PDA

View Full Version : BP Transaction Anlysis


jeremyb1
06-30-2004, 02:27 PM
Here are the sections from BP's latest transaction analysis covering the Sox and M's end of the Garcia deal:

I guess we can dissect this into its components, to see what the Sox have done for themselves. First, they get Freddy Garcia, and that's the good thing. The Sox have a decent front three for October, and once Schoeneweis comes back off of the DL, he can wrestle with Jon Garland for bragging rights over who the team's contender is for "America's Best Fifth Starter."

The question is whether Garcia is really that much of a top starter. This year, he's the seventh-best rotation regular in the American League, according to Michael Wolverton's Support-Neutral metrics, so the quick answer would be 'yes.' Unfortunately, you're talking about a guy who was the Mariners' fifth-best starter in 2003, and who ranked behind both Jamie Moyer and Joel Pineiro in 2002. He's not a scrub, but he's also not the instant ace the pricetag, whether in prospects or on payday, would lead you to believe. Consider Garcia's career:

YEAR GS IP RA QS BQS
1999 33 201.3 4.29 15 1
2000 20 121.3 4.60 11 0
2001 34 238.7 3.32 22 4
2002 33 219.7 4.42 18 3
2003 33 201.3 4.87 18 1
2004 15 107.0 3.28 10 1

[Quality Starts were calculated using runs, not earned runs; BQS are 'Blown Quality Starts,' games where after the first six innings, he'd given up three or fewer runs, only to give up a total of more than four runs before leaving the game.]

Now, sure, 2004 looks great, but it doesn't exactly fit a pattern of performance, does it now? So, will they get this year's Freddy for the rest of the year, or will they get the 2000, 2002, or 2003 editions that annoyed Mariners fans to no end? I guess the Sox are betting they're getting Ozzie Guillen's talented friend, and will trust to good fortune and a happy trade wind.

So they got a starting pitcher, what are they going to do behind the plate? Sandy Alomar isn't a safe bet to handle back-to-back games, setting aside his nearly spent bat. So that should mean either a whole lot of Ben Davis, or some active shopping. Davis has been a remarkable disappointment, even for a highly-touted catching prospect, to the point that he's gulled all sorts of people into hoping he'd turned the corner, including me now and again. At this point, he's the guy who bats ninth when he plays, and ideally someone who can catch more often than not while not pissing off the pitching staff.
As for the shopping option, it's ugly. A notional rental like Charles Johnson is signed for insane cash through 2005. Your normal target of molestable opportunity in this situation would be the Expos, but Einar Diaz's only virtue is his relative durability. Even if they wanted him, considering that the Sox poor-mouthed their way into getting money from the Mariners to help pay for Ben Davis, I suspect they would have nothing but trouble if they try to get their 28 co-conspirators to help foot the bill for Diaz in their pursuit of the AL Central tri'pennant.

And then there's the bill, because the Sox clearly gave up a lot. Even though he hasn't set the International League afire, shipping off Reed isn't anything you shrug off easily. The organization thinks itself deep in outfield talent, however, with Joe Borchard showing signs of life these days, and Ryan Sweeney supposed to be something. Heck, even Andres Torres is looking good. So peddling Reed for three months of Freddy Garcia is tough, but perhaps understandable.

It's when you get to their having to throw in their starting catcher where you have to start wondering what Kenny Williams will do for anybody when he feels needy. While Olivo is not nor is he likely to become a star, he's a very useful everyday player--both now and in the future--if you're not gifted with one of the current greats. And then there's Morse, who you can't really blow off as a warm body when he's hit .287/.336/.536 as a 22-year-old shortstop in his Double-A debut.

All of that, for three months of Freddy Garcia? It's a steep price, too steep, but I guess I understand the rationale if you think in terms of October baseball. The Sox could have won the AL Central without this deal, and this deal doesn't really improve their chances over the rest of the season all that much. The Twins could finally sort themselves out, after all, and stop trying to phone it in. But what's the point of getting to October if you then have to start both Schoeneweis and Garland, instead of picking between the two? A shallow rotation that isn't front-loaded with something like the Viola-Blyleven tag-team of '87 is pretty hard to outlast, even more so in today's three-tiered playoff system. So I can accept the argument that the Sox needed a top starter. The question really is whether Garcia is that guy, and there, I think it's an extreme reach.

A tremendous deal, no doubt about it, so a tip of the cap to Bill Bavasi for bleeding Kenny Williams when he had the opportunity and the need. The real question is whether he got a bad player in the deal. Reed might be overrated as prospects go, by us at least, but he'll make a dandy solution to the Randy Winn problem in center, and give the Mariners a potential OBP machine in the outfield to match Ichiro! Admittedly, Reed was only hitting .275/.355/.420 in Triple-A, so if you're big on Shin-Soo Choo or Jamal Strong, and think all they got was another solid OBP-generating outfielder who might not be a star, keep in mind that he only just turned 23, and on its own, his future is worth gambling away three months of Freddy Garcia.

Then there's Olivo, who, coming up on his 26th birthday, seems to have established himself as one of the best B-list catchers in baseball, hitting .270/.316/.496, while remaining a great catch-and-throw guy. His breakthrough wasn't fueled by the Comiskey reconfiguration, either, so it looks like he's turning into the prospect Michael Lewis skipped over. What's sort of nuts is that they didn't peddle Dan Wilson in the deal, since he'll just be in the way between now and the end of his season and his (hopefully final) bloated contract.

Finally, there's Morse, who might be what Michael Garciaparra is not, which is the team's shortstop of the future. Morse comes over after hitting .287/.336/.536, including 11 home runs in 226 PA at Double-A. He's only one year age-wise ahead of Garciaparra, and light years ahead performance-wise. Morse is big for a shortstop at 6'4", and not considered a blue-chipper, but that might change.

So what does that ring up to? For three months of a flaky starting pitcher and a washout catcher, Bavasi brought M's fans a starting center fielder and catcher in 2005, and perhaps their starting shortstop come 2006. Three skill positions, three guys who can hit, and three guys with solid four- to six-year windows to be something. It doesn't get much sweeter than that, Seattle. Welcome to your season highlight.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3025

JorgeFabregas
06-30-2004, 02:38 PM
The Sox have a decent front three for October, and once Schoeneweis comes back off of the DL, he can wrestle with Jon Garland for bragging rights over who the team's contender is for "America's Best Fifth Starter."Hate to say it, but I think the competition for America's Best Fifth Starter is going to happen when Wood comes back, not Schoeneweis. And that competition would be between Maddux and Clement.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 02:41 PM
I really think that whether or not we we fair value for what we gave up in this deal hinges on two things:

A. How far did Garcia take us in the playoffs

B. Can we resign him to at least a 3 year extension

If the answer to A is he got us to the ALCS and we were very close to the World Series or better then I think we got fair value independent of B. But if the answer to B is yes, then we definately got fair value in return. If the answer to A is first round exit and the answer to B is no, then I think that we didnt get fair value in the trade. Anyways, the rationale behind the trade makes significant sense to me because we have the most talented team probably since 93-94 and we have our best chance to do something big since that time. We will be able to increase our payroll in the offseason because higher attendence compared to last year is almost assured (300-400K more), the new Sports network will bring in more money and if we make the playoffs, that brings in a lot of money too.

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 02:49 PM
I have a number of issues with this "analysis".

1) If I read their chart right, in '01, '02, '03 FG hat 22, 18, 18 Quality starts. That's pretty solid. Especially considering that he pitched with 2 perforated eardrums in 02 & 03.

2) It's one thing to take on Ben Davis and demand cash. I highly doubt that they would demand cash to go get someone like Einary Diaz (who's only making 2.5mil which would be prorated to about 1-1.5 for the Sox). So they can go get another catcher, and if they have plans to do so, it's not like the void that BP makes it out to be.

3) Morse has hit nicely, but EVERY report I've seen on him says that its highly unlikely that he'll remain a SS because he simply can't play the position. His #s look a lot more average when compared to the pool of comparables at 3B (and even worse where some have projected him to end up:1B)

So what they really say is that we gave up a "useful everyday player" who "is not nor is he likely to become a star", a player who would look great at his current position....except he cant' stay there, and he's not that great compared to where he WILL end up, and Reed.

What did we get? A guy who's continued to provide quality starts while having a non-baseball injury affecting balance. And a guy that they admit is the type of pitcher we'd need for the playoffs.

Doesn't sound like that bad of a deal to me.

