Are the Yankees now looking to move Swisher?
by SwisherFan33 on Dec 28, 2008 9:26 AM PST
100 comments
Okay...as my handle implies, I love the Swish. I admit the man-crush, and still from an Oakland perspective I wonder if the A's could get Swisher from the Yankees and be better for it. With the Teixera signing the Yankees really don't need Swisher at 1st. That relegates him to either DH or corner outfield. However, it would seem that the corner outfield is locked up with Nady, Matsui, and Damon...with CF being manned by Melky since the free agent CF class is pretty bad. The problem I see is that Matsui and Posada are going to probably split the DH role leaving Swisher with nothing but being a 5th outfielder. That sucks. Same old story for Swisher when he was in Chicago...no position, and odd man out.
Well, even I would not give a gem like Cahill or Andersen for Swisher at this point, but I am wondering if the Yankees would take anything else...maybe a few prospects (since we are loaded) to replenish their dead farm system. Or maybe they will take a better middle reliever then they have right now.
Just wondering what the community thinks...
0 recs |
100 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Looking at the yanks
They need relief pitching. Not sure how Beane scouting reports on Swisher lack of power but why not offer the yanks a Cassila or Brown for Swisher.
by Arcman on Dec 28, 2008 9:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
get Swisher back
The Yanks gave up very little to get Swisher. Swisher and Kanekoa Teixeria for Wilson Betemit , Marquez and Nunez. As I recall Baseball America had said something like, Teixeria and Nunez were a wash. The White Sox wanted to cut payroll and got a usable backup in Betemit and a ok prospect.
The Yanks seem to be in the same boat as the White Sox, cut some payroll. If they trade Swisher, they save his pay and the payroll tax on it. A package of Patterson and an arm or two Carigan or Italiano or Webb might be enough. With so many of these corner, DH types out there in free agent land (Giambi, Anderson, Milton, Abrue) the A’s might not have to pay top money.
Swisher might be a much better fit than Giambi, Anderson or Nick Johnson in that he can move around in the outfield and at 1b. Maybe Swisher plays every game, and Barton plays five times a week and Buck plays five times or Swisher might start against lefties over Sweeney?
I like the idea.
by dougald1 on Dec 28, 2008 9:57 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'd take the minor leaguer the White Sox sent
over everybody they got back.
The Yankees can trade Swisher, get a decent major league ready reliever, and they’ll have come out way ahead in the deal.
by thejd44 on Dec 28, 2008 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i dunno
swisher had terrible year in huge hitter’s park…
probably still worth the risk that he will bounce back if give up casilla or brown
Cust is the new Jaha.
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 28, 2008 10:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Swisher's stats
suffered quite a bit from a rediculously low BABIP last season. I have family and friends in the Chicago area who watch the Sox religiously and they all said that he hit the ball hard all year long, but was very unlucky in that he was constantly stinging the ball right at a defender. I see no reason why the guy won’t bounce back in 09’ and think he’s still good for a .250/.370/.460 line with 25+ HR’s. I’m thinking the Yankees will be looking for two B-/C+ type prospects so take your pick. All I know is that if he can produce a line similar to the one I proposed, he’s gonna be a better option then any of the guys that the A’s have been discussing. Swish is a solid corner OF’r, and a damn good 1B. I’ll gladly take him back.
by JPShark on Dec 28, 2008 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Swisher really wasn't bad
Like you said, he was terribly unlucky and the stats bat that up. Then, at the end of the season, Ozzie benched him for bad players and that messed him up further.
by thejd44 on Dec 28, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, even if he only rebounds part-way,
he is pretty much guaranteed to hit .250/.350 with 22+ HRs and to play a superb 1B. Everyone else being “considered” (Giambi, Abreu, Anderson) play terrible defense and only Giambi figures to hit for more power – and even that’s not a lock.
As for Barton, Swisher in a down year is still better than Barton in a slightly improved year, so unless the A’s feel Barton will pull a 180 Swisher is likely to be the better hitter and equal, if not better, defender. Plus Swisher can play the OF as needed.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Swisher is the only guy of known available guys (if he is in fact available) who I want to see over Barton
If Beane reacquired Swisher, he could even then move Holliday before the season started, possibly for a shortstop.
by thejd44 on Dec 28, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m thinking the Yankees will be looking for two B-/C+ type prospects so take your pick.
If you are correct than this is a deal that should absolutely be made and Giambi should be forgotten. Unfortunately, as I have said in previous posts, the Yankees will more than likely overvalue Swish in their opinion, and will ask for an Anderson or Cahill. If not that than at least one of Simmons or Mazzaro plus another higher valued prospect.
I really don’t trust the Yankees in dealings, but I know that Beane will not make a deal with them if he has the potential to get screwed.
by stranahanahan on Dec 28, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
After looking
at what the Yankees gave up for Swisher in a little more detail, I wouldn’t even consider giving up anything higher then C+ type prospects. The Yankees gave up a utility IF and two C prospects (according to Sickels) so maybe a Bailey/Italiano/Sulentic or Mitchell type deal to add to there minor league depth, but they shouldn’t expect anything more then that. Of course, they are the Yankees so who knows. The A’s have the deepest system in baseball, so a deal like this could be done for 2 years of Swisher without even noticing the loss of minor leaguers IMO. Bailey has a chance to become a solid big league reliever but overall the A’s could definitely sustain the losses of these guys.
by JPShark on Dec 28, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and remember, the Yanks also got back a C+ prospect in return
along with Swisher.
So the deal went Swisher + Teixera (C+) for Betemit, Marquez ©, and Nunez (C, didn’t even make the weak Sox top 20).
"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."
by Blicks on Dec 29, 2008 7:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No way would they ask for Cahill/Anderson, IMO
Look what they got him for and look at his current role on the team – these are things all teams can see. I think more along the lines of a couple “decent” prospects, in the Denorfia, Bailey, Lansford, Italiano, Carignan, Demel category would be the discussion.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't mean to imply that I expect they will ask for Swisher
but they are the Yankees and if they didn’t it sure wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve perusing pinstripealley and they seem to think they can get major league talent for Swisher, which may be wishful thinking, cuz it ain’t happening…
They are also not smart to think that because their farm system is not strong at all right now. They could use a C+/B- prospect or 2 right now…
by stranahanahan on Dec 28, 2008 5:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i just like that we can still play barton or buck if we get swish i like that he can play all postions including CF so we dont need all the young guys to play good because swish can fill in anywhere
by DSamonek on Dec 28, 2008 11:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If Swish really is as cheap
as posts in this thread are saying, then I’m definitely in favor of getting him.
(I’m actually kind of in favor of getting him even if he’s slightly more expensive, just because I love Swish.)
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Dec 28, 2008 12:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't see why the Yankees wouldn't just put him in RF and Damon in CF.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 5:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Damon is a pretty poor CFer at this point,
given the natural decline in range due to age, plus a throwing arm that makes Shannon Stewart laugh and say, “Dude!” So you give up a lot of defense to put an OF of Nady, Damon, Swisher out there – and that’s not exactly a light-you-on-fire offense either.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's a poor CF due to his arm, not his range.
Tango’s Fans Scouting Report graded him a 42 overall OF, which is below average, but above average in Instincts (52), First Step (61), and Speed (69), but terrible in Release (25), Strength (0!), and Accuracy (10).
UZR says Damon is a way above average LF (+20/150G) over the past two years, and bad in CF (-8/150G) over the past two years in about 1/2 season worth of innings. If he’s only in the -5 to -10 range, it’s not unreasonable to expect that Nady is enough of an upgrade over MG that it makes sense to play this alignment.
I’d probably put Melky Gardner in CF and bench Nady, but that’s not the buzz around Yankee fandom. In any case Swisher plays ahead of someone.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops. UZR is from
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Damon is absolutely piss-poor on defense in CF at this point, Nico.
And he would most definitely be Shannon Stewart’s bitch by now!
by mrod on Dec 29, 2008 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
want
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Dec 28, 2008 12:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
re
Like someone has already mentioned, with defense considered, he’s every bit as valuable as Giambi or Abreu. He would cost a prospect, but not a good one, he’d make less, and he’d be welcomed back by the fans and the team I’m sure.
by blee1134 on Dec 28, 2008 12:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'd say he would cost a good prospect,
or two decent ones. I don’t think you get Swish for one not “good” prospect.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re
Define good. I think it would cost Jered Lansford. Or the A’s could just send Andrew Brown, who may or may not make the team
by blee1134 on Dec 28, 2008 1:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
re
Not to mention, The Yankees actually received the best prospect in the deal that got them Swisher.
by blee1134 on Dec 28, 2008 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I think they'd essentially give Swisher away if there's not a big market for him
They’ve already won with the first trade, so if they get something decent it’s a big win for them. I’d give them Corey Brown for Swisher.
by thejd44 on Dec 28, 2008 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, you think Cashman is a moron, then?
Are you one of those poker players who plays until he’s five cents up on where he started, then leaves because “it’s a win”?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is better than me, who plays till he's lost his house and agreed to let the winner sleep
with his girl friend.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've seen her - that honor should go to the loser
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now you've done it!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's a good idea, but unlikely to happen...
Remember, this is the Yankees we’re talking about here- they don’t have to move anybody just to alleviate salary concerns…
More importantly, though, I see them trying to move Matsui or Damon first and I suspect they like Swisher’s versatility and reasonably affordable salary over the next couple years and plan on using him to spell Tex at 1B and cover various OF positions on a regular basis as well. I suspect he’s the last of their currently “expendable” players that they’ll try to move, unfortunately.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 28, 2008 1:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have Masui than have Garret Anderson, personally
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can Matsui play the outfield?
I mean, physically, can he still do it without breaking down?
by thejd44 on Dec 28, 2008 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think we know yet
But since Cust can probably play LF as well as 2009 Anderson, I’d rather have Mastui’s bat, and figure out who DHs and who plays LF later, than have Anderson.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Matsui has a full NTC
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He may also have a DNW clause around the league anyway -
that stands for Do Not Want.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But then he probably has a IDC clause in his.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re
But he’s the only one of their expendable players with a reasonable contract, if you exclude Nady who I think only has 1 year left.
by blee1134 on Dec 28, 2008 1:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wow, this thread is like the Lost City of Logical Fallacies
People: it does not matter what the Yankees gave up to get Swisher. Not one tenth of an iota.
They will put a value on Swisher. It is then up to the A’s to meet that value if it meets or undercuts what the A’s value him at. While we have no idea what that value is, last year it took two B+ prospects and a B- to get the A’s to part with him, so we can infer that something not greater than that is Beane’s maximum. That’s about all that can be said on the issue. Even if his value has dropped by close to 50% in Beane’s eyes, he should at least be willing to part with one B+ and one B- to get him. The A’s haven’t got any B+s right now, so 2 Bs might get it done.
Cashman got an insanely good price on Swisher when he acquired him. That in no way obligates him to turn around and sell Swisher for the same insane price. Players are not fungible commodities with fixed market prices. If Cashman is not an imbecile, and I think we can at least assume that, the price of Swisher went up a whole bunch when the Yankees acquired him.
Even if Swisher was acquired solely for arbitrage purposes and the Yankees never had any intentions of having him suit up for the team next season, it doesn’t change a thing. They’re hardly in a position where they have to sell him— the Yankees are still UNDER their payroll for last season, and can easily deploy him in an outfield rotation. It is, as they say, no skin off their nose if the A’s don’t pay up.
Some possible packages that might actually get Swisher:
Cahill or Anderson
Carter, Cardenas
Gio, Doolittle
Carter, Simmons, Rodriguez
Devine, C. Brown, Mazzaro
If you think one of those justifies getting Swisher, say so, but get off this thing about picking him up for a couple of bench scrubs and a 4th starter. The last thing the Yankees need or care about is that kind of player.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 1:18 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
IMO, there is no way it will take any of those combos
to land Swisher. I agree that some here are aiming too low, but you’re aiming too high.
For example just using a couple of your own packages and some subtraction, if I were Cashman and I were offered “just” Carter and Simmons, or “just” Simmons and Rodriguez, or “just” Devine and Mazzaro, or even Devine and C. Brown, I’d jump on it.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Swish’s value has fallen somewhat since his A’s days, yeah? I agree with PT that Cashman is not bound by the actions of Williams to follow Williams’s lead and make a shitty deal, but that trade is at least to some extent an indictment of Swish’s 2008 season.
Still, the Yankees certainly don’t have to deal him. They seem to want to do everything short of tarring and feathering Cabrera. Looks to me like Swish will be manning CF for them in the near future.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Dec 28, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
I wouldn’t.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
What the A’s got for Swisher after the 07’ season shouldn’t really even be brought into the conversation. A) Beane got one helluva package for him at that time, B) 1/3 of his contract at that time is now gone and he’s one season closer to reaching free agency and C) BABIP considered, he did have a down year last season. The Yankees did get Swisher at a good price earlier this offseason but that deal is a better gauge for what Swisher will net at this point then the 2007 deal. If any of the packages you proposed are what it takes to get Swisher then the A’s absolutely pass .I do agree that the Yankees are in the best position regarding Swisher as they don’t HAVE to deal him, but if a decent package comes along that could add to their somewhat depleted system they also have no reason not to deal a $5.3 million dollar 4th OF’r/backup 1B.
by JPShark on Dec 28, 2008 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just look at it this way
Dealing for Devine, who would be a set-up man in NY, would elevate their bullpen from “OK” to “good,” which is significant. Losing Swisher won’t have a great impact on their 2009 prognosis, other than meaning Nady stays and plays instead of being the one dealt.
With Teixeira signed forever and the OF corners set through existing players and the limitless ability to buy FAs each year, Swisher is not needed for the long-term either.
Just swapping Swisher for Devine alone would make the Yankees better in 2009, and likely better beyond 2009 since Devine is under contract control for several years and projects, healthy, to have “closer quality”.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Swisher to Nady is a pretty big downgrade. A good reliever doesn't have anywhere
near the value of a good OF. The Yankees have done a good job of filling the pen with cheap young guys. Devine would help, but wouldn’t be enough. I agree with Paul 100% here. That said, I’d do the last deal, but none of the others. Swisher by himself is nice, but isn’t enough of an upgrade over Buck or Cunningham to part with multiple potential starting players.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm....
Swisher’s career OPS is .805, Nady’s .793. That stat only tells part of a hitter’s story, but I don’t think Swisher to Nady is THAT big a downgrade, especially considering that Swisher doesn’t provide another big tool like speed. He’s good for about 10 more HRs a year, I’ll give you that, but Nady actually sports the higher career slugging pct (.458/.451).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Swisher is a good defensive OF, Nady is a crappy one.
And he’s got a nice contract while Nady is a free agent after this season.
Given their respective contracts, Swisher should be worth something like 2-3 times as much in trade as Nady.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is Swisher worth more?
I have never seen Nagy play, but he did but up nice numbers this year (.305 25 hr, 97 rbi). If he can do it again this year the Yanks are likely to offer arbitration (unlike Damon and Matsui) to get a pick or two. He is payed about the same as Swisher this upcoming year, I think. If Swisher has another dog year it is his contract that is become less fun for the Yanks. Ok, sure they can handle it, but…
Another interesting thought is that if the Yanks do keep all these outfielders, how happy are Damon, Matsui and Nady going to be sitting on the bench in their walk year? If I am Nagy and at 30 years old, this is my only chance to get big money as a free agent, am I going tp be happy with 156 AB’s
Anyway thanks
by dougald1 on Dec 28, 2008 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nady's numbers this year were out of line with his prior track record
If you want to see it as some breakthrough, be my guest, but I’m not going along for the ride.
Anyway, like I said, the key difference is on defense.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
None of those guys have to sit on the bench if the Yankees don't make
any more moves:
LF – Swisher
CF – Damon
RF – Nady
DH – Matsui
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's just a very poor defensive OF
whose hitting is only OK.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 9:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why they need Manny.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As a late inning defensive replacement for Swisher!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Many more "closer quality" relievers hit the market in a typical year than GOOD outfielders
If the Yankees want to buy part of their team, the bullpen is the place to do it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 5:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the fallacy in your argument
Nobody said it obligates Cashman to trade Swisher for the “same price.” What it means is that if the Yankees feel the guy is wasting away, it’s completely logical that they’ll lower the price on their own. It’s not a rule, but it’s how markets work. If I’m selling something and I have a whole bunch of extra (and that extra doesn’t do much much good to keep around), I’m going to cut my price to get rid of it.
The point is that the Yankees can trade him straight up for Corey Brown and they still come out way ahead on the two deals. It doesn’t mean they will, but if they want to get rid of the guy and nobody else is interested (if they were, wouldn’t the White Sox have traded with them?), the price should be significantly lower.
by thejd44 on Dec 28, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't see a good reason why the Yankees wouldn't come out ahead
if they swapped Swisher for Devine straight up. So why would it ever take something like Devine, AND Mazzaro, AND Corey Brown? Swisher’s value is lowered by a down year combined with his lessened value to the Yankees as their current roster is constituted.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They don't come out ahead because a reliever isn't worth a OF
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That depends on what you already have
When you have 4 starting OFers and a lack of bullpen depth, that changes things a bit.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Their pen was fine last year with Ramirez, Veras, Marte and Bruney.
They’ve also got Coke, Kennedy, Aceves, Robertson, Sanchez, Melancon and Albaladejo. Sure Devine’s better than some of those guys, maybe all of them, but I don’t see a “lack of bullpen depth”.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe bullpen goodth is a better term
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2008 Yankee Bullpen pRAA -- 33.5 or about 3 Wins Above Average
From StatCorner:
Rivera — +25.6
Coke — +5.7
Bruney — +4.6
Giese — +4.1
Ramirez — +2.4
Marte — +2.3
Robertson — +1.6
Veras — +0.8
Aceves — +0.6
I see 9 above average relievers not including Chamberlain (+10.5) last year. I have to think they could get 4-5 out of that group plus Kennedy, Sanchez, Melancon and Albaladejo.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those numbers are Pitching Runs Above Average
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re
People: it does not matter what the Yankees gave up to get Swisher. Not one tenth of an iota.
Unless you think the White Sox didn’t take the best deal, then yes it does. The Yankees obviously don’t have to trade him, so they can set their own idea of what they think he’s worth. But the rest of the league has already said what they think he’s worth, and that’s nothing.
by blee1134 on Dec 28, 2008 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless Williams didn't want to trade him to the A's for less than he traded for him.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 5:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that as a possibility
But that’s still assuming that only the A’s and Yankees inquired about Swisher and/or that Kenny Williams didn’t bother to speak with any other team.
by blee1134 on Dec 28, 2008 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya I've no explanation for why other teams didn't offer more, or even why the White Sox
didn’t just keep him.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I cannot possibly imagine that that was the best deal available
Trades don’t work like free agents. GMs do not communicate their plans and offers with each other constantly. I doubt Williams had serious talks with more than a couple of teams about Swisher, at most.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re
Kenny Williams obviously thought highly of Swisher, giving up what he did to get him. So after 1 season, Kenny Williams gets offered crap for Swisher, and blindly accepts it?
Swisher has had back to back declines, his most recent being basically cliff diving. He plays two premium offensive positions. He was benched in favor of DeWayne Wise. He was just traded for a package that can be seen as almost zero. You can tell me he’s worth Joey Devine or Brett Anderson all you want, but I just don’t see it
by blee1134 on Dec 28, 2008 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He was just unlucky
There, see?
No, actually Swisher’s suddenly diving batting average probably was just usually bad luck, but that means he’s really a .250 hitter not a .220 hitter. He still HRed only 24 times following a 22 HR season, suggesting that his true expected power level is not what it appeared to be in 2006. And when a “down year” (2007) is followed by a worse year, your trade value is simply going to be compromised.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps Williams valued the players he received for Swisher more than Cashman and the Yankees
yeah, this scenario isn’t likely, but what if Williams saw more in Betemit and the two pitchers than the Yankees. Maybe he coveted one of those guys and thinks he’ll be a great player. Maybe I’m wrong, but Williams surely doesn’t approach baseball like most GMs.
by stranahanahan on Dec 28, 2008 7:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is exactly what I think happened
For whatever reason, people say Williams loves Marquez, thinks he’s the greatest prospect since sliced Van Poppels. I may be exaggerating but if I am it’s only slightly.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, but that doesn't explain why he couldn't be had for less than Swisher...
unless only he and Cashman think that.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who else was he going to trade?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 28, 2008 9:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dye?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously not if he's still posting
Think, WC, think!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey they can keep Justice Long.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then by your argument
It shouldn’t matter what the A’s got in return for Swish. Not one tenth of an iota. There’s no way Swish is worth 2 B’s at this point. At most I’d see a B- and a C+. If they ask for anything more then just walk away, simple as that. I’d say Donaldson/Rodriguez could and would get it done and I’d be willing to give both up. They get a good C prospect who could replace Posada and a high upside arm as well.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Dec 29, 2008 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is there no way Swish is worth 2 Bs at this point?
He’s a good corner outfielder with a career OPS+ of 112. A while back I wrote a post where I considered the concept of “playoff level”— the average level of play a team needs to expect to reach the postseason. Swisher is the guy I think of when I think “playoff level player”— a guy who is going to do his share of the work toward getting a team into the postseason. And given his 2006 and 2007, he has upside from that as well.
And he’s worth a lottery ticket and another prospect who’s a little better? Come off it. Of the players who got those grades from Sickels, there isn’t a single pair of them— not one— that I would not trade for Swisher before Cashman finished his sentence.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 29, 2008 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you
honestly give up Doolittle and Cardenas to get Swisher? Even if you wouldn’t do you honestly think he’s worth that?
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Dec 30, 2008 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One other observation about Swisher
Even if some of his poor 2008 season can be attributed to exceptionally "bad luck," his HR power the year before was only 22HR, putting him in the 21-24 HR range 3 of his 4 seasons, and at 35 HR once. So questions about whether he is really more of a "20-25HR guy" or a "35HR guy" is greatly increased by this past season – especially in a good HR hitter’s park.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 3:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
PT is right on it.
The Yankees didn’t get Swisher because they want to dump him for a scrub. What I have been reading says they want to dump Matsui , Damon and/or Nady. Also all those guys are injury risk as well. So I too must say getting him will cost a heck of a lot.
Well for now we will just have to hope the Yankees crash and burn really bad and maybe start a fire sell. It could happen since they haven’t built a TEAM since the early 90s (just bought mercenaries).
Lets go A's
by Jackson_A on Dec 28, 2008 5:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I wish them luck in dumping Matsui and Damon
And if they keep Swisher they either have to trade Nady (their best option), bench Nady, or bench Cabrera and play a poor defensive CFer (Damon or Swisher).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They can dump both after 2009 pretty easily. The logjam's only one year, and depth is never bad.
If I were they, I’d sign Manny for RF.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 8:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And have a corner outfield costing $62 million?
Manny $25 million, Damon 13 or so, Matsui another $13, Swisher at $5 and Nady at $5….not sure the Yanks want to go that over the top. Add in the tax and that another $6 million.
by dougald1 on Dec 28, 2008 8:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would that be the $6,000,000
that fell out of Hank’s pocket on the way to the bathroom that he didn’t bother to pick up?
Grrr…
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes....aka New Yankee Stadium
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Swisher has been a disappointment
hence Billy trading him and W/Sox trading him. He should have hit a lot more bombs in that ballpark. He’s good on defense but has too many holes in his swing IMO.
I don’t think Billy would want to give up too much for him and certainly not our decent pitching prospects for him. He may well have been hitting a bunch of line drives at fielders but I don’t think he’s coming back here.
There are worse options but I just don’t see it happening.
by Trainman on Dec 28, 2008 6:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed there are worse options -
what I’m not seeing is a lot of better ones. The only reason Swisher interests me is the lack of better options to upgrade the offense/power. At least Swisher plays good defense.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Swisher plays very good defense and you are right, there are not too many offensive upgrades out there.
I just hope Chavy can play in 100 games at least. (hoping for miracle)
I think most of us agree that we do not want to see Crosby and Hannahan manning the left side of the infield unless they are on another team.
I would bet money that Billy has a few moves to make and good ones at that. They have said they have the money to spend. I think we have to be a little patient and everything will fall into place over the next three or four weeks.
Our pitching is still very iffy IMO. Just have to hope that Duke is healthy and that Gallagher comtinues to improve. I think we could use another starter Like a Sheets or a Lowe (That won’t happen), we just have to wait and see.
by Trainman on Dec 28, 2008 8:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Virtual LOLcat sez:
(2007): I HAZ SWISHR!
(Jan 2008): NOOOOO! THEY TAKES MY SWISHR!
(Dec 2008): I CAN HAZ SWISHR PLZ?
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Dec 28, 2008 7:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And any of those times:
WHEREZ GIO PLAYING AGAIN?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 28, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Swisher was a big fan favorite but....
I have no knowledge or have not heard of anything and I hope there isn’t anything to it but MLB has been testing for 2 years and each of the last 2 years Swisher’s numbers have been going down. I do not think it is due to him getting old as he is still young. He is a great fan favorite.
by calas on Dec 28, 2008 8:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
His SLG - BA was .193 in 2007 and .191 in 2008
Some of that may be park effects, but it was basically his singles that took a hit.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
.239 in 2006 and .210 in 2005
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2008 9:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
