PDA

View Full Version : ESPN TV: Bradford trade terrible.


DrCrawdad
07-31-2002, 04:34 PM
I just caught a moment of the Indians/A's game on ESPN this afternoon. The announcers were talking about the stellar numbers that Chad Bradford is putting up this year and said that it had to be one of the worst trades ever. I guess they haven't been following KW's trades.

We need a NO TRADES WITH BILLY BEANE tag!

Daver
07-31-2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
I just caught a moment of the Indians/A's game on ESPN this afternoon. The announcers were talking about the stellar numbers that Chad Bradford is putting up this year and said that it had to be one of the worst trades ever. I guess they haven't been following KW's trades.

We need a NO TRADES WITH BILLY BEANE tag!

That trade brought the Sox the only catcher in their minor league system that has any chance of playing at the big league level.

Jerry_Manuel
07-31-2002, 04:36 PM
Piss on ESPN. The trade doesn't look so hot because Olivo is still in the minor leagues. Bradford was ready to pitch in the big leagues when the trade was made.

Can Olivo appear in at least one major league game before we call it a bad trade?

34 Inch Stick
07-31-2002, 05:03 PM
And before the epidemic of arm trouble that hit the staff the Sox were VERY deep in the bullpen at both the major and AAA level. I did like Bradford in his short stint in the minors. However acquiring a middle reliver for a minor league All Star catcher hardly rates as a blip in the history of bad trades.

doublem23
07-31-2002, 05:09 PM
I think we all have to ask the same question...

Does ESPN know anything?

:boston
They employ me, so you know they must have the best baseball reporters in the business. This just in the rumor mill, the Red Sox have traded two minor leaguers to the Yankees for Alfonso Soriano, Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, Andy Petitte, and Jorge Posada.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-31-2002, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Can Olivo appear in at least one major league game before we call it a bad trade?

I dunno. I guess it depends on whether you figure they will let him use his corked bat. Or was that Mario Valenzuela? I get them confused. :smile:

The Sox have no (real) catching prospects.

:versatile
"PHG rests his case!"

Daver
07-31-2002, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I dunno. I guess it depends on whether you figure they will let him use his corked bat. Or was that Mario Valenzuela? I get them confused. :smile:

The Sox have no (real) catching prospects.

:versatile
"PHG rests his case!"

It was Olivio with the corked bat,and he will probably be a non roster invitee to ST next year.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-31-2002, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by daver
It was Olivio with the corked bat,and he will probably be a non roster invitee to ST next year.

LOL! If the only competition is these two guys...

:MJ :versatile

...I don't see how Olivo couldn't get invited. :smile:

Hey, you think Chris Singleton left behind any of Albert Belle's "special" bats? LMAO!

:)

Daver
07-31-2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge




Hey, you think Chris Singleton left behind any of Albert Belle's "special" bats? LMAO!

:)

The way he is hitting in Baltimore you can almost bank on it.......

:)

LongDistanceFan
07-31-2002, 05:50 PM
bradford trade was a terrible trade, regardless what anybody says.

who were the coaches then?

Tragg
07-31-2002, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Can Olivo appear in at least one major league game before we call it a bad trade?

What if he never makes it that far? Should we still not call it a bad trade.

Don't forget the time value of players in these deals. Just like you wouldn't take $100 today for $100 next year, if you get a younger guy, he should eventually turn out BETTER than the person exchanged for for the trade to be even.

As for that trade, I won't consider losing a middle reliever the worse trade ever under any circumstances. Bradford was surplus. Hope Olivo turns out okay.

Foulke You
07-31-2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


What if he never makes it that far? Should we still not call it a bad trade.

Don't forget the time value of players in these deals. Just like you wouldn't take $100 today for $100 next year, if you get a younger guy, he should eventually turn out BETTER than the person exchanged for for the trade to be even.

As for that trade, I won't consider losing a middle reliever the worse trade ever under any circumstances. Bradford was surplus. Hope Olivo turns out okay.

I don't see a surplus of setup/middle relievers with a 1.38 ERA and a funky underhand motion on our team. Now that Howry is gone and Biddle is starting, we have even less depth in the pen. You need a strong bullpen to win a title not AA level light hitting catchers that probably won't see the light of day in the bigs. Was it a bad trade? You bet.