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 02:49 PM
Hate to say it, but I think the competition for America's Best Fifth Starter is going to happen when Wood comes back, not Schoeneweis. And that competition would be between Maddux and Clement.
You anticipate them keeping Glendon Rusch over either of those 2? I don't.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 02:52 PM
Hate to say it, but I think the competition for America's Best Fifth Starter is going to happen when Wood comes back, not Schoeneweis. And that competition would be between Maddux and Clement.
The fifth starter will be Maddux

JorgeFabregas
06-30-2004, 03:06 PM
You anticipate them keeping Glendon Rusch over either of those 2? I don't.
Absolutely not. I'm saying it's going to be

Prior
Wood
Zambrano
Clement/Maddux
Maddux/Clement

As opposed to the parallel that was mentioned with the Sox

Buehrle
Loaiza
Garcia
Garland/Schoeneweis
Schoeneweis/Garland

The competition for America's Best Fifth Starter NOT involving who's getting bumped to the bullpen, but rather who will be 4th or 5th. The idea being that there are more good 4th starters than 5th and thus a good 4th starter could potentially be the best 5th starter. It all matters so dang much, not sure why I even bothered mentioning it :smile:

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 03:11 PM
The competition for America's Best Fifth Starter NOT involving who's getting bumped to the bullpen, but rather who will be 4th or 5th. The idea being that there are more good 4th starters than 5th and thus a good 4th starter could potentially be the best 5th starter. It all matters so dang much, not sure why I even bothered mentioning it :smile:
Gotcha. FWIW - As dominant as Clement's been this year, he's the #4. In the playoffs, they MIGHT swap Maddux in because of his experience and because I think Clement would fare better out of the pen than Mad Dog.

But of course, since they'll be playing their playoff games on an XBox, it won't really matter!

TaylorStSox
06-30-2004, 03:28 PM
I guess I'm not the only person who doesn't think Garcia's all world either.

valposoxfan
06-30-2004, 03:37 PM
I guess I'm not the only person who doesn't think Garcia's all world either.
I don't think many agreed that he was all world. However he will give us more quality starts and better opportunities to when games than our past pitching configuration entailed. You don't think Buehrle, Loaiza, Garcia, Schoenweiss, Garland is better than Buehrle, Loaiza, Garland, Schoenweiss, Rauch/Diaz/Munoz/Wright/Cotts? If he gets 8-10 wins the trade worked out nicely, especially if we can put that rotation up in October. You will see that the catcher situation will work itself out. Both sides got what they wanted and both will come out on the good end of this. Desperation calls for drastic measures. This could be a good thing, or bad. It's how baseball works. One of the these pitching moves has to work for KW sometime don't you think? He's due. I hope.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 03:38 PM
And then again, you could always look at it this way:

Pitching wins. We got pitching. We win

TaylorStSox
06-30-2004, 03:44 PM
I don't think many agreed that he was all world. However he will give us more quality starts and better opportunities to when games than our past pitching configuration entailed. You don't think Buehrle, Loaiza, Garcia, Schoenweiss, Garland is better than Buehrle, Loaiza, Garland, Schoenweiss, Rauch/Diaz/Munoz/Wright/Cotts? If he gets 8-10 wins the trade worked out nicely, especially if we can put that rotation up in October. You will see that the catcher situation will work itself out. Both sides got what they wanted and both will come out on the good end of this. Desperation calls for drastic measures. This could be a good thing, or bad. It's how baseball works. One of the these pitching moves has to work for KW sometime don't you think? He's due. I hope.
I really don't understand how 8-10 wins is worth Olivo and Reed. I'd make the move for a select few dominant pitchers. Garcia isn't really in that group. He's not the guy to take us to the promise land.

Making moves out of desperation destroys teams. I want to be annual contenders. I don't want to make it to the playoffs and lose. We're setting our selves up for 1 chance with this team.

How is the catcher situation going to "work itself out?" Catcher is the hardest position to fill with a quality player. It's harder than SS and CF.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 03:46 PM
I really don't understand how 8-10 wins is worth Olivo and Reed. I'd make the move for a select few dominant pitchers. Garcia isn't really in that group. He's not the guy to take us to the promise land.

OK, well would you like to give some names of some other pitchers that were or are rumored to be traded that you would have preferred the White Sox have gotten?

TaylorStSox
06-30-2004, 03:50 PM
OK, well would you like to give some names of some other pitchers that were or are rumored to be traded that you would have preferred the White Sox have gotten?
Johnson
Glavine
Sheets (I feel the Brewers would have reconsidered moving him with the package that we gave up. Sheets numbers aren't great but he's going to be an absolute stud. He's got great stuff.)

Anyway, if nobody is available, don't make a move. It's simple really. There are a few back of the rotation guys that we could have gotten for much less that would eat up a ton of innings.

jabrch
06-30-2004, 03:53 PM
I really don't understand how 8-10 wins is worth Olivo and Reed. I'd make the move for a select few dominant pitchers. Garcia isn't really in that group. He's not the guy to take us to the promise land.

Making moves out of desperation destroys teams. I want to be annual contenders. I don't want to make it to the playoffs and lose. We're setting our selves up for 1 chance with this team.

How is the catcher situation going to "work itself out?" Catcher is the hardest position to fill with a quality player. It's harder than SS and CF.
1 chance is a lot better than no chances. Do you remember the long list of prospects ranked as high as Jeremy Reed who have completely failed to have any sort of impact? Do you think a .270 hitting catcher can be replaced? Where else would we have gotten a 3.20 ERA calibre SP?

I am tired of 2nd place finishes. I'd rather finish first this year, and 4th next year than finish 2nd each of the next 3 years.

Johnny Mostil
06-30-2004, 03:54 PM
One of the these pitching moves has to work for KW sometime don't you think? He's due. I hope.
Here's a move he didn't make that did work out: not outbidding the Angels for Colon. Apples and oranges, I suppose, but I might prefer to overpay in talent for Garcia than overpay in salary for Colon.

jabrch
06-30-2004, 03:54 PM
Johnson
Glavine
Sheets (I feel the Brewers would have reconsidered moving him with the package that we gave up. Sheets numbers aren't great but he's going to be an absolute stud. He's got great stuff.)

Anyway, if nobody is available, don't make a move. It's simple really. There are a few back of the rotation guys that we could have gotten for much less that would eat up a ton of innings.
you think Reed and Olivo was a high price? Can you imagine what any of those thee would have cost?

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 03:57 PM
Johnson
Glavine
Sheets (I feel the Brewers would have reconsidered moving him with the package that we gave up. Sheets numbers aren't great but he's going to be an absolute stud. He's got great stuff.)

Anyway, if nobody is available, don't make a move. It's simple really. There are a few back of the rotation guys that we could have gotten for much less that would eat up a ton of innings.
I sincerely doubt that for Olivo and Reed we could have gotten Johnson or Sheets. You'd have to overpay for these two because their respective teams dont want to trade them. Maybe Glavine if they Mets were out of it, but they arent trading him away this year under any circumstances with the Mets being only 3 games back in the East

TaylorStSox
06-30-2004, 04:08 PM
I sincerely doubt that for Olivo and Reed we could have gotten Johnson or Sheets. You'd have to overpay for these two because their respective teams dont want to trade them. Maybe Glavine if they Mets were out of it, but they arent trading him away this year under any circumstances with the Mets being only 3 games back in the East

The Mets are going to turn into sellers really fast IMO. I made a post a few days ago about this. It really hurt us when they started to play better IMO. I still don't they've turned the corner.

Our opinions of the value of Olivo and Reed are very different.

We got Colon for Leifer and Biddle. Colon and Garcia have similar value. Before this year, I would have rather had Colon.

mendozaln
06-30-2004, 04:21 PM
If I read their chart right, in '01, '02, '03 FG hat 22, 18, 18 Quality starts. That's pretty solid. Especially considering that he pitched with 2 perforated eardrums in 02 & 03.
.
.
.
What did we get? A guy who's continued to provide quality starts while having a non-baseball injury affecting balance. And a guy that they admit is the type of pitcher we'd need for the playoffs.
There's a Tribune article (written by a Seattle sportswriter) that says the eardrum problem had no effect on his balance: "He had perforated both eardrums on separate plane flights. It didn't affect his hearing or equilibrium." The story's here: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-040629soxrowcenter,1,5523840.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines .

He also points out the FG's probably settled down since getting engaged (to Ozzie's niece, not his daughter). And that he likes shoes. Wonderful.

34 Inch Stick
06-30-2004, 04:22 PM
Garcia for Kotsay, Molina and Tim Hummel. The Mariners got two future starters, which is good for them. We got a pitcher who will be our number 1. He is a little better than either Buhrle or Loiza. However he does not match up with the top #1's in the league. Still we traded for the best pitcher on our team, which is good for us.

It was a fair trade. We might have overpayed a little by not demanding Wilson instead of Davis as the catcher (with the M's paying the rest of his salary), and the inclusion of Morse. Still i like it.

