PDA

View Full Version : Bradford/Olivo


doublem23
06-22-2003, 03:36 PM
I think its fair to say that we won that deal.

MHOUSE
06-22-2003, 03:54 PM
Bradford is a good reliever, but good relievers are for the most part dime-a-dozen. Oivo has potential to be a very good catcher which is hard to find these days. I think that in the next couple years it will be clear that we won this deal by a long shot.

doublem23
06-22-2003, 03:56 PM
Yeah, we pretty much won that deal the second KW pulled the trigger but many apparently thought not.

Tragg
06-22-2003, 05:09 PM
Apparently, per what Stone said today, Beane's book says that Beane raped the Sox on that deal. A strong armed catcher is wortth a lot more than a middle reliever. That just gives further credence to what I've always believed that Beane is a lot of hype and self/media promotion. And I will believe it until I've seen that ring, like the small market Twins have gotten twice.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-22-2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
Apparently, per what Stone said today, Beane's book says that Beane raped the Sox on that deal. A strong armed catcher is wortth a lot more than a middle reliever. That just gives further credence to what I've always believed that Beane is a lot of hype and self/media promotion. And I will believe it until I've seen that ring, like the small market Twins have gotten twice.

I agree. Beane is covering his *** on that trade. This was a lousy trade for the A's for the exact same reason Schueler should never have traded a promising young centerfielder (Mike Cameron) for a promising young firstbasemen (Paul Konerko). They aren't worth the same straight-up for no other reason than the positions they are capable of playing.

Miguel Olivo is worth 2-3 Chad Bradfords. One is a catcher, the other a middle reliever.

xil357
06-22-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I agree. Beane is covering his *** on that trade. This was a lousy trade for the A's for the exact same reason Schueler should never have traded a promising young centerfielder (Mike Cameron) for a promising young firstbasemen (Paul Konerko). They aren't worth the same straight-up for no other reason than the positions they are capable of playing.

Miguel Olivo is worth 2-3 Chad Bradfords. One is a catcher, the other a middle reliever.

Amen. Most great teams are built up the middle, not with lots of two-toed sloth right-handed DH/LF/1B types. All the Sox have up the middle right now is Olivo. Cameron would look pretty good right about now in CF even if he was still only hitting 260. So would Singleton, for that matter.

Jiminez, Valentin and CF by committee just are not going to cut it.

jeremyb1
06-22-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I agree. Beane is covering his *** on that trade. This was a lousy trade for the A's for the exact same reason Schueler should never have traded a promising young centerfielder (Mike Cameron) for a promising young firstbasemen (Paul Konerko). They aren't worth the same straight-up for no other reason than the positions they are capable of playing.

Miguel Olivo is worth 2-3 Chad Bradfords. One is a catcher, the other a middle reliever.

the argument made by michael lewis the author of moneyball, not billy beane, is that the sox highly undervalued bradford. this is easily shown to be true. after bradford dominated AAA and then pitched well in the majors we sent him back to AAA because he didn't throw hard and gave him a poor excuse about his pitches lacking movement.

next, beane called kw asking for a 12th pitcher to fill out his staff so he wouldn't tip his hand and kenny gave him bradford. clearly kenny was completely clueless as to bradford's ability to be one of the best relievers in all of baseball.

as for pitchers like bradford being a dime a dozen i completely disagree. if that's the case why did we only have two pitchers in our pen with an era under 4 last year and one with an era under four this year. why have we by far blown the most leads after 7 innings of any team in baseball? we'd be .500 right now with a decent pen but we're not. why? because clearly guys like bradford are NOT a dime a dozen.