Jerry_Manuel
07-31-2002, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
I don't see a surplus of setup/middle relievers with a 1.38 ERA and a funky underhand motion on our team. Now that Howry is gone and Biddle is starting, we have even less depth in the pen. You need a strong bullpen to win a title not AA level light hitting catchers that probably won't see the light of day in the bigs. Was it a bad trade? You bet.

Now you don't. Considering the trade was made before the start of the 2001 season. Still had Lowe in the bullpen along with Barcelo and such. Now it doesn't look that good because of the lack of depth in the pen.

Jerry_Manuel
07-31-2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
bradford trade was a terrible trade, regardless what anybody says.

who were the coaches then?

Coaches? The trade was made before the 2001 season. So Manuel and such were the coaches. Williams was the GM.

LongDistanceFan
07-31-2002, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Coaches? The trade was made before the 2001 season. So Manuel and such were the coaches. Williams was the GM.

i was afraid of that.

Jerry_Manuel
07-31-2002, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
What if he never makes it that far? Should we still not call it a bad trade.

Don't forget the time value of players in these deals. Just like you wouldn't take $100 today for $100 next year, if you get a younger guy, he should eventually turn out BETTER than the person exchanged for for the trade to be even.

As for that trade, I won't consider losing a middle reliever the worse trade ever under any circumstances. Bradford was surplus. Hope Olivo turns out okay.

He'll be here next year. If he has to go up against Josh Paul and Mark Johnson, it's over.

When Bradford was trade he did have a bad back. Maybe that factored in as well.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-31-2002, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


He'll be here next year. If he has to go up against Josh Paul and Mark Johnson, it's over.

When Bradford was trade he did have a bad back. Maybe that factored in as well.

Oh, brother...

Sounds like we have another "fan club" about to start.

FOO = Friends of Olivo

Guess who is the charter member?

:)

Jerry_Manuel
08-01-2002, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Oh, brother...

Sounds like we have another "fan club" about to start.

FOO = Friends of Olivo

Guess who is the charter member?

:)

FOO.

I like that. Whatchu talkiní bout FOO?

Randar68
08-01-2002, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Foulke You


I don't see a surplus of setup/middle relievers with a 1.38 ERA and a funky underhand motion on our team. Now that Howry is gone and Biddle is starting, we have even less depth in the pen. You need a strong bullpen to win a title not AA level light hitting catchers that probably won't see the light of day in the bigs. Was it a bad trade? You bet.


Good 'ole hindsight, huh? Man, makes you look like a genius, TODAY!

hold2dibber
08-01-2002, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Randar68



Good 'ole hindsight, huh? Man, makes you look like a genius, TODAY!

The only way you can really judge a trade - or the GM who makes the trade - is by using hindsight. I, for one, felt that both the D. Wells trade and the Ritchie trade were reasonable trades, although risky. With the benefit of hindsight, I was wrong. But I'm not getting paid the big $ KW is getting paid to make those decisions. Bradford has proven himself to be a very good bullpen specialist at the MLB level. He has succeeded to a greater extent than virtually any other young pitcher we've brought up over the last two years. The jury is still out on Olivo, and it may turn out that he is a fixture behind the plate on the South Side for years. But right now, the trade doesn't look too good to me.

baggio202
08-01-2002, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Piss on ESPN. The trade doesn't look so hot because Olivo is still in the minor leagues. Bradford was ready to pitch in the big leagues when the trade was made.

Can Olivo appear in at least one major league game before we call it a bad trade?

that trade was horrible because we were suppose to be building for now...we are suppose to be in year 5 of the last 5 year plan...now we are at ground zero of 5 year plan number 22? since the last time we won a world series....2007 here we come!!!!!


:sellreinsy
come guys..its only 5 more years..i promise this time...really...now i can count on you all for investments , right???

:hawk
JHC jerry , even these dumbasses wont keep buying "with the economics of baseball today , this is how the game is played"

:sellreinsy
oh yee of little faith

Foulke You
08-01-2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Randar68



Good 'ole hindsight, huh? Man, makes you look like a genius, TODAY!

Give me a friggin' break! I was ranting about this trade on the Rivals boards the day after it happened. (I used to post under Matt C then...) I said it then, and I'll say it now, Olivo will not see the light of day with the White Sox. It was a bad trade on the day they made it and it still is a bad trade until I see the unlikely emergence of Migeul Olivo who some have pegged as Fisk jr. already. Olivo was in AA when we traded for him in 2000. It's been 2 years and isn't he still in AA with us in Birmingham and hasn't improved offensively at all and is never mentioned (except for members of FOO) as the catcher of the future?