How does he stack up against potential playoff foes #1:

Mussina, Vazquez or Brown- preety even
Martinez- not really close and schilling v. buhrle would be tough as well
Rogers- I'll take Garcia
Mulder- A's have the advantage
Colon- Garcia

He gives us a good shot against 3 out of the 5 current playoff #1's. It is definitely an improvement over what Buhrle gives us (plus he has playoff experience). In addition he moves Loiza down to 3rd, which is a significant improvement.

I am not thrilled about the talent given but it was a move that needed to be done. Still, I wonder if we could have gotten Moyer on the cheap?

lowesox
06-30-2004, 04:23 PM
I am tired of 2nd place finishes. I'd rather finish first this year, and 4th next year than finish 2nd each of the next 3 years.
Great plan. But what if we don't win? Then will you be content with a few 4th place finishes in a row?

Personally, I think the way to win the WS is to try and build a dynasty, because there's always going to be great teams out there - so you'd better have more than one shot at it.

jeremyb1
06-30-2004, 04:25 PM
I really think that whether or not we we fair value for what we gave up in this deal hinges on two things:

A. How far did Garcia take us in the playoffs

we have the most talented team probably since 93-94 and we have our best chance to do something big since that time. We will be able to increase our payroll in the offseason because higher attendence compared to last year is almost assured (300-400K more), the new Sports network will bring in more money and if we make the playoffs, that brings in a lot of money too.

If the answer to A is he got us to the ALCS and we were very close to the World Series or better then I think we got fair value independent of B.



I'm not sure I agree that we have the most talented team since 94. In '00 we had the second most wins in baseball IIRC. People are fond of calling that team a fluke but the majority of the offense is the same as it is now and we added Johnson down the stretch. The big difference is the pitching and it's easy to call those guys a fluke when they (Parque, Sirotka, Baldwin) all suffered what is more or less a career ending injury (labrum surgery). That just goes to show you the uncertainty present within a season.

I have to disagree that this is our best chance to "do something" since '93-94. No one has explained to me yet how we stand a chance of getting past the Yankees and Boston. While I am a believer that anything can happen in the playoffs I think that's a good reason not to mortgage your future with the expectation of succeeding in the playoffs also. The Yankees are on pace to win 105 games after a terrible start and Boston still has the wildcard despite injuries to Schilling, Garciaparra, and Nixon as well as a ton of other bad luck. I honestly believe these may be the two best teams I've seen in my lifetime and I'm not optimisitic about going up against Pedro, Schilling, Wakefield, Lowe or Mussina, Vazquez, Brown, Lieber/Contreras in a five game series even if our pitching has improved.

Again, I'm hopeful about this trade's ability to increse the team's popularity but the last time we made the playoffs the effect on attendance was practically non existant.

Personally I fully expected us to make the playoffs prior to the deal and most likely be eliminated during the first round unless we got lucky and we were hot at the end of the season. If I were a betting man and my life depended on it, I'd still expect the same results right now even though we certainly have better odds of advancing to the second round. Even if this deal does push us into the second round and we come close to winning, I value Reed and Olivo more highly than advancing one additional series in terms of our chances of success in the future.



B. Can we resign him to at least a 3 year extension

if the answer to B is yes, then we definately got fair value in return.



This seems to be everyone's number one point but I'm still not convinced it has more than a slight effect on the quality of the deal. If he reups at this point it will be because he enjoys his time here and we offer him within a million of what he'd command on the open market. I don't think it is ordinary or at all likely that Garcia will take a large paycut to stay. Players and agents don't generally behave in that fashion and JR is known to have deep pockets despite our payroll. If we hadn't acquired him during the season every indication is that he would've tested the market and he probably would've listened to offers from the team managed by his best friend, no? If we offered him as much as other reasonably attractive options (read not Expos or Pirates) he's most likely going to sign up to play for a contending team (which is probably coming off a playoff birth) and his best friend.

The difference between scenarios A and B are that under scenario A, we get Garcia for the remainder of this season and under scenario B we'd probably surrender a few million over the life of his deal and our (late) first round draft pick. The money is close to irrelevant in the long run and the average first round draft pick probably isn't worth a whole lot more than Morse which in my opinion still leaves us with is the increased success we'll have with Garcia over the remainder of the season more valuable than the success we would've had with Olivo and Reed in the future. I think everyone knows where I stand on that issue. The bottom line though is that while whether or not we resign Garcia isn't completely irrelevant, it is close. We didn't obtain the chance to entice him to sign with us next season through this deal, that would've been in place no matter what.

Some of the arguments that others have made are that

1) He's less likely to realize his full market value if we can resign him during this season.

The problem is that in addition to the fact that many players seem hesitant to work heavily in extensions during the season and that guys like to "test the market", if anything agents seem to overestimate what a player will command on the market, especailly in recent years. That's what agents are paid to do in most cases. So the assumption that Garcia and his agent will undervalue his worth at any point seems absurd.

2) If he enjoys his time with the team or we're successful he'll be much more likely to sign.

The problem is if Ozzie's his best friend, he wants to sign no matter what. He's expecting the team to be fun and he's expecting to do well. It seems far more likely to me that he has an issue with the city somehow or Garcia clashes with someone in the clubhouse and this season shows him he actually enjoys the Sox less than expected. Think about it, if you can play with (or for) anyone, you'd probably have two conditions that the team contends and that you like the people. So playing for your best friend on a winning team is ideal, how is Garcia going to end up enjoying the team even more than he would've expected to? That seems incredibly difficult.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 04:26 PM
Martinez- not really close and schilling v. buhrle would be tough as well

Pedro has not been very impressive this year. I know a lot of people are just assuming that he'll be the same old Pedro in the playoffs, but Pedro is on pace to post a career worst ERA. Think about this: He's never posted an ERA above 3 since coming to Boston 7 years ago and now his ERA is close to 4. The Red Sox, if they could find a way to make the playoffs, which I'm not so sure about, would have Schilling as the clear number one. Buehrle vs Pedro would be pretty even. I would like our chances in a 5 game series against the Red Sox

lowesox
06-30-2004, 04:26 PM
I sincerely doubt that for Olivo and Reed we could have gotten Johnson or Sheets. You'd have to overpay for these two because their respective teams dont want to trade them.
It’s interesting to me that you assume that whatever Kenny paid for Garcia was the “right” price. None of us will ever know for sure whether or not we could have paid less, but with Kenny’s history, I think it’s a solid bet we paid more than we have to.


Personally, I would have walked away from this trade in a heartbeat.

jeremyb1
06-30-2004, 04:28 PM
I think the way to win the WS is to try and build a dynasty, because there's always going to be great teams out there - so you'd better have more than one shot at it.

Exactly. I think that a lot of this has to do with one's view of the playoffs. As lowesox says there are often seemingly unbeatable teams and in my opinion it's always a crapshoot to a certain extent. You run the risk of losing to a team no one expected to win like the Marlins or Angels because they get a lot of good baseball bounces or ride a hot streak. Even if you guarantee that you're the best team going in you can't be certain you'll win. So if you can't guarantee victory in the playoffs, what's the best strategy? To give yourself as many chances as possible. That way if you only go in with a ten percent chance every season, if you make it ten times you'll probably win it all once (see the Braves). We had one shot in '00 and it looks like we'll have another this season but I'm thinking our next won't be for a while.

bigdommer
06-30-2004, 04:30 PM
What BP and a lot of baseball fans do not realize, is that this deal is more about money and press more than anything.

1) Getting Garcia causes a buzz, which causes attention, which leads to more fans, which leads to more revenue.

2) 6 extra wins out of Garcia (a conservative increase over that which would have been had with Munoz/Rauch/Diaz/Cotts) means 6 more wins that allow the Sox to stay in the race until August and September. Once again, by being in the race longer, the Sox increase excitement, attendance, and thus revenue.

3) Who knows how many times the Sox will have a competitive team or an offense this dominant? So, Garcia's extra wins allow them to make the playoffs in a weak division, once again increasing revenue, and creating a positive buzz over the offseason. Maybe even attracting FA's or Maggs.

The point is, unlike single market teams with flexible payrolls, the Sox need to take advantage of the financial rewards of winning now. Anything can happen next year. Reed could be an All-star, or he could continue to regress. Davis could revive his career, or he could bat under .100 the rest of the year. The only thing close to a sure thing in this deal is that, with the Sox offense, Freddy Garcia should bring in 6 or more EXTRA wins to the Sox, which should put them in the playoffs.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 04:30 PM
It’s interesting to me that you assume that whatever Kenny paid for Garcia was the “right” price. None of us will ever know for sure whether or not we could have paid less, but with Kenny’s history, I think it’s a solid bet we paid more than we have to.

Oh yeah, with Kenny's History. Because obviously Leifer and Biddle were a lot to give up for Colon and that package we gave up for Everett? Way too much to give up. Aaron Miles was a ton to give up for Uribe.

Gimme a break, KW has made his good deals and his bad deals except everyone wants to focus on the bad.