DrCrawdad
06-22-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
the argument made by michael lewis the author of moneyball, not billy beane, is that the sox highly undervalued bradford. this is easily shown to be true. after bradford dominated AAA and then pitched well in the majors we sent him back to AAA because he didn't throw hard and gave him a poor excuse about his pitches lacking movement.

next, beane called kw asking for a 12th pitcher to fill out his staff so he wouldn't tip his hand and kenny gave him bradford. clearly kenny was completely clueless as to bradford's ability to be one of the best relievers in all of baseball.

as for pitchers like bradford being a dime a dozen i completely disagree. if that's the case why did we only have two pitchers in our pen with an era under 4 last year and one with an era under four this year. why have we by far blown the most leads after 7 innings of any team in baseball? we'd be .500 right now with a decent pen but we're not. why? because clearly guys like bradford are NOT a dime a dozen.

I like who the Sox got for Bradford. But as you say, the Sox for some reason just never really had much faith in Bradford. IIRC Bradford had stellar numbers in the minors for the Sox.

2000 was an interesting year for Bradford. He puts up great numbers in AAA. The Sox call him up late in the season, IIRC Chad was brought up as part of the September call-up. Then the Sox put Bradford on the playoff roster, after letting him sit in Charlotte nearly the entire year. In the playoffs Bradford was brought in a tight situation and gave up an RBI. Next thing you know Bradford is "designated for assignment" then traded to Oakland.

I wasn't too thrilled with the trade at the time because I felt that Bradford was never given much of a chance with the Sox. Chad's done pretty well for himself in Oakland and is doing well this year.

.193 BAA, 1.09 WHIP, 3.03 ERA, 15 BB, 34 SO, 27 HITS, 38.2 IP.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players/2/6061.jpg
Chad Bradford, according to Yahoo.

gosox41
06-22-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
I like who the Sox got for Bradford. But as you say, the Sox for some reason just never really had much faith in Bradford. IIRC Bradford had stellar numbers in the minors for the Sox.

2000 was an interesting year for Bradford. He puts up great numbers in AAA. The Sox call him up late in the season, IIRC Chad was brought up as part of the September call-up. Then the Sox put Bradford on the playoff roster, after letting him sit in Charlotte nearly the entire year. In the playoffs Bradford was brought in a tight situation and gave up an RBI. Next thing you know Bradford is "designated for assignment" then traded to Oakland.

I wasn't too thrilled with the trade at the time because I felt that Bradford was never given much of a chance with the Sox. Chad's done pretty well for himself in Oakland and is doing well this year.

.193 BAA, 1.09 WHIP, 3.03 ERA, 15 BB, 34 SO, 27 HITS, 38.2 IP.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players/2/6061.jpg
Chad Bradford, according to Yahoo.


:KW
In my world Keith Foulke and Chad Bradford are not nearly as good as Billy Koch.

MarkEdward
06-22-2003, 06:40 PM
I still think we won this deal, but for what it's worth, Chad Bradford has been the best reliever on either the Sox or A's this year (including Foulke and Marte).

Just to clarify, ace relievers are very valuable, and are not "a dime a dozen." I'd consider Chad Bradford an ace reliever. One can make the argument that above average relievers are a dime a dozen (the Gordons and Sauerbecks), however.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-22-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
I like who the Sox got for Bradford. But as you say, the Sox for some reason just never really had much faith in Bradford. IIRC Bradford had stellar numbers in the minors for the Sox....


Can you imagine where this baseball team would be today if we didn't have Miguel Olivo to catch? It would be Sandy's knees backed up by Josh's versatility. That's some kind of ugly. In fact, it would be even uglier than the train wreck we already have in center field. What a surprise! That mess was created by trading Cameron for Konerko, another example of undervaluing an everyday skill position player.

Sorry, folks. You can replace middle relievers for pennies compared to starting catchers. I have no doubt Beane has played Williams like a fool any number of times, but giving us Olivo is the nicest present we've gotten from Oakland in a long, long time.

Daver
06-22-2003, 07:04 PM
Everyone is reading way to much into this trade,both teams dealt from a position of strength,the A's have a young catcher on their MLB roster,and some guys in the minors that have the potential to actually play at the MLB level,while the Sox have a wealth of righthanded pitching,and not a single catcher in the minor league system that has the potential to play at the MLB level.

Yes they gave up a quality righthanded relief pitcher,so what,they received a five tool player that plays the most diffucult position in the game,and has the potential to play it very well,he has already shown that potential.

This was a good trade for both teams,that is the bottom line.

DrCrawdad
06-22-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by daver
Everyone is reading way to much into this trade...This was a good trade for both teams,that is the bottom line.

I agree that it was good for both teams. I'm very glad to have Olivo now. But IMHO the Sox didn't put much stock in Bradford.

Olivo & Harris, two KW pick-ups accorded themselves very well this weekend. And Daver, your favorite catcher Mr. Versatility Josh Paul did well too.

Gumshoe
06-22-2003, 09:02 PM
It was a fair deal for both teams, sure. I'm glad we got Olivo, god knows I think KW sucks, but this deal was fine. Similarly, if I could blame the 2000 playoffs on any player, it would be Chad Bradford. He had Cameron 0-2, it sticks out in my mind like a sore thumb, and had him by the balls. and he threw the next pitch RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE so Mike could single to right to tie the game at 4. Call me crazy for remembering this, but I'll never forgive him for that.

Sorry for rambling.

Gumshoe

chisoxt
06-22-2003, 10:27 PM
Similarly, if I could blame the 2000 playoffs on any player, it would be Chad Bradford

Bradford had pitched most of the year in the minors. Schueler had no business bringing him up for the playoff roster.

Irishsox1
06-23-2003, 10:28 AM
Beane is a a-hole for writing a book and calling out GM's. However, I never paid much attention to this trade until some baseball "expert" at ESPN said that the Bradford/Olivo trade is the type of trade that should get the White Sox GM fired. As for the trade, I would rather have Olivo than Bradford. The trade that makes me want to puke is Wells & Fogg for Richie. That is the type of trade that should get a GM fired!!

dickallen15
06-23-2003, 10:40 AM
If that book never came out and KW offered Olivo back to the A's for Bradford straight up, Beane would take the deal and laugh at KW.

Dadawg_77
06-23-2003, 10:58 AM
The chapter about Bradford wasn't about the trade but about Bradford. It dealt how he was a unconventional pitcher who produced (fitting in with the books theme that the A's get unconventional players who produce) and about Bradford's background his childhood and that effect on how he developed his pitching technique. What Lewis, the author Beane didn't write nor dictated any part of this book, writes is the Sox undervalued Bradford production and A's pick him up.

dickallen15
06-23-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The chapter about Bradford wasn't about the trade but about Bradford. It dealt how he was a unconventional pitcher who produced (fitting in with the books theme that the A's get unconventional players who produce) and about Bradford's background his childhood and that effect on how he developed his pitching technique. What Lewis, the author Beane didn't write nor dictated any part of this book, writes is the Sox undervalued Bradford production and A's pick him up.


With all the problems Oakland is having with catching, it seems Beane undervalued Olivo. I'm sure thats not in the book.

Dadawg_77
06-23-2003, 11:13 AM
A guy getting on base at a .298 clip isn't that great of an answer. Bradford would have been more valuable to the Sox this year then Olivo. Olivo is young and hopefully will develop some patience at the plate. For as good as his arm is, it doesn't make up for the fact he isn't getting on base.

MHOUSE
06-23-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
A guy getting on base at a .298 clip isn't that great of an answer. Bradford would have been more valuable to the Sox this year then Olivo. Olivo is young and hopefully will develop some patience at the plate. For as good as his arm is, it doesn't make up for the fact he isn't getting on base.

Any offense by Olivo is a bonus. Having a stud defensive catcher who can call a good game is way more important than his offense from the 8 or 9 hole. His arm shuts down opponent's running game and greatly helps a team LACKING DEFENSIVELY. If he bats .250 with a few homers and a decent RBI total then I am just fine with him.

dickallen15
06-23-2003, 11:49 AM
Without Olivo, the catching situation would be brutal. When Alomar predictably broke down, we would have been left with Josh Paul and Josh Paul's back up. That is scary my friend.

gosox41
06-23-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
Without Olivo, the catching situation would be brutal. When Alomar predictably broke down, we would have been left with Josh Paul and Josh Paul's back up. That is scary my friend.

If the Sox never traded for Olivo, they may neve have traded MJ either.

Overall, it was a good trade for both teams.

Bob

Foulke You
06-23-2003, 01:01 PM
I was a big critic of the Bradford deal at the time it went down. It reeked of the Sox giving up on a solid middle relief guy for a prospect that would never see the light of day in the bigs. I am happy to say that I was quite wrong about that.

Miguel has shown that he was worth giving up Bradford for. He has a cannon for an arm, has good speed for a catcher, and while he doesn't knock the cover off the ball he has shown a knack for coming up with the big hit which is a lot more than our #8 or #9 hitter did last year. (see Clayton, Royce) With a little more patience at the plate, I see Olivo becoming one of the game's best catchers. I would also like to see him block homeplate a little better on plays at the plate like Sandy Alomar does.

Overall, I tend to agree with Daver that it helped both teams out. Would I like Bradford to still be in that pen? Yes. Would I want Josh Paul to be our everyday catcher? (shudder) NO! Bottom line is we were really weak in the catcher position and Olivo could be the anchor behind the plate we've been missing since Karkovice retired. It was a good trade.

TheRockinMT
06-23-2003, 01:11 PM
In the best of the trade world both teams win by getting someone to fill a need. Of course not everyone wins either, but in this case I think both the Sox and the A's got someone to help them. You have to trade quality to get quality.

I think what has really ruined the exciting part of the trade issue is the free agent. It used to be the winter league trades and those made before the waiver deadline were exciting and generated a lot of fun speculation, etc. Now the free agent thing means that those with the money have the power and that just ain't fair.

Dadawg_77
06-23-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Any offense by Olivo is a bonus. Having a stud defensive catcher who can call a good game is way more important than his offense from the 8 or 9 hole. His arm shuts down opponent's running game and greatly helps a team LACKING DEFENSIVELY. If he bats .250 with a few homers and a decent RBI total then I am just fine with him.

First off Olivo doesn't call the game, the coaches from the dugout do.

Secondly, this isn't the 1980s, opponents running games are shut down by the fact no one is really running these days. Thus a great while still valuable isn't as worth as much as that arm would be 15 to 20 years ago. The game has changed to less of a running game.

Thirdly, not sure but his footwork behind the plate seems to need some work. This is a from a small sample size but it seems he has some problems blocking a ball in the dirt.

I like Olivo but he isn't a difference maker yet and not sure if he will pan out to be the stud people on this board are hyping him up to be.

soxruleEP
06-23-2003, 02:04 PM
I just finished reading Moneyball this weekend and have a few thoughts to contribute here:

1. As it has been noted, the chapter on Bradford is basically reiterating one of the main theses of the book: that baseball operates on incorrect assumptions. The biggest and most incorrect assumption according to both the author and Billy Beane is that "good ballplayers look like good ballplayers." This means that the Sox believed Chad Bradford didn't throw 95 mph with a classic motion so he couldn't be a good pitcher. That is description is true--we fall prey to it as well. If Jon Rauch (a similar example--he's seven feet tall and doesn't throw hard) gets people out I sholdn't care about anything but that. All the chapter suggests is that KW is the same as everybody else in baseball (except Billy Beane and his protegees).

2. The book suggests--as I have said here many times--that the least important aspect of the game is defense. Now, you can't have an absolutely brutal defense [as our outfield has been at times this year], but the difference between a "great" defense and an "average" defense does not have a tremendous impact on a team's success.

3. KW is one of the people noted by name in the book.

I think we are further ahead with Olivo than with Bradford. others have put it very well: catcher is one of the most important positions and we now are set at that position for a while, baring unforeseen circumstances. Olivo will continue to improve with the bat and any offense at catcher is a plus.

I recommend Moneyball, if you can stand reading about how wonderful Billy Beane is. The book is more about how the "old ballplayers" won't let the "smart kids with the computers" run the game.

That's no surprise. It's the same attitude that the players have when they say the people booing them "never played the game." Like that means we can recognize a steaming pile of crap when we see it.

Randar68
06-23-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
First off Olivo doesn't call the game, the coaches from the dugout do.

Secondly, this isn't the 1980s, opponents running games are shut down by the fact no one is really running these days. Thus a great while still valuable isn't as worth as much as that arm would be 15 to 20 years ago. The game has changed to less of a running game.

Thirdly, not sure but his footwork behind the plate seems to need some work. This is a from a small sample size but it seems he has some problems blocking a ball in the dirt.


You couldn't be further from the truth on points 1 and 3. Olivo calls the game, Nossek calls pitch-outs and pick-offs from the dugout. With nobody on, Olivo doesn't llok into the dugout for pitches. His footwork is in the top 5 in baseball now.

Dadawg_77
06-23-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You couldn't be further from the truth on points 1 and 3. Olivo calls the game, Nossek calls pitch-outs and pick-offs from the dugout. With nobody on, Olivo doesn't llok into the dugout for pitches. His footwork is in the top 5 in baseball now.

How do you qualified that? From what I have seen he isn't top five or baseball fallen on some pretty hard times. Right now off the top of my head I can think of Mattney, Ausmus, Miller, I Rod (when healthy), LaRue who are probably better.

Looking at it Olivo has 4 PB in 420 innings of work, which seems about average and has caught stealers at a 320 clip level, which seems about avg.

voodoochile
06-23-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
How do you qualified that? From what I have seen he isn't top five or baseball fallen on some pretty hard times. Right now off the top of my head I can think of Mattney, Ausmus, Miller, I Rod (when healthy), LaRue who are probably better.

Looking at it Olivo has 4 PB in 420 innings of work, which seems about average and has caught stealers at a 320 clip level, which seems about avg.

The PB's are something I've noticed too. It also carries over to plays at the plate where he seems to have a hard time actually catching the ball on close plays. Personally, it seems more a function of anxiousness/eagerness where he is so hyped up to make the play that he forgets to actually catch the ball.

This all strikes me more as a function of youth. I think in time that he will calm down and those blips will become a thing of the past.

Randar68
06-23-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
How do you qualified that? From what I have seen he isn't top five or baseball fallen on some pretty hard times. Right now off the top of my head I can think of Mattney, Ausmus, Miller, I Rod (when healthy), LaRue who are probably better.

Looking at it Olivo has 4 PB in 420 innings of work, which seems about average and has caught stealers at a 320 clip level, which seems about avg.

Have you seen any of his PB's? I know at least 2 of them were because he got crossed up and another was one where he got lazy and didn't drop down, instead trying to reach. That has absolutely nothing to do with his footwork.

His footwork is in the elite class in the league right now. Have you ever seen him throw off-balance? How fast does he get out of the crouch, and still throw with fantastic balance? Ivan has a great arm, but his footwork is not what it used to be. Ausmus? Miller? I'd maybe give you LaRue, but in terms of pure footwork, there are no more than a couple of catchers better.

Top 5 in footwork, take it to the bank.

fquaye149
06-23-2003, 07:00 PM
olivo has done a great job handling who were originally considered the lower tier of sox pitchers...

look at how well loaiza has done and garland has improved immensely

meanwhile look at colon and buehrle who were handled chiefly by sandy...


not saying it's anything significant..but it is interesting

jeremyb1
06-23-2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
With all the problems Oakland is having with catching, it seems Beane undervalued Olivo. I'm sure thats not in the book.

miguel olivo - .245 ba, .298 obp, .406 slg, .704 ops
ramon hernandez - .276 ba, .331 obp, .457 slg, .788 ops

olivo is only 24 and is only in his first major league season so theoreticall he is going to improve and is a decent bet to be an impact player in the long run. while his offense isn't very good its pretty solid for catcher which tends to be rather weak offensively in this day and age. however, to suggest that beane would prefer olivo's numbers over his current options in light of the above statistics in completely inaccurate.