Braves or the Yankees had decent seasons solely because of either of these players. In a previous post I mentioned that even a blind pig can find an acorn. 2009 was the acorn for each of these guys.

I want to see winning baseball in this town, strongly preferring that it happens on the south side. Keeping guys that under perform and that have no history or show any indication other than mediocrity, then that will prevent winning baseball. Kenny did the right thing, dumped these two yutzes and tried again.

Lip Man 1
10-21-2009, 05:55 PM
From the next WSI interview:

“Nick Swisher had some issues coming to the Sox and like I said earlier the Sox thought they were getting the player they saw in Oakland. His stance caused some issues and people tried to get his attention to it. Ken Griffey when he came to the Sox, made a suggestion to him for example and he just disregarded it.”

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-21-2009, 06:45 PM
He had a 6.25 ERA with a 1.389 WHIP...what exactly about those stats are redeemable? Did he have a nice VORP? A nice ERA+/-IP? Or was it just bad voodoo on him so those stats don't count?

Craig, he had a great year this year, but he SUCKED last year down the stretch and had a miserable attitude to boot. He was a fairly mediocre at best pitcher for us and with his contract and in this market, he just wasn't worth keeping. Essentially it boils down to would you rather have Javy or Peavy?
Ugh. The original poster said he "gave it up" with "over a month left" and that is simply untrue. I will, for the umpteenth time, note that Javy had three good or great starts in September and three bad ones -- two of which came on short rest. So simply stating that he "gave it up with over a month left" is disingenuous at worst and factually inaccurate at best. In short, it was wrong.

Both of these guys had decent years in 2009, neither one had an MVP year and neither the Braves or the Yankees had decent seasons solely because of either of these players. In a previous post I mentioned that even a blind pig can find an acorn. 2009 was the acorn for each of these guys.

You are lying. Javier Vazquez had a great year. Admit it. If his year was decent, did every Sox pitcher have a below average season?

Rdy2PlayBall
10-21-2009, 06:53 PM
From the next WSI interview:

“Nick Swisher had some issues coming to the Sox and like I said earlier the Sox thought they were getting the player they saw in Oakland. His stance caused some issues and people tried to get his attention to it. Ken Griffey when he came to the Sox, made a suggestion to him for example and he just disregarded it.”

LipWhat a little biatch... :mad:

I liked Swisher when he contributed... but the last half of the season was a complete joke and he was just horrible. The only think I miss is how he pumps up the clubhouse.

thomas35forever
10-21-2009, 07:07 PM
How is this thread still alive? How can anyone justify keeping either Vazquez or Swisher? Vazquez was a disaster waiting to happen every game he started and although Swisher had a great personality, he struck out a lot and then pouted about losing his starting spot to Dewayne Wise of all people. As much as some people don't see it and not that it matters much, I think the Sox would have won fewer games if those guys were still here. Besides, if Swisher were still here, would we have even picked up either Pods or Rios?

Brian26
10-21-2009, 07:13 PM
Both of these guys had decent years in 2009, neither one had an MVP year and neither the Braves or the Yankees had decent seasons solely because of either of these players. In a previous post I mentioned that even a blind pig can find an acorn. 2009 was the acorn for each of these guys.

You are lying.

Just because you disagree with his opinion, it doesn't mean he is lying. No more baiting tactics, please.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-21-2009, 07:53 PM
How is this thread still alive? How can anyone justify keeping either Vazquez or Swisher? Vazquez was a disaster waiting to happen every game he started and although Swisher had a great personality, he struck out a lot and then pouted about losing his starting spot to Dewayne Wise of all people. As much as some people don't see it and not that it matters much, I think the Sox would have won fewer games if those guys were still here. Besides, if Swisher were still here, would we have even picked up either Pods or Rios?I wanted to say this when I posted... but heck. If it's still alive I figured I would get attacked for not agreeing with the majority. :dunno:

asindc
10-21-2009, 08:04 PM
I wanted to say this when I posted... but heck. If it's still alive I figured I would get attacked for not agreeing with the majority. :dunno:

Do you really think that the majority of posters in this thread want either Swisher or Vazquez back? That's not what I've been reading.

Rdy2PlayBall
10-21-2009, 08:09 PM
Do you really think that the majority of posters in this thread want either Swisher or Vazquez back? That's not what I've been reading.WAHHH??? I was talking about them thinking this thread deserves to still be posted in. :rolling:

WhiteSox5187
10-21-2009, 11:00 PM
Ugh. The original poster said he "gave it up" with "over a month left" and that is simply untrue. I will, for the umpteenth time, note that Javy had three good or great starts in September and three bad ones -- two of which came on short rest. So simply stating that he "gave it up with over a month left" is disingenuous at worst and factually inaccurate at best. In short, it was wrong.



Actually, he had ONE good start against the last place Tigers in September, two mediocre starts where he gave up two runs in six innings, and then three flat out miserable starts when it counted the most. Then when Ozzie challenged him he said "Hey, I have my house in Puerto Rico," which is akin to saying "I don't really give a damn," and then when in a start against Cleveland AJ went out to him and said something and slapped his mitt (which to me looked like a "Let's go and get 'em!" but who knows) Javy started mouthing off to AJ. He was mediocre at best in the AL and had his best years with the miserable Expos. Maybe he'll turn it around in Atlanta, but as I said earlier he is getting paid like an ace and not pitching like it. If we kept him I don't think we're in the playoffs this year anyways and we sure as hell don't have Peavy. So, I will say it again, thank God we don't have Javy. His trade MIGHT have hurt us in the short term, but paid off huge in the long run.

As for Swisher, he just didn't fit in well with the team. What we needed this year was a guy to put on his shoulders the way Quentin did last year, and that's not the kind of guy Swisher is. He's a nice little piece, but face it, he's not the guy who is going to turn a team around.

Craig Grebeck
10-22-2009, 02:41 AM
How is this thread still alive? How can anyone justify keeping either Vazquez or Swisher? Vazquez was a disaster waiting to happen every game he started and although Swisher had a great personality, he struck out a lot and then pouted about losing his starting spot to Dewayne Wise of all people. As much as some people don't see it and not that it matters much, I think the Sox would have won fewer games if those guys were still here. Besides, if Swisher were still here, would we have even picked up either Pods or Rios?
It's not about wanting Javy or Swisher back, it's about acknowledging the fact that they are both good ballplayers who performed in 2009. Smokey keeps saying they had "decent" years, which is simply not true -- especially in Javy's case.

Actually, he had ONE good start against the last place Tigers in September, two mediocre starts where he gave up two runs in six innings, and then three flat out miserable starts when it counted the most. Then when Ozzie challenged him he said "Hey, I have my house in Puerto Rico," which is akin to saying "I don't really give a damn," and then when in a start against Cleveland AJ went out to him and said something and slapped his mitt (which to me looked like a "Let's go and get 'em!" but who knows) Javy started mouthing off to AJ. He was mediocre at best in the AL and had his best years with the miserable Expos. Maybe he'll turn it around in Atlanta, but as I said earlier he is getting paid like an ace and not pitching like it. If we kept him I don't think we're in the playoffs this year anyways and we sure as hell don't have Peavy. So, I will say it again, thank God we don't have Javy. His trade MIGHT have hurt us in the short term, but paid off huge in the long run.

Come on. Two runs in six innings is mediocre? Don't change your evaluation to suit your argument. You know as well as I do that that is a good start.

And we've been over this debunked Puerto Rico stuff a thousand times. That mythical dead horse needs some rest.

Just because you disagree with his opinion, it doesn't mean he is lying. No more baiting tactics, please.

I would just love for him to tell me how Javy was merely decent in 2009. If that's the case, then Quentin had a decent season in 2008. AJ was pretty decent in 2009 too. Buehrle was well below average in 2009.

Are we evaluating pitchers like it's the 1960s or something?

WhiteSox5187
10-22-2009, 08:16 AM
It's not about wanting Javy or Swisher back, it's about acknowledging the fact that they are both good ballplayers who performed in 2009. Smokey keeps saying they had "decent" years, which is simply not true -- especially in Javy's case.


Come on. Two runs in six innings is mediocre? Don't change your evaluation to suit your argument. You know as well as I do that that is a good start.

And we've been over this debunked Puerto Rico stuff a thousand times. That mythical dead horse needs some rest.


Maybe you have debunked the mythical Puerto Rico quote, but I haven't, I still rememeber it and still think that is the reason he's gone and I say good ridance. And I made a mistake, he allowed FOUR runs in six innings a start against Cleveland and three runs in five innings against Toronto. Not exactly stellar by Mr. Vasquez to close out 2008.

ewokpelts
10-22-2009, 08:27 AM
What a little biatch... :mad:

I liked Swisher when he contributed... but the last half of the season was a complete joke and he was just horrible. The only think I miss is how he pumps up the clubhouse.
Swisher was a sulking child after Griffey joined the team. He was nowhere near the "pump it up" guy in the clubhouse as the season closed.

Craig Grebeck
10-22-2009, 08:58 AM
Maybe you have debunked the mythical Puerto Rico quote, but I haven't, I still rememeber it and still think that is the reason he's gone and I say good ridance. And I made a mistake, he allowed FOUR runs in six innings a start against Cleveland and three runs in five innings against Toronto. Not exactly stellar by Mr. Vasquez to close out 2008.
Nope (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE200809030.shtml) and nope. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200809091.shtml)

My stance on this Puerto Rico business has always been that Javy said that no matter what happens, he'd still have his family in Puerto Rico. I can see how some may spin that into a point against him, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

spawn
10-22-2009, 09:20 AM
Nope (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE200809030.shtml) and nope. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA200809091.shtml)

My stance on this Puerto Rico business has always been that Javy said that no matter what happens, he'd still have his family in Puerto Rico. I can see how some may spin that into a point against him, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
This I agree with 100%. That quote has always been taken way out of context IMO.

Craig Grebeck
10-22-2009, 09:27 AM
This I agree with 100%. That quote has always been taken way out of context IMO.
And it really fits in with his background and his actions over the course of his career. More than anything else, Javy just always wanted to be closer to his family in P.R.

thedudeabides
10-22-2009, 09:47 AM
It's not about wanting Javy or Swisher back, it's about acknowledging the fact that they are both good ballplayers who performed in 2009. Smokey keeps saying they had "decent" years, which is simply not true -- especially in Javy's case.


Come on. Two runs in six innings is mediocre? Don't change your evaluation to suit your argument. You know as well as I do that that is a good start.

And we've been over this debunked Puerto Rico stuff a thousand times. That mythical dead horse needs some rest.


I would just love for him to tell me how Javy was merely decent in 2009. If that's the case, then Quentin had a decent season in 2008. AJ was pretty decent in 2009 too. Buehrle was well below average in 2009.

Are we evaluating pitchers like it's the 1960s or something?

I don't see how anyone could argue this. Javy had a great season. I doubt he would have had that good of a season with the Sox. That should be the argument.

Javy and Swisher failed here. Javy really has never been good in the AL, he may have found a home in Atlanta. The Sox seem to have gotten a good return for him.

Swisher is a different story. He was bad here, and he gravitated to his norm with the Yankees. Which is an average corner outfielder, at best. It's just that the Sox gave up a lot to get him, and received nothing but monetary comensation to get rid of him. I think that's what pisses people off.

Smokey Burg
10-22-2009, 01:32 PM
There is no way that I can say that a guy who is a career .500 pitcher and goes 15 -10 on a 3rd place team had a "great" year. He had a decent year and thats it. If the Braves won 80% of the time that he pitched and made the playoffs because of his heroics then I'll change my tune.

There is some scientific evidence that indicates that an incandescent light bulb burns brightest right before it blows out. We'll have to see what he does the next couple of years to determine if this was his "light bulb" season.

Once again, I want to see champioship baseball in this town, strongly preferring that it happens with the Sox. I don't see how that will happen if the Sox keep guys that are just good enough to be in the major leagues, like Javy and Swisher. When he was here Javy started good but slid to under performing in 2008. Swisher never got it going here.

This is my last post on this subject, but Craig if you want to discuss baseball philosophy with me, pick a bar, a time and bring a lot of cash, we may be there a while.

Craig Grebeck
10-22-2009, 01:58 PM
There is no way that I can say that a guy who is a career .500 pitcher and goes 15 -10 on a 3rd place team had a "great" year. He had a decent year and thats it. If the Braves won 80% of the time that he pitched and made the playoffs because of his heroics then I'll change my tune.

There is some scientific evidence that indicates that an incandescent light bulb burns brightest right before it blows out. We'll have to see what he does the next couple of years to determine if this was his "light bulb" season.

Once again, I want to see champioship baseball in this town, strongly preferring that it happens with the Sox. I don't see how that will happen if the Sox keep guys that are just good enough to be in the major leagues, like Javy and Swisher. When he was here Javy started good but slid to under performing in 2008. Swisher never got it going here.

This is my last post on this subject, but Craig if you want to discuss baseball philosophy with me, pick a bar, a time and bring a lot of cash, we may be there a while.
Fair enough. I'm in the UK for now, but there will be time.