JRIG
06-30-2004, 04:31 PM
The Red Sox, if they could find a way to make the playoffs, which I'm not so sure about, would have Schilling as the clear number one.
I'm amazed you can be so optimistic about the White Sox making the playoffs, but skeptical about the Red Sox getting there.

JRIG
06-30-2004, 04:33 PM
What BP and a lot of baseball fans do not realize, is that this deal is more about money and press more than anything.

1) Getting Garcia causes a buzz, which causes attention, which leads to more fans, which leads to more revenue.


Wasn't this the idea last year too, when we acquired Alomar and Everett? And how did that work out for revenue and buzz?

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 04:40 PM
No one has explained to me yet how we stand a chance of getting past the Yankees and Boston. ....
The Yankees are on pace to win 105 games after a terrible start and Boston still has the wildcard despite injuries to Schilling, Garciaparra, and Nixon as well as a ton of other bad luck. I honestly believe these may be the two best teams I've seen in my lifetime and I'm not optimisitic about going up against Pedro, Schilling, Wakefield, Lowe or Mussina, Vazquez, Brown, Lieber/Contreras in a five game series even if our pitching has improved.
FWIW - Lieber, Wakefield, Lowe have been pretty bad this year. Contreras has been pretty inconsistent (although dominant last time out), and Mussina's been up&down this year as well.

Reasons we match up well v. the Yanks: Our offense, while not AS good, is not far off. Our starting pitching is better. I'd give them an advantage w/ Vazquez, but I'd take Garcia v. Brown, Buehrle v. Mussina, and E-Lo v. Contreras. Also for whatever reason, we tend to play the Yanks very tough.

Reasons we match up well v. Boston: Our offense is better (although they've played a while without Nomar). They obvisouly have the best 2 starters in Pedro & Schilling, but I'll take E-Lo and Garland over Wakefield & Lowe in a heartbeat.

Reasons we do't match up well with either: They go out and trade for a difference maker like Randy Johnson. If they get a Kris Benson, doesn't scare me.

Again, I'm hopeful about this trade's ability to increse the team's popularity but the last time we made the playoffs the effect on attendance was practically non existant.
Although I think the chances that this team falls off the table like the '01 team did are pretty small. That team had a pretty wild confluence of events including Thomas tricep, Wells back, and the general malaise that was Jerry Manuel.


As for the Garcia resigning v. getting him on the open market point, I think having him experience the team chemistry and win significantly enhances our ability to resign him. We become the "known good scenario", whereas on the open market, we're the "potential good scenario" to be weighed against others. For a guy who's settling down (getting married, probably thinking of kids in a bit, etc.) - that's not a bad advantage to have.

I also think that making this move opens up a better chance for an increased payroll next year because it builds buzz around the team. Think about how much buzz the Chubs got last year and how that built them up and enabled them to expand payroll. We do the same, it'll feed on itself. Instead of Reed+Olivo, you might have a Jason Kendall. Or you might keep Maggs. Not to mention that if/when Garcia starts pitching well and we go on a run, it might even open up the coffers a bit more THIS season, and we end up with maybe a Jason kendall without giving anyone up.

You'll always have top-level prospects, and you can always find reasons to hold onto them. That doesn't mean you should given them all away, but you pick your spots and do it when it gives you a real chance to win something significant. That's what this does.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 04:42 PM
I'm amazed you can be so optimistic about the White Sox making the playoffs, but skeptical about the Red Sox getting there.
A. The Red Sox are facing the Yankees in their division, not the Twins like we are. I am very pessimistic about their chances to catch up to the Yankees

B. That means that they have to beat out the second best team of Texas/Anaheim/Oakland, which is not an easy task.

They are no doubt a very talented team, probably more talented than the White Sox, but the M's were pretty talented last year, won 93 games and still didnt make the playoffs while the 90 win, overacheiving Twins did.

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 04:44 PM
Wasn't this the idea last year too, when we acquired Alomar and Everett? And how did that work out for revenue and buzz?
It's all about winning. Had that team won, there would have been some buzz and increased attendance. However, I think this team with Garcia has a much better chance to win than that team with everett+Alomar. Therefore we have a much greater chance to get the increased attendance & revenues that can start to take this team to being a true major market franchise.

lowesox
06-30-2004, 04:47 PM
Oh yeah, with Kenny's History. Because obviously Leifer and Biddle were a lot to give up for Colon and that package we gave up for Everett? Way too much to give up. Aaron Miles was a ton to give up for Uribe.

Gimme a break, KW has made his good deals and his bad deals except everyone wants to focus on the bad.

Let me make something abundantly clear: Colon got us nowhere. So everything we gave up for him was wasted. Whether we gave up much is certainly debatable, but it wasn't the steal many make it to be. As for Everett, the players we gave up haven't yet had a chance to come into their own. So who knows what will happen with them. But one thing's for sure. Everett got us nowhere too.

I think it's silly to praise trades that don't get you anywhere, but do deplete the farm system.

TaylorStSox
06-30-2004, 04:48 PM
FWIW - Lieber, Wakefield, Lowe have been pretty bad this year. Contreras has been pretty inconsistent (although dominant last time out), and Mussina's been up&down this year as well.

Reasons we match up well v. the Yanks: Our offense, while not AS good, is not far off. Our starting pitching is better. I'd give them an advantage w/ Vazquez, but I'd take Garcia v. Brown, Buehrle v. Mussina, and E-Lo v. Contreras. Also for whatever reason, we tend to play the Yanks very tough.

Reasons we match up well v. Boston: Our offense is better (although they've played a while without Nomar). They obvisouly have the best 2 starters in Pedro & Schilling, but I'll take E-Lo and Garland over Wakefield & Lowe in a heartbeat.

Reasons we do't match up well with either: They go out and trade for a difference maker like Randy Johnson. If they get a Kris Benson, doesn't scare me.


Although I think the chances that this team falls off the table like the '01 team did are pretty small. That team had a pretty wild confluence of events including Thomas tricep, Wells back, and the general malaise that was Jerry Manuel.


As for the Garcia resigning v. getting him on the open market point, I think having him experience the team chemistry and win significantly enhances our ability to resign him. We become the "known good scenario", whereas on the open market, we're the "potential good scenario" to be weighed against others. For a guy who's settling down (getting married, probably thinking of kids in a bit, etc.) - that's not a bad advantage to have.

I also think that making this move opens up a better chance for an increased payroll next year because it builds buzz around the team. Think about how much buzz the Chubs got last year and how that built them up and enabled them to expand payroll. We do the same, it'll feed on itself. Instead of Reed+Olivo, you might have a Jason Kendall. Or you might keep Maggs. Not to mention that if/when Garcia starts pitching well and we go on a run, it might even open up the coffers a bit more THIS season, and we end up with maybe a Jason kendall without giving anyone up.

You'll always have top-level prospects, and you can always find reasons to hold onto them. That doesn't mean you should given them all away, but you pick your spots and do it when it gives you a real chance to win something significant. That's what this does.
Out of curiousity... Why would you take Garcia over Brown in a playoff game? Assuming Brown is healthy, he's a far superior pitcher. He has more experience and much better stuff.


MKARNO: We agree on something. :redneck Pedro's definitely on a downward trend as well. His small frame's really catching up to him. He's pitched a ton of hard innings in his career.

JRIG
06-30-2004, 04:48 PM
A. The Red Sox are facing the Yankees in their division, not the Twins like we are. I am very pessimistic about their chances to catch up to the Yankees

B. That means that they have to beat out the second best team of Texas/Anaheim/Oakland, which is not an easy task.


Texas is not as good as they are playing right now. They just don't have the pitching. And I don't expect Anaheim to keep things up with the injuries they've had and missing Glaus for the rest of the season. Plus with Colon pitching poorly they're down a starter too. Oakland should have a pretty clear run down the stretch for the West which would leave the Wild Card wide open for Boston.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 04:49 PM
Let me make something abundantly clear: Colon got us nowhere. So everything we gave up for him was wasted. Whether we gave up much is certainly debatable, but it wasn't the steal many make it to be. As for Everett, the players we gave up haven't yet had a chance to come into their own. So who knows what will happen with them. But one thing's for sure. Everett got us nowhere too.

I think it's silly to praise trades that don't get you anywhere, but do deplete the farm system.
You're gonna sit here and tell me that KW didnt position us for a deep playoff run last year? THat's what he did last year. It's not his fault the team did get it done. He did all he could do and yes it was worth the risk. Hindsight is 20/20. If we had made the World Series then KW would have been the genius.

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 04:52 PM
Let me make something abundantly clear: Colon got us nowhere. So everything we gave up for him was wasted. Whether we gave up much is certainly debatable, but it wasn't the steal many make it to be. As for Everett, the players we gave up haven't yet had a chance to come into their own. So who knows what will happen with them. But one thing's for sure. Everett got us nowhere too.