Also, If you'll recall, Bradford had an E.R.A. in the 1.50 range when he was here. Why do you give up on a young pitcher who basically sparkled when he was here? Just because we had Lowe and Barcelo? He was young and complemented Wunsch's funky lefty delivery very well. We had a solid 1-2 punch working in the late innings on righty and lefty batters. Now he's setting up Billy Koch and chasing a division title in Oakland. In my mind, was the 1st of many bad moves made by Kenny Williams.

:KW
"I have no need for pitchers like Bradford who are young with sparkling E.R.A.s. I want your reject catcher prospects who can't even advance past AA level in your organization!"

Randar68
08-01-2002, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You


Give me a friggin' break! I was ranting about this trade on the Rivals boards the day after it happened. (I used to post under Matt C then...) I said it then, and I'll say it now, Olivo will not see the light of day with the White Sox. It was a bad trade on the day they made it and it still is a bad trade until I see the unlikely emergence of Migeul Olivo who some have pegged as Fisk jr. already. Olivo was in AA when we traded for him in 2000. It's been 2 years and isn't he still in AA with us in Birmingham and hasn't improved offensively at all and is never mentioned (except for members of FOO) as the catcher of the future?

Also, If you'll recall, Bradford had an E.R.A. in the 1.50 range when he was here. Why do you give up on a young pitcher who basically sparkled when he was here? Just because we had Lowe and Barcelo? He was young and complemented Wunsch's funky lefty delivery very well. We had a solid 1-2 punch working in the late innings on righty and lefty batters. Now he's setting up Billy Koch and chasing a division title in Oakland. In my mind, was the 1st of many bad moves made by Kenny Williams.


If you're going to judge a trade in hindsight, at least wait till the players have or have not proven themselves. Olivo is more talented than either of the 2 guys we have at Catcher today. He is a much better receiver than Josh, and has a better arm and footwork than either. He doesn't hit for much power, but not many catchers do. He has an average in the high .200's and a very good OBP. You're right, he hasn't improved AT ALL!

Have you ever seen him play? I highly doubt it. He was invited to last year's Future's game and was an All-Star. Man, terrible. Most catchers take longer to get to the Big leagues because of the difficulty in the game-calling and mental aspect of the game that comes with experience and maturity.

I highly doubt you have ever seen any of these players play. You're in a GREAT position to judge them, aren't you?

Bradford has done a great job, but you'll only occasionally see him go more than an inning and in most cases, he is in for 2 or 3 hitters. Please go back and look at the guys we thought would be healthy contributors the day we made the deal. We dealt from an apparent area of strength to fill a need at a weakness.

WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT? We make trades that are good trades at the time, ones that people want to see, and all you do is whine and cry 2 years later! For Christ's sake, shut up already.

Daver
08-01-2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You


Give me a friggin' break! I was ranting about this trade on the Rivals boards the day after it happened. (I used to post under Matt C then...) I said it then, and I'll say it now, Olivo will not see the light of day with the White Sox. It was a bad trade on the day they made it and it still is a bad trade until I see the unlikely emergence of Migeul Olivo who some have pegged as Fisk jr. already. Olivo was in AA when we traded for him in 2000. It's been 2 years and isn't he still in AA with us in Birmingham and hasn't improved offensively at all and is never mentioned (except for members of FOO) as the catcher of the future?



Miguel is still in AA because he is stuck there,with the jumping jack moves of Paul up and down from Charlotte to Chicago,and the fact that the Knights, without Paul,have 2 career minor leaguers already at that position,in Mark Dalesandro and Lee Evans,when Paul is there they have 3 career minor leaguers on their roster.

So you are saying the Charlotte Knights should carry 4 catchers on their roster?

Foulke You
08-01-2002, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Randar68



If you're going to judge a trade in hindsight, at least wait till the players have or have not proven themselves. Olivo is more talented than either of the 2 guys we have at Catcher today. He is a much better receiver than Josh, and has a better arm and footwork than either. He doesn't hit for much power, but not many catchers do. He has an average in the high .200's and a very good OBP. You're right, he hasn't improved AT ALL!
4
Have you ever seen him play? I highly doubt it. He was invited to last year's Future's game and was an All-Star. Man, terrible. Most catchers take longer to get to the Big leagues because of the difficulty in the game-calling and mental aspect of the game that comes with experience and maturity.

I highly doubt you have ever seen any of these players play. You're in a GREAT position to judge them, aren't you?

Bradford has done a great job, but you'll only occasionally see him go more than an inning and in most cases, he is in for 2 or 3 hitters. Please go back and look at the guys we thought would be healthy contributors the day we made the deal. We dealt from an apparent area of strength to fill a need at a weakness.

WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT? We make trades that are good trades at the time, ones that people want to see, and all you do is whine and cry 2 years later! For Christ's sake, shut up already.


I'll complain and cry as much as I want to! Isn't it my right as a grumpy Sox fan? :D: I'm of the opinion that you can never have too much strength and depth in your bullpen. You look at all the strong contenders and most of them are very deep in the bullpen. Because of the way the game has changed with starters going only 6 innings, it is absolutely paramount to have a deep bullpen. You're absoultely right in the fact that in 2000 we had a great pen. I believe it was one of the reasons we won a division title that year. You don't win 95 games with Jim Parque and James Baldwin at the top of your rotation without a strong pen. Why mess up a good thing? Why not keep a young Bradford for the next few years solidifying an already strong (at the time) bullpen? Another plus to Bradford was his underarm delivery made him a rarer commodity . He was effective against leftys as well as rightys when he was here because of that funky motion. There isn't many effective underarm pitchers in the game and we had a good young one and we traded him for an unproven catcher prospect.

As far as Olivo goes, you're right I haven't seen him play. The fact that he remains in AA could indeed be the result of poor scouting and judgement on the Sox part by giving guys like Josh Paul 500 chances to screw up on the big stage. I HAVE seen Bradford play and know he was a good solid setup guy in the pen. I hope you guys make me eat crow and Olivo will invoke the comparison of Fisk or Bench. I'm not holding my breath though. I've followed the Sox long enough to know that we always seem to get the shaft on trades like this. We also let another young middle relief guy named Alan Levine get away who now has a sparkling E.R.A. with the Angels. (I know, I know, hindsight!! It seems to be a problem of mine.) I just hate watching our players blossom on other teams and help them win divisions while we get squat. KW's past history of trades doesn't instill much confidence in me that we will see the emergence of Miguel Olivo as a solid catcher in MLB.

:KW
"My poor judgement calls and trades are directly tied to attendance at Comiskey Park."

Randar68
08-01-2002, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
I hope you guys make me eat crow and Olivo will invoke the comparison of Fisk or Bench.


Well, he will never draw those comparisons. Perhaps more of a Jason Kendall type catcher.


Originally posted by Foulke You
You don't win 95 games with Jim Parque and James Baldwin at the top of your rotation without a strong pen. Why mess up a good thing?

Bradford was a VERY minor part of that pen. Foulke, Howry, Simas, Barcelo and Buehrle were the keys to that bullpen, particularly after the break.

baggio202
08-02-2002, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Randar68



Bradford was a VERY minor part of that pen. Foulke, Howry, Simas, Barcelo and Buehrle were the keys to that bullpen, particularly after the break.

but how major a part of the '01 pen would he have been???...he could have been the difference where at the deadline we would have decided to add a pitcher to catch cleveland iunstead of subtracting oe..and if we could have put some serious pressure on cleveland who knows what would have happened...

KingXerxes
08-02-2002, 10:32 AM
While it's true that the only real way to analyze a single trade is through the use of hindsight (which is always 20/20), you can always grade the person who is doing the trading simply by looking at the here and now.

Was the Bradford trade a bad deal at the time it was made? Who knows for sure, but I think everybody will agree that the direction this team has been taking for the past couple of years is disastrous.

Our offense is now speculative. We need some unproven commodities to really come through here in order to make us mediocre at best. The team leader from a couple of years ago (Valentin) now has to struggle to even get onto the field and is the subject of constant trade rumors. The young, young great pitching that we were once betting on is now getting to be a little older, and a little less that what was expected and is being traded off itself. Where we're headed is anybody's guess, but I simply don't see a cohesive plan here to accomplish anything.

Paulwny
08-02-2002, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I simply don't see a cohesive plan here to accomplish anything.

Next team for contraction.