PDA

View Full Version : "The Trade"- One Year Later


OG4LIFE
08-15-2005, 12:24 PM
Last year this place was pretty split about the garcia/olivo-reed deal. since then,

Freddy Garcia is 20-9 for the Sox (40 starts)
Olivo is no longer with the M's after hitting .151 for them this year (currently with the Padres and off to a great start)
Reed is hitting .250 with little/no power and has gotten caught stealing (8) more often than he has been successful (4)

at this point, this trade has gone from controversial to a no-brainer. a front of the line starter for a journeyman C and a mediocre CF? granted, they are both still young players and still have a lot of time to develop. any doubters left? or does this deserve a dead horse tag?

chisox83
08-15-2005, 12:31 PM
Probably a dead horse tag, but I think it's also important to remember that at the time of the trade Garcia was not signed long term. The fact that Kenny (and Ozzie) got this done, is a huge part of this trade's evaluation.

Baby Fisk
08-15-2005, 12:33 PM
Other than the most determined of Kenny Bashers, there should be few if any doubters left. That is one trade that worked out very nicely (especially with being able to sign Freddy immediately afterwards).

HotelWhiteSox
08-15-2005, 12:39 PM
It was a great trade, and showed how great KW is after he signed Garcia for what he did, especially after this past offseason and the much higher prices being payed for mediocre starting pitching

Flight #24
08-15-2005, 12:51 PM
Other than the most determined of Kenny Bashers, there should be few if any doubters left. That is one trade that worked out very nicely (especially with being able to sign Freddy immediately afterwards).

Tilting at windmills.....

Irishsox1
08-15-2005, 12:52 PM
Once Freddy was signed, it was a pretty good trade. But, the success of the trade is all Freddy. 20 wins, 9 losses for some propects and a catcher who can't hit. My only complaint is that his home record isn't that great, but he's great on the road, especially during day games.

TomBradley72
08-15-2005, 01:06 PM
I still think it was a great trade...Ozzie/KW accomplished their top priority: a solid starting rotation...Garcia was the first piece in that puzzle...Contreras and El Duq followed.

But to accurately assess it...we'll need more time...Reed is only 24 years old and in his 1st full year in the major...he has a .273 average overall in his time in the majors, Olivo is probably going to be a wash out....I thought he had a ton of upside...very surprised he hasn't turned out to be a better catcher...don't forget Michael Morse-SS, the 3rd player the Sox included in the trade...he's only 23, and is hitting .300 over 51 games this year.

My guess is that this will turn out like the CLee trade...good for both teams.

Baby Fisk
08-15-2005, 01:15 PM
Tilting at windmills.....
UGH! Blogs are this century's street corner for pamphleteers with terminal verbal diahorrea.

churlish
08-15-2005, 01:38 PM
It was a great trade, regardless of how the prospects turn out. The Sox didn't go sell the farm for an over the hill starter. Instead, they got a #1 starter who is entering his prime. In return, they gave up a catcher with a cannon of an arm who couldn't hit a breaking ball to save his life, and a young talent who MAY turn out to be a very good hitter.

IIRC, the media was in love with Jeremy Reed, and they built him up as a can't miss prospect who is going in to the HOF. Just because the media says a player is going to be amazing, that doesn't mean squat. (cough Corey Patterson cough)

StockdaleForVeep
08-15-2005, 01:58 PM
Last year this place was pretty split about the garcia/olivo-reed deal. since then,

Freddy Garcia is 20-9 for the Sox (40 starts)
Olivo is no longer with the M's after hitting .151 for them this year (currently with the Padres and off to a great start)
Reed is hitting .250 with little/no power and has gotten caught stealing (8) more often than he has been successful (4)

at this point, this trade has gone from controversial to a no-brainer. a front of the line starter for a journeyman C and a mediocre CF? granted, they are both still young players and still have a lot of time to develop. any doubters left? or does this deserve a dead horse tag?

Reed has been a fantastic defensive center fielder all season tho, lately rowand has stepped it up but he cant forget reeds skills and deserves his own kudos.