I think it's silly to praise trades that don't get you anywhere, but do deplete the farm system.
By that argument, if we had traded Ron Schueler's daughter for Roger Clemens a few years back, and then hadn't won.....that trade would be a waste?

IMO, it's silly to evaluate something purely in hindsight. No one ever has the benefit of that when they make the deal. You need to evaluate it on it's face. You should factor in hindsight, sure - but that can't be the ONLY factor.

mendozaln
06-30-2004, 04:54 PM
Let me make something abundantly clear: Colon got us nowhere. So everything we gave up for him was wasted. Whether we gave up much is certainly debatable, but it wasn't the steal many make it to be.
Whoa. I think we gave up too much for Garcia, but no WAY was the Colon trade a waste. He pitched a ton of innings with a good ERA and a good K/BB ratio. Even though we didn't win, we wouldn't have even been close without him, and the season wouldn't have been half as fun. Two relievers and a disappointing high pick for Colon last season? Heck, that is repaid by the picks we got for him, alone. That was an utter coup by KW.

Dadawg_77
06-30-2004, 04:54 PM
In Baseball and Philosophy one the stats chapter I read, talked about a study. The study concluded the team with the best talent had only a 20% chance to win the WS while a team with horrible talent had about a 1% chance. So having great talent will help come playoff time but doesn't guarantee success.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 04:55 PM
Texas is not as good as they are playing right now. They just don't have the pitching. And I don't expect Anaheim to keep things up with the injuries they've had and missing Glaus for the rest of the season. Plus with Colon pitching poorly they're down a starter too. Oakland should have a pretty clear run down the stretch for the West which would leave the Wild Card wide open for Boston.
Well I disagree with you about Anaheim. They still have Vladdy, Garret in the middle of the order, Chone and Eckstein setting the table and the bullpen which puts all others in the AL to shame. I agree that there's no reason to think Texas can keep it up, but until they prove otherwise I think you have to count them as contenders. Plus I think Oakland is still going to have problems with Dotel, because he still has the propensity to blow saves. Also, their offense has just as good of keeping it up as Texas and Anaheim keeping it up.

pudge
06-30-2004, 05:02 PM
You're gonna sit here and tell me that KW didnt position us for a deep playoff run last year? THat's what he did last year. It's not his fault the team did get it done. He did all he could do and yes it was worth the risk. Hindsight is 20/20. If we had made the World Series then KW would have been the genius.
Well, if he doesn't make bad trades in prior years, we would have actually made the play-offs in 2003. The team that didn't get it done was the team he decided to put on the field.

We all know what KW is about, now we just have to wait and see if it pays off, or if we get burned. He must resign Garcia, that's the bottom line.

zach23
06-30-2004, 05:02 PM
Get the tomato ready, hear it goes again. :D:

bigdommer
06-30-2004, 05:07 PM
Wasn't this the idea last year too, when we acquired Alomar and Everett? And how did that work out for revenue and buzz?
It worked out great until that meltdown against the Twins. Attendance was way up and the team had a shot.

So, it didn't work out. This year was supposed to be a disaster. Guess what, we are better this year than we were last year. So, let's go for it.

jeremyb1
06-30-2004, 05:16 PM
FWIW - Lieber, Wakefield, Lowe have been pretty bad this year. Contreras has been pretty inconsistent (although dominant last time out), and Mussina's been up&down this year as well.

So? This is the same reason I'm not overly concerned about Reed's AAA showing our the performance of our fifth starters in one or two outings this season. It's all sample size. Half a season is a decent sample size but it's not huge when you've had a 12 year career. Mussina started poorly but he has an ERA around 3 over the last month or two and I'm pretty confident he'll finish the season well and that he won't be fun to face in September. Ditto Wakefield and Lowe. Lieber's coming off an injury but he has something like eight starts so it's quite hard to evaluate him at this point.

Reasons we match up well v. the Yanks: Our offense, while not AS good, is not far off. Our starting pitching is better. I'd give them an advantage w/ Vazquez, but I'd take Garcia v. Brown, Buehrle v. Mussina, and E-Lo v. Contreras. Also for whatever reason, we tend to play the Yanks very tough.

Haha. So if you discount their first starter our 1 is as good as their two, our two as good as their three, and our three as good as their four? That's pretty insane reasonining. Again this isn't an argument only about whose pitching has been best so far or has looked best so far it's about whose will be the best come September.

Reasons we match up well v. Boston: Our offense is better (although they've played a while without Nomar). They obvisouly have the best 2 starters in Pedro & Schilling, but I'll take E-Lo and Garland over Wakefield & Lowe in a heartbeat.

Try talking up ELo and Garland once we're in an 0-2 hole. I'm sure it'll go over really well. Yes our offense has been better but Boston had the better offense last season by a ton and have been playing without Garciaparra and Nixon. Think that might make a difference?

Although I think the chances that this team falls off the table like the '01 team did are pretty small. That team had a pretty wild confluence of events including Thomas tricep, Wells back, and the general malaise that was Jerry Manuel.

Yeah but for the upteenth time we didn't fall off the table in spring training. There was not huge jump in attendance early in the season or in season ticket sales IIRC.

As for the Garcia resigning v. getting him on the open market point, I think having him experience the team chemistry and win significantly enhances our ability to resign him. We become the "known good scenario", whereas on the open market, we're the "potential good scenario" to be weighed against others. For a guy who's settling down (getting married, probably thinking of kids in a bit, etc.) - that's not a bad advantage to have.

I don't think there's a big difference between the "potential good scenario" and "known good scenario" because I don't think there's much doubt about playing for Ozzie in the merely "potential good scenario". I agree it's not a bad advantage to have but I don't think it makes a huge difference. As I theorized before a couple million and a first round pick. That's all.

I also think that making this move opens up a better chance for an increased payroll next year because it builds buzz around the team. Think about how much buzz the Chubs got last year and how that built them up and enabled them to expand payroll. We do the same, it'll feed on itself. Instead of Reed+Olivo, you might have a Jason Kendall. Or you might keep Maggs. Not to mention that if/when Garcia starts pitching well and we go on a run, it might even open up the coffers a bit more THIS season, and we end up with maybe a Jason kendall without giving anyone up.

Yeah but that was the case when we won the division in '00, when we added Koch and Colon in the offseason, and when we dealt for Alomar and Everett and it never happened. I don't really see what's different this time around.

We're not going to end up with Kendall for nothing. It'll take some players. He has an enourmous deal that will take money away from resigning Maggs, Elo, and Garcia or other free agents.

Fungo
06-30-2004, 05:19 PM
I really think that whether or not we we fair value for what we gave up in this deal hinges on two things:

A. How far did Garcia take us in the playoffs

B. Can we resign him to at least a 3 year extension

If the answer to A is he got us to the ALCS and we were very close to the World Series or better then I think we got fair value independent of B. But if the answer to B is yes, then we definately got fair value in return. If the answer to A is first round exit and the answer to B is no, then I think that we didnt get fair value in the trade. Anyways, the rationale behind the trade makes significant sense to me because we have the most talented team probably since 93-94 and we have our best chance to do something big since that time. We will be able to increase our payroll in the offseason because higher attendence compared to last year is almost assured (300-400K more), the new Sports network will bring in more money and if we make the playoffs, that brings in a lot of money too.
Unfortunately, baseball is a team game. It is unfair to base where we finish on one person. Garcia could win every start he makes for the White Sox, but it is still possible for the Sox to not make the playoffs. He could also have a sub-2.00 ERA the rest of the way, but the offense doesn't score any runs for him and we loose every start he makes. Is it his fault that we don't make the playoffs or don't go very far in the playoffs? There are too many factors that come in to play to really gauge whether it was a worthwhile trade. I'm numb as to how I feel about the trade. On one hand, I think we gave up too much, but on the other hand, you have to give up something good to get something good in return. I think Garcia definitely makes our rotation better. I think our pitchers were getting a little burnt out because of the 4 man rotation and I think the extra rest will help in the long run. They say pitching wins championships, so I am hoping that holds true.

I agree with you on reason B. If we resign Garcia, that makes loosing Olivo, Reed & Morse easier to swallow.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 05:21 PM
Unfortunately, baseball is a team game. It is unfair to base where we finish on one person. Garcia could win every start he makes for the White Sox, but it is still possible for the Sox to not make the playoffs. He could also have a sub-2.00 ERA the rest of the way, but the offense doesn't score any runs for him and we loose every start he makes. Is it his fault that we don't make the playoffs or don't go very far in the playoffs? There are too many factors that come in to play to really gauge whether it was a worthwhile trade. I'm numb as to how I feel about the trade. On one hand, I think we gave up too much, but on the other hand, you have to give up something good to get something good in return. I think Garcia definitely makes our rotation better. I think our pitchers were getting a little burnt out because of the 4 man rotation and I think the extra rest will help in the long run. They say pitching wins championships, so I am hoping that holds true.

I agree with you on reason B. If we resign Garcia, that makes loosing Olivo, Reed & Morse easier to swallow.


I agree. For me it's more about him resigning than where the team ends up.

lowesox
06-30-2004, 05:30 PM
You're gonna sit here and tell me that KW didnt position us for a deep playoff run last year? THat's what he did last year. It's not his fault the team did get it done. He did all he could do and yes it was worth the risk. Hindsight is 20/20. If we had made the World Series then KW would have been the genius.
At the risk of rehashing an argument I've had about 20 times already... your defense doesn't make a lot of sense. Kenny put us in position - but it's the player's fault. Isn't choosing the player's how a GM puts his team in position to win?

Evaluate a GM with wins and losses. Until Kenny gets us to the playoffs, he's anything but a genius in my mind.

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 05:31 PM
At the risk of rehashing an argument I've had about 20 times already... your defense doesn't make a lot of sense. Kenny put us in position - but it's the player's fault. Isn't choosing the player's how a GM puts his team in position to win?

Evaluate a GM with wins and losses. Until Kenny gets us to the playoffs, he's anything but a genius in my mind.

Players are not always going to get it done. If you understand this concept then I think you would understand my logic. If anyone is there to blame for last year, it's Jerry Manuel for his pathetic managing job.

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 05:46 PM
Here we go again.....:smile:

So? This is the same reason I'm not overly concerned about Reed's AAA showing our the performance of our fifth starters in one or two outings this season. It's all sample size. Lowe has had 1 good year as a starer. Last year he was below average amd this year he's been worse. In years when Wakefield's been primarily an SP, he's been average. His really good years are when he's flopped back & forth, and as a reliever he's been very good. I still like our starters over Boston's. Especially given Pedro's not exactly been himself this year.

Mussina could bounce back, but he's old, and while he had a good year last year, the year before he was inconsistent. I don't think he's got a significant advantage of Mark Buehrle (if any).


Haha. So if you discount their first starter our 1 is as good as their two, our two as good as their three, and our three as good as their four? That's pretty insane reasonining. Again this isn't an argument only about whose pitching has been best so far or has looked best so far it's about whose will be the best come September.OK, you busted me - I was too lazy to go look up Vazquez's #s. Now I have, and Freddy's pretty close. Javier's got a 3.42 ERA, 1.1 WHIP compared to Freddy's 3.2ERA / 1.2 WHIP. Vazquez's BAA is also rising (.188 April, .246 May, .256 June), which could indicate that as he gets around the league, he's not as dominant - which is to be expected. Small sample size, I know.

So far, our pitching has been better (given the guys we have). If Mussina gets back to being better than Buehrle, if Brown holds up, they could be better than us. But we have fewer question marks there (which is why the Yanks are desperately looking for pitching).

Regardless, even if they have slightly better pitching and slightly better hitting, we're close enough that we have as good a shot as them to win a series.

Yeah but for the upteenth time we didn't fall off the table in spring training. There was not huge jump in attendance early in the season or in season ticket sales IIRC.
April 30th we were 8-15. May 31st we were 20-30. Not sure what qualifies as falling off the table there. Cumulative attendance (per ESPN) was just over 1mil for that period. I don't have 2000 monthly totals, but total attendance was 1.9mil, so I'd guess there was a bump in early '01 since we were more than halfway there 2 months into the season.

Yeah but that was the case when we won the division in '00, when we added Koch and Colon in the offseason, and when we dealt for Alomar and Everett and it never happened. I don't really see what's different this time around.

It's all a question of IF we win. Last year's team was severely hampered by the manager, this year's team seems to be boosted by Ozzie. If we dont' win, I agree - we won't get any benefit from it (except for the benefit of fans seeing JR loosen the purse strings during the season and take on salary for a crack at the WS). But given the makeup of the team, manager, and the competition - I think we have as good a shot as any.

Let me clarify something: I don't think the Sox are the favorites (although with Kendall for no ML player, I think we might be). I do think the Sox have as good a shot as Boston or NY as the 3 teams are currently structured.

lowesox
06-30-2004, 05:49 PM
Players are not always going to get it done. If you understand this concept then I think you would understand my logic. If anyone is there to blame for last year, it's Jerry Manuel for his pathetic managing job.
If you believe that the right team can just underperform every now and again, wouldn't it more sense to build towards a dynasty - so that you have better odds?

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 05:51 PM
If you believe that the right team can just underperform every now and again, wouldn't it more sense to build towards a dynasty - so that you have better odds?
Well obviously you want to build a "dynasty" if you can, but realistically, our window of opportunity closes on one level this year and on another level in 2006.

Paulwny
06-30-2004, 05:56 PM
If you believe that the right team can just underperform every now and again, wouldn't it more sense to build towards a dynasty - so that you have better odds?

With all the player movements through fa they'll never be dynasties in mlb, with the possible exception of King Georges $$$Crew.

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 05:58 PM
If you believe that the right team can just underperform every now and again, wouldn't it more sense to build towards a dynasty - so that you have better odds?
The problem IMO is that unless you have big market style revenues, "building for a dynasty" is virtually impossible. You continually have to replace players as they get to FA, you can't resign them. So you end up treading water and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle. Ask the Twins. They've managed to stay competitive for a while, but does ANYONE really think they're a WS contender?

IMO - the answer is to take a calculated shot when you have it. Win a playoff series, take an ALCS trip. Make yourself into an attractive destination for FAs, increase your revenue base, make your owners/investors believe that any additional $$$ they put in have a better chance of achieving something. Then you can consistently increase your talent level more effectively because you'll have a better resource base to start from.

JRIG
06-30-2004, 06:02 PM
I split off the posts comparing this year's team to last year's team. Someone started a thread on the same subject.

lowesox
06-30-2004, 06:17 PM
Granted, it's harder now than ever to build for a dynasty - but trading a guy like Olivo is the absolute worst thing you could do. I was ok with trading REed. He really wasn't part of this team, and like many have said, is unproven. But Olivo was a proven commodity who, for all intents and purposes should continue to get better. He's the kind of player Kenny should be building with.

CWSGuy406
06-30-2004, 06:42 PM
Won't Garcia be as much a part of our 'dynasty' as Reed/Olivo (unless, of course, the Sox lose him via FA)?

Looking at next year, we should have three starters in our rotation, three pretty young starters in Garcia-Buerhle-Garland. And, IMHO, pitching will get us a lot closer to any World Series Ring chance that we have than hitting will...

lowesox
06-30-2004, 07:28 PM
Won't Garcia be as much a part of our 'dynasty' as Reed/Olivo (unless, of course, the Sox lose him via FA)?

Looking at next year, we should have three starters in our rotation, three pretty young starters in Garcia-Buerhle-Garland. And, IMHO, pitching will get us a lot closer to any World Series Ring chance that we have than hitting will...
Olivo fit as a guy to build around because he's young, cheap, and about to enter his prime. Garcia is a veteran - and he's making a ton of money. He's the perfect guy for a team to add once they've built a good young core. The only problem: you're not supposed to sacrifice that core to get him.

Mickster
06-30-2004, 07:40 PM
People happy with trade: 82%

People unhappy with trade: 18% including lowesox

We get your point.... :?:

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 07:41 PM
People happy with trade: 82%

People unhappy with trade: 18% including lowesox

We get your point.... :?:
The minority has been a very vocal one

Mickster
06-30-2004, 07:42 PM
The minority has been a very vocal one
A bit too vocal??? It's not like you are going to change the mind of the 82% who seem to favor the trade.....

Nothing can be done about it. Sit back and enjoy the baseball. Sheesh. :tongue:

MRKARNO
06-30-2004, 07:45 PM
A bit too vocal??? It's not like you are going to change the mind of the 82% who seem to favor the trade.....

Nothing can be done about it. Sit back and enjoy the baseball. Sheesh. :tongue:
Well most of those people were the same people who always have been bashing KW. I dont know whether they wanted to feel smarter than KW or if they actually wanted to hold onto Olivo and Reed. By my estimation is was mostly people who felt like they know how to run a team better than KW

Flight #24
06-30-2004, 07:56 PM
Olivo fit as a guy to build around because he's young, cheap, and about to enter his prime. Garcia is a veteran - and he's making a ton of money. He's the perfect guy for a team to add once they've built a good young core. The only problem: you're not supposed to sacrifice that core to get him.
IMO, this team has a good mix of youth and vets. Youth:Uribe, Harris, Buehrle, Garland, Marte, Rowand, Crede. Young Vets: Konerko, Lee, Maggs, Garcia. Older vets: Frank, ELo, Takatsu, Alomar.

IMO, you run a MUCH bigger risk of never making it if you hold onto guys like Olivo too much. By the time they're developed, you've basically lost your Frank, Elo, and given the way the negotiations seem to be going - we were going to lose Maggs either way. So now you've got a developed Olivo, but still questions marks in a lot of other places.

Instead, you've given your team a better shot to win in the next 2 years because Garcia, Elo, Valentin are eminently resignable.

Your argumtn works for the Sox a few years ago - when the whole tem was young. Now, however, the guys are much more veteran, so you need to look at winning in a shorter time horizon to give yourself a better chance to keep some of them.

Mickster
06-30-2004, 08:02 PM
<insert picture of beating a dead horse>

Tragg
06-30-2004, 08:03 PM
I essentially agree with BP- from an organizational "value" perspective, we get the short straw. But ultimately that's not what the measure is- as the article said, it's about "October baseball".

A fair question might be whether we could have got him for less.

lowesox
06-30-2004, 08:20 PM
<insert picture of beating a dead horse>
I love that. Every time somebody comes onto WSI and says that we're talking about something too much. Isn't that the point of WSI? To come on and challenge each other with intelligent conversation?

If you don't like the 'dead horse' don't click on the threads that are past due in your opinion. Sheesh.

Dadawg_77
06-30-2004, 11:43 PM
Well most of those people were the same people who always have been bashing KW. I dont know whether they wanted to feel smarter than KW or if they actually wanted to hold onto Olivo and Reed. By my estimation is was mostly people who felt like they know how to run a team better than KW

I think 50% of Chicago could be a better GM then Kenny. As for the trade, Olivo doesn't brother me, but Reed does.

jabrch
06-30-2004, 11:59 PM
If you believe that the right team can just underperform every now and again, wouldn't it more sense to build towards a dynasty - so that you have better odds?
No - cuz building to a dynasty is impossible without dynasty calibre financial resources. It is unrealistic.

jabrch
07-01-2004, 12:00 AM
Granted, it's harder now than ever to build for a dynasty - but trading a guy like Olivo is the absolute worst thing you could do. I was ok with trading REed. He really wasn't part of this team, and like many have said, is unproven. But Olivo was a proven commodity who, for all intents and purposes should continue to get better. He's the kind of player Kenny should be building with.

There are many more Miguel Olivos out there than Freddy Garcias.

FarWestChicago
07-01-2004, 12:10 AM
I think 50% of Chicago could be a better GM then Kenny.Damn. Dawg. You just took down Homefish in the Most Idiotic Post of the Night Contest. Be proud!!

http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/troll.gif

jabrch
07-01-2004, 12:29 AM
Damn. Dawg. You just took down Homefish in the Most Idiotic Post of the Night Contest. Be proud!!

http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/troll.gif

West, he didn't really say that - did he? I quit reading anything DaDawg says, but did he really say 50% of Chicago could be a better GM than Kenny Williams? It's posts like that which make me happy we have a high quality IGNORE feature here. That is, quite simply, the single dumbest thing I have read here at WSI. Did he really say that?

KW has done an awesome job fielding one of the best teams in baseball on a fairly limited budget. He deserves plenty of credit for what he has done. I hope he hears it from other fans - cuz the vocal minority who say things like 50% could do better than Williams are just fricking crazy.

I don't even know what to say. West, did he REALLY say that?

lowesox
07-01-2004, 12:29 AM
There are many more Miguel Olivos out there than Freddy Garcias.
Actually, there are far less. How many five-tool catchers are out there with cannon arms who are just going into their prime? Garcia's a good pitcher, but he's not quite an ace - and there are oodles of pitchers like that out there.

Dadawg_77
07-01-2004, 12:30 AM
Damn. Dawg. You just took down Homefish in the Most Idiotic Post of the Night Contest. Be proud!!

http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/troll.gif
Must have lost your sense of humor not to tell the joking exaggeration in the post.

lowesox
07-01-2004, 12:33 AM
West, he didn't really say that - did he? I quit reading anything DaDawg says, but did he really say 50% of Chicago could be a better GM than Kenny Williams? It's posts like that which make me happy we have a high quality IGNORE feature here. That is, quite simply, the single dumbest thing I have read here at WSI. Did he really say that?

KW has done an awesome job fielding one of the best teams in baseball on a fairly limited budget. He deserves plenty of credit for what he has done. I hope he hears it from other fans - cuz the vocal minority who say things like 50% could do better than Williams are just fricking crazy.

I don't even know what to say. West, did he REALLY say that?
Just wanted to say that even though I think I'm more in DaDawg's camp than the other one, I thought this post was pretty funny. This has actually been a great thread. Two separate opinions argued intelligently without anybody getting personal. Kind of a rarity at WSI these days.

jabrch
07-01-2004, 12:34 AM
Actually, there are far less. How many five-tool catchers are out there with cannon arms who are just going into their prime? Garcia's a good pitcher, but he's not quite an ace - and there are oodles of pitchers like that out there.
To call Olivo a 5 tool catcher is a reach - no? He is hitting .270 with 7 HRs and a .316 obp. He may in the future be much more - but that is a ? at best.

And to compound that - you argue that there are OODLES of pitchers like Garcia. Can you list all the AL pitchers with an ERA below Garcia's? Going into today, I count 4 - yes, 4. If 4 is an oodle, then you are right - there are oodles like that. But give me that oodle any day.

At least be consistent. Don't project godlike play from the guys we gave up and then try to poopoo the guy we got. You can't hate KW or the Sox that much - can you? Why?

Tragg
07-01-2004, 01:01 AM
Let me make something abundantly clear: Colon got us nowhere. So everything we gave up for him was wasted. Whether we gave up much is certainly debatable, but it wasn't the steal many make it to be. As for Everett, the players we gave up haven't yet had a chance to come into their own. So who knows what will happen with them. But one thing's for sure. Everett got us nowhere too.

I think it's silly to praise trades that don't get you anywhere, but do deplete the farm system.Actually I'm watching Frankie Francisco (one of the three players we gave for Everett) pitch right now, as a set-up man for the Rangers- he's EXCELLENT and we certainly could use a hard throwing righty like Frankie in our pen.

That said, the a farm system is only important, ultimately, to the extent that it gets you to the WS. Stupidly depleting it is stupid- letting it suffocate itself is also stupid- careful moves are the way to go- that's up to Kenny Williams.

Tragg
07-01-2004, 01:06 AM
You're gonna sit here and tell me that KW didnt position us for a deep playoff run last year? THat's what he did last year. It's not his fault the team did get it done. He did all he could do and yes it was worth the risk. Hindsight is 20/20. If we had made the World Series then KW would have been the genius.
That's debatable because it assumes declining Alomar and Everett constitute players sufficient to position oneself for a playoff run.
We overpaid for them- we overpaid for Garcia- the Yankees overpay in all of their in-season deals too.
We just have to be careful about it. Garcia, imo, is worth overpaying for. I didn't think Alomar and Everett were at the time.
And we didn't overpay for Colon- we gave up zilch.

doublem23
07-01-2004, 01:10 AM
We had one shot in '00 and it looks like we'll have another this season but I'm thinking our next won't be for a while.
This was exactly the sentiment of the boards last year after Williams dealt all those great prospects (including the #3 one in the system) last year. Oh, we have to win it in '03 because we'll suck in '04.

Worry about next year when next year rolls around.

CWSGuy406
07-01-2004, 01:20 AM
To call Olivo a 5 tool catcher is a reach - no? He is hitting .270 with 7 HRs and a .316 obp. He may in the future be much more - but that is a ? at best.

And to compound that - you argue that there are OODLES of pitchers like Garcia. Can you list all the AL pitchers with an ERA below Garcia's? Going into today, I count 4 - yes, 4. If 4 is an oodle, then you are right - there are oodles like that. But give me that oodle any day.

At least be consistent. Don't project godlike play from the guys we gave up and then try to poopoo the guy we got. You can't hate KW or the Sox that much - can you? Why?
I really dislike when people do that - they only focus on what we gave up, and not on what we got. And to say there are a ton of pitchers available like Garcia is really, really foolish.

Pitching>Catching/Hitting.

jabrch
07-01-2004, 01:29 AM
The only reason we overpayed (in prospects) for Alomar and Everett was that we were not willing to take on their salaries. So we got those guys, and got the Mets/Rangers to pay for them for the rest of the year. This season we are not in that same position. I am not sure why Seattle paid us whatever they did, but KW has extra budget now - so he can add one more legit player and not need to overpay to get cash in the deal.

That's very encouraging!

That's debatable because it assumes declining Alomar and Everett constitute players sufficient to position oneself for a playoff run.
We overpaid for them- we overpaid for Garcia- the Yankees overpay in all of their in-season deals too.
We just have to be careful about it. Garcia, imo, is worth overpaying for. I didn't think Alomar and Everett were at the time.
And we didn't overpay for Colon- we gave up zilch.

gosox41
07-01-2004, 10:12 AM
I guess I'm not the only person who doesn't think Garcia's all world either.
I think the Sox overpaid for him. But if he pitches like he did a few years ago and is the reason we get to the playoffs then it'll be hard to argue with it. But I don't expect him to pitch like he did a few years ago. He'll be solid, sure. But he is not a number 1 pitcher and isn't worth the 3 prospects the Sox gave up.

This trade could come back and haunt us for a long time. Let's hope Freddy pitches at his best to justify the deal.



Bob

gosox41
07-01-2004, 10:14 AM
I essentially agree with BP- from an organizational "value" perspective, we get the short straw. But ultimately that's not what the measure is- as the article said, it's about "October baseball".

A fair question might be whether we could have got him for less.
Or if you could have gotten another pitcher for less.


Bob

gosox41
07-01-2004, 10:20 AM
To call Olivo a 5 tool catcher is a reach - no? He is hitting .270 with 7 HRs and a .316 obp. He may in the future be much more - but that is a ? at best.

And to compound that - you argue that there are OODLES of pitchers like Garcia. Can you list all the AL pitchers with an ERA below Garcia's? Going into today, I count 4 - yes, 4. If 4 is an oodle, then you are right - there are oodles like that. But give me that oodle any day.

At least be consistent. Don't project godlike play from the guys we gave up and then try to poopoo the guy we got. You can't hate KW or the Sox that much - can you? Why?
ERA isn't the only wawy to project how good a pitcher is. Garcia is good, but he's not great. Keep in mind that he also had the advantage of pitching half his games in Safeco which is more of a pitchers park.


Bob

Flight #24
07-01-2004, 10:32 AM
Or if you could have gotten another pitcher for less.


Bob
What pitchers are available? Kris Benson? Russ Ortiz? I'm not sure that either of them is a significant upgrade over Rauch/Diaz now that those guys seem to have settled down a bit (admittedly, a small sample size).

Anyone thinking Ben Sheets was EVER on the market is dreaming. The Brewers announced that they have no intention of trading ace Ben Sheets.
Duh. They're six games over .500 for one thing, for another, Sheets is just coming into his prime. We've chuckled a bit when the reports out of New York, Boston, and elsewhere list Sheets among names like Kris Benson and Ramon Ortiz, but he's not going anywhere. As to whether the Brewers will be buyers or sellers, GM Doug Melvin plans to wait a week or two to make that determination. They are currently just 1.5 games out of the wildcard lead

About the only better available (maybe) pitcher is Randy Johnson. And that's a HUGE salary to give up for a guy that while dominant, is pretty old and has had injury issues the past couple of years. Not to mention that he'd cost at least as much as Garcia did, likely more.

Garcis was the best available pitcher. He's a very good pitcher with the potential to be a true ace. If he can pitch like he did for 4 innings yesterday, he'll be incredible. Let him settle down and realize that with this O he can afford to be aggressive and make some mistakes now & then, and I think he's going to prove himself a true #1.

gosox41
07-01-2004, 10:35 AM
If he can pitch like he did for 4 innings yesterday, he'll be incredible. Let him settle down and realize that with this O he can afford to be aggressive and make some mistakes now & then, and I think he's going to prove himself a true #1.
I hope so, the Sox paid a heck of a price to get him.


Bob

soxtalker
07-01-2004, 11:16 AM
What pitchers are available? Kris Benson? Russ Ortiz? I'm not sure that either of them is a significant upgrade over Rauch/Diaz now that those guys seem to have settled down a bit (admittedly, a small sample size).

Anyone thinking Ben Sheets was EVER on the market is dreaming. [/color]

About the only better available (maybe) pitcher is Randy Johnson. And that's a HUGE salary to give up for a guy that while dominant, is pretty old and has had injury issues the past couple of years. Not to mention that he'd cost at least as much as Garcia did, likely more.

Garcis was the best available pitcher. He's a very good pitcher with the potential to be a true ace. If he can pitch like he did for 4 innings yesterday, he'll be incredible. Let him settle down and realize that with this O he can afford to be aggressive and make some mistakes now & then, and I think he's going to prove himself a true #1.
You've cited well-known pitchers that may be available. I'm wondering if there aren't some lesser-known players that KW could have found (and might find for the trades coming in the next few weeks). It's those sorts of trades that KW tends to excel at -- not the high-profile ones. In fact, I'm half-way expecting that Davis, the catcher who appears to have been thrown into the Garcia deal, might turn out to be better than we all think.

Dadawg_77
07-01-2004, 11:46 AM
About the only better available (maybe) pitcher is Randy Johnson. And that's a HUGE salary to give up for a guy that while dominant, is pretty old and has had injury issues the past couple of years. Not to mention that he'd cost at least as much as Garcia did, likely more.

Garcis was the best available pitcher. He's a very good pitcher with the potential to be a true ace. If he can pitch like he did for 4 innings yesterday, he'll be incredible. Let him settle down and realize that with this O he can afford to be aggressive and make some mistakes now & then, and I think he's going to prove himself a true #1.If Randy Johnson is on the market and could be had for a similar trade like Garcia, well Kenny messed up. Randy is head and shoulders above Garcia as a pitcher. It really isn't comparable, Johnson home park is an extreme hitters park and Garcia's was a solid pitchers park. ERA are roughly the same level of production. If the Sox gave up Reed for Johnson, as much as I like Reed, I would be happy with that trade. Johnson is worth 10 million extra this year and Reed over Garica, as Johnson is an Ace and Garica is not and won't be.

Actually, ESPN list the tax number, Johnson is to be paid 10.5 million this year. Thus there is only a 4 million difference between them for the year, pro-rated that would be about 2 million for the rest of the season, 6 million is differ to 2006. Next year Randy is to be paid 10.5 million with 6 million differed to 2007. Garica will sign for about 9 to 10 million so Randy and Freddy will cost about the same next year.

Flight #24
07-01-2004, 12:32 PM
If Randy Johnson is on the market and could be had for a similar trade like Garcia, well Kenny messed up. Randy is head and shoulders above Garcia as a pitcher. It really isn't comparable, Johnson home park is an extreme hitters park and Garcia's was a solid pitchers park. ERA are roughly the same level of production. If the Sox gave up Reed for Johnson, as much as I like Reed, I would be happy with that trade. Johnson is worth 10 million extra this year and Reed over Garica, as Johnson is an Ace and Garica is not and won't be.

Actually, ESPN list the tax number, Johnson is to be paid 10.5 million this year. Thus there is only a 4 million difference between them for the year, pro-rated that would be about 2 million for the rest of the season, 6 million is differ to 2006. Next year Randy is to be paid 10.5 million with 6 million differed to 2007. Garica will sign for about 9 to 10 million so Randy and Freddy will cost about the same next year.
3 points here:
1)Johnson may not be available, and given his no-trade/10-5 rights, I think it's a lot harder to deal for him - he may only approve a trade to say, the Yanks where with him they have a better chance of winning than the Sox would with him
2)He's a lot older than Freddy, and has had some injury questions - increasing the risk
3)He'd cost more. I think Arizona will look to get more than Reed/Olivo for Randy. He's better, but would you rather trade Reed/Olivo for Freddy or Reed/Olivo/Borchard for Randy?

Dadawg_77
07-01-2004, 12:42 PM
3 points here:
1)Johnson may not be available, and given his no-trade/10-5 rights, I think it's a lot harder to deal for him - he may only approve a trade to say, the Yanks where with him they have a better chance of winning than the Sox would with him
2)He's a lot older than Freddy, and has had some injury questions - increasing the risk
3)He'd cost more. I think Arizona will look to get more than Reed/Olivo for Randy. He's better, but would you rather trade Reed/Olivo for Freddy or Reed/Olivo/Borchard for Randy?
3>I would do Reed/Olivo/Borchard for Randy. I think Borchard will be a bust so not much of a lost but even if he won't be, I'll still do that trade.

1> True, but Sox are contenders so it might entice him. Plus moving up his defered money could entice him even more.

2> A little bit more risk but a hell of a lot more reward.

kjhanson
07-01-2004, 12:48 PM
I could really care-a-less what BP has to say about the trade. As of today, Olivo, Reed and Morse are a combined 0-3. Meanwhile, Freddy Garcia is 1-0. More importantly, he's 1-0 against the Twins.

jeremyb1
07-01-2004, 01:00 PM
This was exactly the sentiment of the boards last year after Williams dealt all those great prospects (including the #3 one in the system) last year. Oh, we have to win it in '03 because we'll suck in '04.

Worry about next year when next year rolls around.

Not in my posts, it wasn't. I was a little dissapointed to give up Ring but we gave up next to nothing last season in comparison to this deal.