PDA

View Full Version : Chad Bradford revisited


Randar68
06-05-2004, 12:34 AM
picked up the loss tonight after the Sox lit him up just a couple days ago.

How do the FOBB again rationalize this one? Sample size too small here?

:)

Rex Hudler
06-05-2004, 12:36 AM
I think it is very simple........ it was a good trade for both teams. Oakland got immediate bullpen help and the Sox had depth in that area. The Sox got a catching prospect and were able to be patient with him. They were very thin in that area at the time.

It IS possible for trades to be a winner for both teams. :)

RedPinStripes
06-05-2004, 12:40 AM
No!!! We got screwed. Billy Beane is too smart for everyone.

Randar68
06-05-2004, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
It IS possible for trades to be a winner for both teams. :)

Well, thanks for stating the obvious, but considering how ridiculed KW has been over time for this trade and how some were so enamored with calling Bradford an elite set-up man before this season, it's just too ironic. However, I'm sure there's a special rule in the FOBB manual that allows for just such a move. Gotta be KW lucking into something... clause 1.3.1

Rex Hudler
06-05-2004, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Well, thanks for stating the obvious, but considering how ridiculed KW has been over time for this trade and how some were so enamored with calling Bradford an elite set-up man before this season, it's just too ironic. However, I'm sure there's a special rule in the FOBB manual that allows for just such a move. Gotta be KW lucking into something... clause 1.3.1

randar, my comment wasn't directed at you. I just made it because in general people seem to think there has to be a winner and a loser in every trade. It seems to me this is a good example that both teams can come out ahead.

Randar68
06-05-2004, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
randar, my comment wasn't directed at you. I just made it because in general people seem to think there has to be a winner and a loser in every trade. It seems to me this is a good example that both teams can come out ahead.

I agree, but even when that was clear before this season, the FOBB were still crying about Olivo not having a big enough sample size, speed means nothing, blah blah blah.

just too funny

JackParkman
06-05-2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I think it is very simple........ it was a good trade for both teams. Oakland got immediate bullpen help and the Sox had depth in that area. The Sox got a catching prospect and were able to be patient with him. They were very thin in that area at the time.

It IS possible for trades to be a winner for both teams. :)

I agree the trade's been beneficial for both teams, but I don't think that means the trade was even. While Bradford has been good for the A's, right-handed relievers of his kind (and with his production) aren't exactly premium commodities in MLB nor are they particularly rare.
A young stud catcher who's already at the elite level defensively and is improving offensively is a premium commodity.
While the A's weren't hurt by this trade, the Sox clearly got the more valuable player.

Randar68
06-05-2004, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by JackParkman
I agree the trade's been beneficial for both teams, but I don't think that means the trade was even. While Bradford has been good for the A's, right-handed relievers of his kind (and with his production) aren't exactly premium commodities in MLB nor are they particularly rare.
A young stud catcher who's already at the elite level defensively and is improving offensively is a premium commodity.
While the A's weren't hurt by this trade, the Sox clearly got the more valuable player.

HOGWASH... BLASPHEMY... PREPARE TO BURN AT THE STAKE!!!!

hose
06-05-2004, 01:05 AM
The KW bashers have been bringing up this trade for the last couple of years . Now that Miguel is starting to produce at the major league level the trade isn't mentioned much.

Trades sometimes take time to pan out and time will tell that KW got the better end of the deal.

pudge
06-05-2004, 01:24 AM
I have never included this in my reasons to bash KW. For the most part I think KW is doing a heck of a job. Ritchie was the big bad one in my book, and the near-Garland trade would have been even worse. But I'm well past that...

Hey, Bradford would have been great for the Sox in the past when we were in need a middle man. But if Olivo can be a long-term solution at catcher for us, then I think we will have won this deal in the long run.

MRKARNO
06-05-2004, 01:27 AM
Since the Koch for Foulke deal, I cant recall any bad moves by KW.

SSN721
06-05-2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Since the Koch for Foulke deal, I cant recall any bad moves by KW.

Agreed. :gulp:

Gumshoe
06-05-2004, 09:34 AM
Randar, I never said the Bradford trade was good or bad, I always thought that the potential gain for the Sox was always much higher, and it turns out that most likely that will be true. However, the A's at the time had catching and that's why it wasn't a bad deal for them; it was best for Miguel Olivo to get out of there, and I'm glad we got him.

That said, why even bring this up? I'm not a big Beane guy (I know you like to really dig at those that are), but just because a pitched poorly once doesn't mean anything compared to his stats over a 2-3 year period.

Now you know why we complain about Koch. He doesn't have the now or the past to make us believe that he'll be any better (and we have a guy named Mr. Zero who is on a roll that doesn't get a shot). If BK is any other player, he's out of baseball right now.

hose
06-05-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by pudge
I have never included this in my reasons to bash KW. For the most part I think KW is doing a heck of a job. Ritchie was the big bad one in my book, and the near-Garland trade would have been even worse. But I'm well past that...

Hey, Bradford would have been great for the Sox in the past when we were in need a middle man. But if Olivo can be a long-term solution at catcher for us, then I think we will have won this deal in the long run.


I should have refered to baseball primer as the message board that has been bringing up the Chad Bradford trade for the last three years and bashing KW......my mistake..... E-hose

jabrch
06-05-2004, 10:12 AM
Randar, The FOBB bashed the deal because they were sure Olivo didn't walk enough - and that if we'd have kept Bradford and got Ricardo Rincon, we'd have had the best pen in the history of the game - rather than KW stupidly letting Beane have it.