We also gave em mike morse, who in 51 games is hittin 300, 2 hr and 19 rbi, not too shabby for a 23 year old

Unregistered
08-15-2005, 02:22 PM
Ugh. I can't believe Jeremy is STILL convinced that Jeremy Reed is (or is going to be) a SUPERSTAR. If Reed ends up being great in 3-5 years, that will STILL have no effect on the value of this trade. Even if he was still on the Sox, he'd probably be in Charlotte right now, as opposed to the 4 ABs a day he gets with a losing club in Seattle.

KW made the right move then, and it still holds up now. Lets not forget we have the best record in baseball.

JohnBasedowYoda
08-15-2005, 02:40 PM
i'm real happy with the 'rock II'

mdep524
08-15-2005, 04:22 PM
I think it was a great trade for the White Sox, and I don't entirely buy into the "wait 15 years to judge it" perspective. Sure, that factors in, but the trade should also be evaluated on the player's relative values at the time of the deal. The Sox essentially dealt their starting catcher, number 1 prospect and AAA shortstop for a quality unsigned starting pitcher.

Can't fault Seattle for that- they got good value at the time (even if Olivo didn't pan out). Certainly can't fault KW, he obviously made out very well, short run and long run.

And I continue to root for Olivo and Reed, as they were two of my favorite guys in the Sox organization, despite the juvenile bashing of Reed that sometimes occurs here.

nodiggity59
08-15-2005, 04:40 PM
Has anyone ever read my sig?:D:

chisoxfanatic
08-15-2005, 05:06 PM
I think this trade was made, because KW and Ozzie used major brains in it. Freddy is a solid starter and was involved with a member of Ozzie's family. I think they already *knew* they could get something done long-term and just had to "woo" him away from Seattle, which they did very well, dangling who they did in front of the M's faces. Ozzie will want Freddy to stay here as long as possible, and Freddy really likes playing for Ozzie (he's gonna do all he can to please Ozzie as well), so it looks like we won out big time in this deal!

Daver
08-15-2005, 05:11 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/deadhorse.gif

jeremyb1
08-15-2005, 06:30 PM
Ugh. I can't believe Jeremy is STILL convinced that Jeremy Reed is (or is going to be) a SUPERSTAR. If Reed ends up being great in 3-5 years, that will STILL have no effect on the value of this trade. Even if he was still on the Sox, he'd probably be in Charlotte right now, as opposed to the 4 ABs a day he gets with a losing club in Seattle.

KW made the right move then, and it still holds up now. Lets not forget we have the best record in baseball.

How do you figure that when Reed who was signed through 2010 at the time of the trade should not have his performance in 2008 factored into the equation yet Garcia signed through 2004 at the time of the deal should have his 2005 season weigh heavily in analysis of the move? That strikes me as backwards reasoning. The M's traded for Reed's 2008 season, the Sox did not acquire Garcia's 2005 season through the trade they did so via a signing. Also out of curiousity how do you get "convinced Jeremy Reed is (or is going to be a) SUPERSTAR" (the caps are yours) from "Jeremy Reed is a solid major league starter at 23 with a chance to be a well above average starting center fielder for a long time"?

santo=dorf
08-15-2005, 06:34 PM
How do you figured that when Reed who was signed through 2010 at the time of the trade should not have his performance in 2008 factored into the equation yet Garcia signed through 2004 at the time of the deal should have his 2005 season weigh heavily in analysis of the move? That strikes me as backwards reasoning. The M's traded for Reed's 2008 season, the Sox did not acquire Garcia's 2005 season through the trade they did so via a signing.

The want to win a World Series ASAP. **** 2008 and 2010.

The Sox were also able to get a 2005, 2006, and 2007 Freddy Garcia at a discounted price because of that trade.

Who are you trying to kid? Give it a rest already. :whiner:

jeremyb1
08-15-2005, 06:39 PM
The want to win a World Series ASAP. **** 2008 and 2010.

The Sox were also able to get a 2005, 2006, and 2007 Freddy Garcia at a discounted price because of that trade.

Who are you trying to kid? Give it a rest already. :whiner:

I didn't start the thread or post the link. The Sox have Freddy Garica for 2005, 2006, and 2007 because they signed him to a large contract not because they traded for him. I don't think keeping Reed, Morse, and Olivo and signing Garcia in the offseason would have hindered the team's chances of winning the World Series this season. There's at least one paragraph in the blog entry discussing whether or not the deal allowed the team to sign Garcia at a discounted price if you want to actually debate that point respond to those arguments don't just state your point as fact without providing any support or explaining the underlying logic behind the claim.

Unregistered
08-15-2005, 06:40 PM
How do you figured that when Reed who was signed through 2010 at the time of the trade should not have his performance in 2008 factored into the equation yet Garcia signed through 2004 at the time of the deal should have his 2005 season weigh heavily in analysis of the move? That strikes me as backwards reasoning. The M's traded for Reed's 2008 season, the Sox did not acquire Garcia's 2005 season through the trade they did so via a signing.Yes, but wasn't the trade contingent on the fact that Freddie Garcia would be re-signed? Had we not traded for him during the year, the odds are pretty remote that we would have signed him as a FA - especially considering the way the Yankees and other teams were overpaying for FA Starters who aren't half as good as Garcia. (Jaret Wright - 3 years, $21 Million?!)

This trade-and-sign not only secured that we'd have FG for years to come, but also showed that we got him for WAY BELOW market value would have been for him last offseason.

jeremyb1
08-15-2005, 07:22 PM
Yes, but wasn't the trade contingent on the fact that Freddie Garcia would be re-signed? Had we not traded for him during the year, the odds are pretty remote that we would have signed him as a FA - especially considering the way the Yankees and other teams were overpaying for FA Starters who aren't half as good as Garcia. (Jaret Wright - 3 years, $21 Million?!)

This trade-and-sign not only secured that we'd have FG for years to come, but also showed that we got him for WAY BELOW market value would have been for him last offseason.

The trade was in fact not contingent upon resigning Garcia. KW asked for a window to negotiate an extension didn't get it and pulled the trigger anyway. Here's what I wrote in the blog entry. Garcia's deal is for $9 million a season while Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, and Pedro Martinez signed deals for $8, $10 , and $13 million respectively last winter. It is hard to say exactly what type of offers Garcia would have fielded in the open market (offers at least matching Pavano's $10 million per season seem likely), how much of a discount Garcia would've provided to play for a family member, and how willing the Sox would've been to pony up a few million more than they ultimately paid if that's what it took to get a deal done. Pavano and Garcia are both 29, Pavano was 18-8 with a 3.00 ERA last season and Garcia was 13-11 with a 3.81 ERA. Garcia's ERA would have been better if he pitched in Safeco the entire season but his record would have been worse since the team was dreadful and that might've impacted teams' pursuit of him. He would've probably netted the 10 million Pavano received on the open market and maybe 11 million based on pitching in a tougher league and a slightly stronger career prior to '04 but we're still talking about one or two million dollars more per season which amounts to 11 to 22 percent more than what he received and at most 2.6 percent of a 75 million dollar payroll. I don't think that constitutes a deal "way below" the market value or indicates on any level that it would have been highly we would'vd signed Garcia as a free agent.

santo=dorf
08-15-2005, 07:59 PM
He would've probably netted the 10 million Pavano received on the open market and maybe 11 million based on pitching in a tougher league and a slightly stronger career prior to '04 but we're still talking about one or two million dollars more per season
:whatever: :tsk: :kukoo: :bs:

After the 2003 season: (Career)
Pavano: 39-50, 715.1 IP, 4.59 ERA 1.39 WHIP
Garcia: 72-43, 983.1 IP 3.99 ERA 1.32 WHIP

"Slightly stronger career" my ****ing ass Jeremy. You are the biggest joke on the board, and your act is beyond stale.
Garcia's numbers that he put up in the AL would warrant him getting more than just $1 or $2 million per year( Wins get you the big money Jeremy.) Especially considering that the Yankees and Red Sox were hot after Garcia during the 2004 trade deadline, which is why the Sox had to give up your fantasy boy-toy Jeremy Reed.