Here are the anticipated FOBB arguements why you don't get it.
A) Samplesize too small to judge Bradford on this year - even though it was more than large enough to judge him the past three years

B) Samplesize too small to judge Olivo - even though the same sample size can be used to judge Hatteberg, Scutaro and Byrnes

C) Speed doesn't matter

D) Olivo doesn't walk enough

E) Beane had a limited budget (even though it is nearly the same as KWs)

F) Bradford has been great for two years - Bradford has done nothing yet (even though they will later argue that they don't care what a player DID - only what he is going to do)

It's circular logic to defend their spritual leader. I can't wait until Moneyball 2 comes out

bigdommer
06-05-2004, 10:21 AM
I'll take Olivo over Adam Mellhuse and Damian Miller anyday. So much for the A's depth.

jeremyb1
06-05-2004, 12:44 PM
Randar my arguments are the same as they were a month ago. A bad week by Bradford doesn't change that and I find it somewhat petty to wait until he has a bad week to try to rehash the argument. You won't see me do that if Miggy has a slump. I still think Olivo is a good player but yes sample size did matter because his average has dropped from .340 or whatever it was to closer to .280 and his OPS from over 1.000 to a bit over .800. Yeah he's outperforming Bradford so far this season but IIRC myself and most of the other posters in that thread agreed Olvio will be the more valuable player from here on out.

34 Inch Stick
06-06-2004, 11:49 AM
The problem I have with Beane is not whether he won or lost the trade. THe problem is that HE believed that he won that trade so convincingly that he would ridicule a fellow professional in print. After letting all the hens roost, it turns out his opinion was not so valid.

Just like Olivo, I think KW is getting better at his trade all the time.

jeremyb1
06-06-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
The problem I have with Beane is not whether he won or lost the trade. THe problem is that HE believed that he won that trade so convincingly that he would ridicule a fellow professional in print. After letting all the hens roost, it turns out his opinion was not so valid.

Just like Olivo, I think KW is getting better at his trade all the time.

Uhh, Beane didn't write Moneyball, Michael Lewis did. If you read the book (it sounds as though you haven't) they're aren't any quotations by Billy Beane along the lines of "I can't believe KW fell for it" or even "That was a great deal for us". Beane simply told Lewis what happened and any spin was created by the author.

Brian26
06-06-2004, 11:53 AM
In the short term, the Oakland benefitted most from the trade. In the long run, the White Sox got the better end of the deal. Simple as that.

voodoochile
06-06-2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Uhh, Beane didn't write Moneyball, Michael Lewis did. If you read the book (it sounds as though you haven't) they're aren't any quotations by Billy Beane along the lines of "I can't believe KW fell for it" or even "That was a great deal for us". Beane simply told Lewis what happened and any spin was created by the author.

And you know this how? Just because something isn't in quotes doesn't mean it wasn't said or "wink wink" said.

Unless you were sitting in the room when the topic came up, your point is no more valid nor any more realistic than any other interpretation...

Gumshoe
06-06-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
And you know this how? Just because something isn't in quotes doesn't mean it wasn't said or "wink wink" said.

Unless you were sitting in the room when the topic came up, your point is no more valid nor any more realistic than any other interpretation...

Voodoo, that's preposterous. I read the book and while I would never question someone saying that Beane is a bit egotistical, the author clearly wrote in that style the whole book. I mean, a MAJOR portion of the book (including its ending) was about Jeremy Brown and how he fit into the philosophy of the book, the points they were making towards scouting being in general, BS (that is, dealing less with results than things like "this guy has the FACE")

Lewis clearly talked up things in my estimation and I immediately called him out on that portion of the book where he acted like the Chad Bradford deal was WAY better for the A's.

In general, though, if either of those two guys (BB or KW) took you to war, anyone who would choose KW has got to be a lunatic, or has a death wish. So, you can see why Lewis would take the chance of overstating that deal.

G

maurice
06-07-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
they're aren't any quotations by Billy Beane along the lines of "I can't believe KW fell for it" or even "That was a great deal for us"

Right. The Beane quotes "ridicul[ing] a fellow professional" pertained to the Durham trade and the draft, not the Olivo trade. The overblown nature of the Olivo deal (to the point of completely ignoring the possibility that the Sox may have received anything of value in return) apparently was Lewis' doing.

Dadawg_77
06-07-2004, 11:48 AM
The friends of Kenny are always good for a laugh. If they had read the book, they would have realize Lewis was telling a story about how Beane was a non conformist GM and went with line of thinking. Bradford pitching style isn't what you think of when you think high quality major league pitcher, a non conformist. Thus makes a perfect story to fit in the larger story of how Oakland was succeeding.

As for the trade, Oilio still has to prove himself. He looks good, but hasn't fully materialize, yet. I am not awe struck by him, like it seems former catchers are. Bradford is a quality middle reliever who I would feel confident about having on the mound when the game is on the line.

The reason for discount of the value of speed, is it doesn't get you on base and is the first tool to go. This goes double for catchers.

Dadawg_77
06-07-2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by maurice
Right. The Beane quotes "ridicul[ing] a fellow professional" pertained to the Durham trade and the draft, not the Olivo trade. The overblown nature of the Olivo deal (to the point of completely ignoring the possibility that the Sox may have received anything of value in return) apparently was Lewis' doing.

Quote everyone talks about is from teh draft at Beane's disbelief the Sox took a college reliever with there first pick, when Beane thought they were going to take a starter Beane wanted.