Once again, who are you trying to kid? :rolleyes:
:dtroll:

ChiSoxRowand
08-15-2005, 09:36 PM
One of the things that made the trade better for us is that if we didn't trade Reed we wouldn't have signed Jermaine Dye. Dye>>Reed. Our outfield would have been Rowand, Pods, Reed.

pczarapa
08-15-2005, 10:02 PM
Last year this place was pretty split about the garcia/olivo-reed deal. since then,

Freddy Garcia is 20-9 for the Sox (40 starts)
Olivo is no longer with the M's after hitting .151 for them this year (currently with the Padres and off to a great start)
Reed is hitting .250 with little/no power and has gotten caught stealing (8) more often than he has been successful (4)

at this point, this trade has gone from controversial to a no-brainer. a front of the line starter for a journeyman C and a mediocre CF? granted, they are both still young players and still have a lot of time to develop. any doubters left? or does this deserve a dead horse tag?

Great trade IMHO, even if Olivo ended up being Johnny Bench.

jeremyb1
08-15-2005, 10:55 PM
:whatever: :tsk: :kukoo: :bs:

After the 2003 season: (Career)
Pavano: 39-50, 715.1 IP, 4.59 ERA 1.39 WHIP
Garcia: 72-43, 983.1 IP 3.99 ERA 1.32 WHIP

"Slightly stronger career" my ****ing ass Jeremy. You are the biggest joke on the board, and your act is beyond stale.
Garcia's numbers that he put up in the AL would warrant him getting more than just $1 or $2 million per year( Wins get you the big money Jeremy.) Especially considering that the Yankees and Red Sox were hot after Garcia during the 2004 trade deadline, which is why the Sox had to give up your fantasy boy-toy Jeremy Reed.

Once again, who are you trying to kid? :rolleyes:
:dtroll:

I apologize when I wrote that I was vizualizing their career numbers including '04. I still don't see a 4.6 ERA as light years better than a 4.0 ERA. It's an extra earned run allowed every two or three starts. Add '04 (which would have been part of their career totals heading into free agency) and the ERAs are 3.94 versus 4.21. I consider that slight, it's one extra earned run every six or seven starts.

The difference between the players numbers prior to '04 isn't incredibly important because as your Jaret Wright example proves, teams overemphasize a players most recent season. Wright posted an ERA over 5 four times prior to last season and his lowest figure was 4.38 back in '97. If you're right and teams care about wins, Garcia would've been in a lot of trouble if he'd stayed with the M's and finished .500 at best while Pavono won 18 games. Clement did have a lower ERA than Garcia but finished with a losing record and certainly didn't get Pavano money.

Follow your argument to it's logical conclusion andGarcia would've been offered as much or more money than a future Hall of Famer and would've been one of the top 7 or 8 highest paid pitchers in the game. That's a pretty extreme conclusion to jump to.

FarWestChicago
08-15-2005, 11:35 PM
You are the biggest joke on the board, and your act is beyond stale.Let's face it, there is no way the insufferable little pissant will ever admit he is wrong about anything. Facts don't matter with the little spinmeister. He should be majoring in poli sci. He's got a real future. :redneck

Daver
08-15-2005, 11:37 PM
Attn PHG.


Jimmy Reed is still dead.

Baby Fisk
08-16-2005, 08:29 AM
What's it like being so consumed with something like a baseball trade? Never mind, I wouldn't read the 3,000 word reply anyway. :rolleyes:

jeremyb1
08-16-2005, 07:31 PM
Let's face it, there is no way the insufferable little pissant will ever admit he is wrong about anything. Facts don't matter with the little spinmeister. He should be majoring in poli sci. He's got a real future. :redneck

Like most people I make mistakes all the time. Just two posts ago I wrote Pavano and Garcia had similar careers prior to '04 when I meant to include '04 in that statement. As dorf pointed out, what I wrote was an inaccurate statement. I think I'm a lot more willing to admit mistakes than some.

jeremyb1
08-16-2005, 07:34 PM
What's it like being so consumed with something like a baseball trade? Never mind, I wouldn't read the 3,000 word reply anyway. :rolleyes:

I don't think about it that often. I check the M's box a little more often than I otherwise would but that's about it. What's it like being consumed by some random White Sox fan posting on a message board just because he disagrees with a few trades the team's GM made?

PaleHoseGeorge
08-16-2005, 09:27 PM
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004R5ZV.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg.