3-way trade idea. Let's bring back the Swish.
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 11:16 AM PST
Email
PrintThe additions of Holliday & Giambi have been solid steps in adding offensive firepower to a lineup that last year frankly scared no one. Beane also seems intent on trying to go all-in for a playoff spot this year if possible. If that is the case, the A's need to examine any trade scenario that might strengthen them for this season without seriously altering our future outlook. I may have one such trade idea, and it is a feel good one to boot.
From rumor rumblings around the game, it would appear that the Yankees are entertaining the idea of moving either Swisher or Nady. Meanwhile the Nats seem at least open to the idea of swapping out Milledge. Those two maybe don't match up together on their own, but adding us into the mix could get something done, especially since Bowden seems to be interested in Barton.
The breakdown would go like this:
A's deal Barton and someone else, probably a young pitcher to the Nats.
Nats trade Lastings Milledge to the Yanks.
Yankees send Swisher over to the Athletics.
Swisher has some advantages over Barton, especially for this year. First of all, while coming off of a tough season, he's still a good bet to outperform Daric in '09. Second, he has the ability to play both first base and the outfield competently. Third, he's a switch hitter who hits lefties better than righties. Add these factors together, and I think he'd be a nice pickup.
With Swisher able to play multiple positions, it allows for additional in-game tactics in a four way revolving door for three positions (RF, 1B, DH). Sure, maybe its actually Holliday in RF and one of these guys in LF, the point remains the same. Giambi, Cust, Buck and Swisher would all receive significant playing time, but Swisher is a decent fit at any of the defensive spots. With the other three all being lefthanded hitters, at least one could sit against a tough LHS. Barton, of course, is yet another LHB.
The A's do take on additional salary with the move, but Swisher's contract isn't overly expensive and we certainly know what we're getting with him. The major hang up would be just who, additionally, the Nationals would demand along with Barton. As long as it was only an Outman or Braden type, I think it would be worth it.
What do you all think? Is this a realistic possibility? Is it worth trying to bring back the Swish?
84 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Would the yankees really want milledge? They already have a glut of outfielders.
If we give up Braden or Outman, our current starting pitching would be even thinner. We would need to pick up another pitcher for sure.
I think i would rather stand pat, send Barton down to AAA
Rumor has it...
…that the Yankees are trying to add another “true” centerfielder.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
Not sold on Swish!
I’ve read all the posts about how he had some bad luck last season, but regardless of bad luck or not, his offensive productions seems to be on the decline. At his age, he should improving every year. At best he has flatlined. The Sox traded him for a bag of chips and a stick of deoderant. I would not want to see Buck or Sweeney losing AB’s to Swish.
The return on that trade was Kenny Williams fault, not Swisher's.
The Yankees don’t seem nearly as willing to give him away for peanuts. But, the Tex signing does give them one too many corner outfielders. Either Nady or Swisher is going to be dealt.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
what necessitates the Nats' participation?
If you want to trade Barton + a pitcher for Swisher, just send ‘em directly to the Yankees (not that that’s an especially good idea in and of itself).
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
Why in the world do theYanks need another 1B?
They are looking at adding a CF to compete with Brett Gardner for the job in the spring. I think they’ve finally given up on Melky.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Why do they need another OF -- let alone one who's considered a quasi-bust like Milledge?
Cashman showed with the Swisher deal that he’s interested in value acquisitions, not undermining himself by trading for obvious weaknesses. Trading Swisher for Barton + a decent young pitcher is a value acquisition.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
It's still too early to call Lastings a bust.
Cashman is shopping Swisher and Nady as we speak, so to say he’s not interesting in dealing Nick is wish casting on your part. Sure, they’d rather deal Nady, but Swisher talks are very hot right now.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
reading comprehension?
“Considered a quasi-bust” does not equal me calling him a bust.
And where did I “wish cast” that Cashman is “not interesting [sic] in dealing Nick”? I specifically said that his trading Swish for Barton + a good pitcher would be something he would want to do.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
I doubt that very much
Swisher is, in all likelihood, going to be a better player than Barton. Both struggled last year, but Swisher was less bad, has a better track record, and has more defensive value.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
deoends on the quality of the pitcher included
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
Well, the theoretical quality of pitcher we are talking about
has already been established. A 4th/5th SP type.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
uh, it has? Where?
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
Where I state in the article
“As long as it was only an Outman or Braden type, I think it would be worth it.”
If you think those guys are better than that, ok I guess, but I don’t.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions
ah, thanks; sorry I missed that
I’d agree with you that Barton + Outman/Braden would be an acceptable deal for the A’s; conversely, I’d agree with PT that it probably wouldn’t be an acceptable deal for the Yankees.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
Haven't you gone on record...
… as saying that projections for young players are unreliable because of the small sample size and the potential for age 23 to age 27 development. If so, what makes you think that Swisher is “in all likelihood” going to be a better player than Barton? Barton’s track record shouldn’t matter anymore than any other 22 year old’s track record. In other words, I think it’s tough to draw any conclusions from Barton’s track record, other than he had a shitty year next year, but he still possesses skills that could develop into a good MLB’er.
This is not to say that I don’t want Swisher back. I just don’t think we’re at a point yet where we can say what Barton’s track record means for his likely future development. We should be looking at the skills Barton has flashed at every level, not at his one full year of MLB production.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 16, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
Not sure where I went "on record" as saying that, but
up to a certain degree, I agree with the premise. Of course younger players can project better (or worse) than their past numbers might indicate. And to be sure, I think Barton is better than he was last season. But the guy has never hit more than 13 HRs in any season, anywhere, and he hasn’t even done that since 2005. If the power comes, he’ll end up pretty good. If not, he’ll be pretty average.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
whoops,
I’m wrong. In 2007 he hit 9 in AAA and 4 in the Majors, for 13 that year, too.
Also to clarify, it really isn’t that he hasn’t hit more so far, it’s that I don’t see a whole lot of indication that he will hit for significantly more in the future. I really hope I’m wrong. Even if he can get to where he hits around 20 a season, he’ll be a very fine player.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
Have you looked at Swisher's track record?
It’s better than Barton’s. However much weight you give to track record, Swisher comes out ahead.
It is of course possible that Swisher will underplay his current talent level and Barton will overplay his, resulting in Barton being a better player. But I’d say odds are at least 2-1, maybe 3-1, that Swisher ends up the better player of the two.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Sorry,
Misread your post. If you think the Yanks would make that deal b/c they see it as a plus value acquisition, then fine. But they still don’t need a 1B and they are looking for CF help. So they’d likely deal Barton for a young OF. And of the young OF’s who happen to be on the market right now, and happen to be able to play CF, Milledge may be the best of the bunch.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
So ... now you're basically advocating a Swisher-for-Milledge deal for the Yanks?
If that’s all the Yanks are getting … again, where’s the necessity of the third party? And how in the world is that a good deal for the Yankees?
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
That is a possibility
but the assumption is the Nats don’t want to add Swisher’s contract. I don’t know why you are so down on Milledge. He has the potential to be far more valuable than either Swisher or Barton over the next 4 yrs.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
I also think you are overvaluing Barton.
In my book he’s a bigger risk to bust than Milledge is. I’m not at all convinced he’ll ever hit for much power, so if he doesn’t end up hitting for a high average he won’t be a plus player at 1B. A .260/.360/.400 player has value, but Swisher is likely to surpass those numbers for the next few seasons. At this point I think I’d rather have what Swisher is, than what Barton may or may not become.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
My question is why don't you change the "third team"
to someone who can deal the Yankees what they want/need? The Swisher, Barton, Outman components can stay in place if you find the right third team that would like to acquire a young 1Bman with a lot of potential and who has a major league ready CFer, or quality reliever, or promising young starter, to give.
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
I didn't pick the team.
There are reports out there that say the Yankees HAVE asked about Milledge. Maybe it’s all just a bunch of BS, I don’t know. But the idea behind this trade is that these players have all been bandied about as possible trade bait and therefore that this idea wasn’t just some random stab in the dark with no real possibility of actually happening.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 16, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
Ah, gotcha
I think as trade proposals go (i.e., considering how lame they generally are, mine included) it has some logic and fairness to it. I agree with the premise that Swisher has some pluses that Barton won’t ever have, such as 25-30 HR power, switch-hitting ability, the ability to play OF, etc. and think he’d be a good fit with the 2009 team’s particular needs.
What I don’t agree with is that the A’s should give up as much as Barton and Braden/Outman to get Swisher – I feel like if the Yankees want a lot for him, the A’s should just stick with Barton, and if the Yanks are ready to deal him as Kenny Williams was (though maybe not that dramatically cheap), the A’s should go after him as they did Giambi and might Cabrera – because it’s an especially good deal.
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
I'm not sold that Swisher will be better than Buck this year...
and if he’s not than getting Swisher is dumb. The A’s need to focus on improving SS and the rotation.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Numbers wise the two might end up pretty close.
However, Swisher has stayed on the field the majority of his career where as Buck hasn’t. I actually think Buck will be a better hitter then Swish, the problem is without being healthy he may not ever reach his potential, and even if he does there’s not near as much value in that potential if he can’t keep it on the field. One reason I still like the idea of adding a guy like Swisher is he gives us depth in the OF in the way of something other then a 4th OF. I don’t consider Cunningham a 4th OF, but I also don’t consider him ready to come up and play at the level of even an average corner guy at this point. Swisher can play anwhere in the OF, and play a damn good 1B. It would be nice to have him if one of Buck/Giambi goes down or falters.
Nice
Purvis Short reference… the Swish!!
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 16, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
Hasn't
Beane wanted Milledge for a while now?
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
keep Barton
I think Barton was just brought up to soon and will benefit from a 1/2 year in the minors. He struggled mightly and needs a change to get his stroke back. Swisher didn’t cost the yanks much so I would wait and see if he struggles in NY than he could be had for nothing with the yanks picking up some of his salary.
Somebody get me a time machine...
I want to go into the future and see Barton’s 2009 stats before we get all hasty and trade him to Washington for two turntables and a microphone, or to New York for the pigtailed one himself…
"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco
Time Machine
Let me hitch a ride if you borrow one. There are a few bets I’d like to make
"You Went Full Retard, Man - Never Go Full Retard." --Kirk Lazarus
you guys need a lesson on the dangers of messing with the space/time continuum
Please refer to the film Back to the Future II for an account of these risks. Rundown towns filled with gambling, hookers, abandoned cars on fire, graffiti! Seriously guys, think twice.
by scatterbrian on Jan 19, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
so, present-day Oakland is a result of someone messing with the S/TC?
< / reztips >
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
from what ive heard
milledge isnt really a good cf defensively so im guessing the yanks wouldnt want him
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
I don't understand why
we would bring a player back now whose numbers are drastically worse than they were when we traded him. We didn’t want to pay him $$ for his good numbers, why would we reverse course and pay the $$ now for numbers that appear to be sliding. He’s a great guy, and he played with intensity when he was here but I don’t see the sense in the deal.
PS—what we need is a starting pitcher who can give innings for an entire season. I love Duke but his fall off and ultimate injury last year gives me serious concerns about his ability to go 30+ games. The rest of the guys have yet to prove they can go 6+ on a regular basis and not give the game away with BB. And the bullpen can’t go 162 innings without more from the starting rotation.
Well, think about it this way -
you deal Swisher and acquire Sweeney (now your CFer), Gio (there’s a starting pitcher, like you covet, just not quite ready to excel – but maybe close), and DLS (maybe the prize of the three at the time, and another promising starting pitcher).
Now if you can turn around and re-acquire Swisher to play 1B or RF in exchange for Barton, you have essentially lost Barton to get Sweeney, Gio, and DLS, having lost a couple seasons of Swisher’s performance (at a point when it wasn’t terrific anyway) and a couple seasons of paying his salary (which was a lot higher than Barton’s). Pretty good.
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
Maybe but...
Swisher’s recent numbers are not really much better than Barton’s but he’ll cost you 3+ million more to have. That is equal to paying an additional 3 million for the original trio of Sweeney, Gio, and DLS—-after you have already acquired them. It lessens the quality of the previous Swisher deal in my opinion.
Seems like we have plenty of potential RF and I don’t think we need a 1B unless we move Giambi to DH and Cust to RF (i’d rather not experience the event of Cust running for a fly ball ever again).
by WhiteElephant on Jan 16, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
Well having Swisher instead of Barton actually helps to ensure
Cust will not play the OF, as you have another good OF option ready. Swisher’s recent numbers aren’t that good but he still clearly offers more power than Barton and better defense when you consider his versatility. Essentially, all Barton has done over a full season (hit for a low average with disappointing power) is what Swisher has done at his worst – but at his best, Swisher has done far, far better.
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
do you have a link to this supposed yankee interest in milledge?
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
If Swisher was still cheap Id be all for it,
but what if Swisher continues to suck? Then we would be stuck with him and his pricetag. We NEED that money, its not worth the risk of a small improvement for this season and perhaps 2010.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
Thing is, the only way you can avoid risking that someone might either
a. continue to suck
b. not be healthy
c. not be over the hill
d. not reach his potential
is to get players who are healthy, in their prime, and have established themselves as top-notch players, i.e., players the A’s cannot really afford either by FA or trade.
So it’s really pick your poison – which risk do you want to take? The A’s can afford to choose from Freddy Garcia, Mark Mulder, Andruw Jones, Jason Giambi, and Nick Johnson, but they can’t afford to choose from Mark Teixeira, Jose Reyes, and C.C. Sabathia.
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
Exactly.
We don’t know why Swish had such a bad year in a hitter’s park. I wouldn’t give up a promising young player for him. For all we know he may have been juicing with the A’s and is now steroid free and much less capable of the big hit. That’s the rumor in Chicago I am told.
We don't KNOW why, but we (ok, I) suspect it's because he was really unlucky...
Swisher’s “price tag” is pretty damned minimal for a guy who’s capable of being a very good player. Which, spare me the carping folks, is what he was in 2006 and 2007.
The fact that he is so self-evidently better than Barton is, regrettably, also the reason why trading Barton for him is never going to fly in this or any universe.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Just curious, PT - what do you feel accounts for
Swisher’s drop in HRs both years 2007 and 2008. I can buy the unlucky explanation accounting for his batting average, which could just as easily been 30 points higher. But I’m not sure why he came up short of 25 HRs two years in a row, this past year in a great hitting 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
I think he just hit the high end of his power ceiling in 2006
His HR/FB that year was 3.5% higher than his career average, which gave him an extra 7 or so homers. Add in the blatantly obvious tortoise ball that was introduced recently and the fact that he lost about 100 PA this year relative to 2006 and you’ve got the rest of the difference.
In a “normal” number of PA with the same baseball that was being used in 2006, I’d expect him to hit between 25 and 30 HR.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
"Blatantly obvious tortoise ball"
Is there such unequivocal evidence for this ? Genuinely interested.
by green star oakland on Jan 16, 2009 11:32 PM PST up reply actions
Yummy!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2009 12:04 AM PST up reply actions
So if Swish's true numbers are (and I agree)
about .250/.350 with 25 HRs and solid 1B/OF defense, a trade for Barton straight up would make sense for Oakland because while Barton’s ceiling is a superior BA and maybe OBP, he really doesn’t have the power potential, even if things roll right for him, to match Swisher’s expected offensive production overall. Unless he hits 50 doubles, which is not a reasonable hope.
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
we should get windyfelix on it
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
I'm more than a little suspicious of the fact that home runs have dropped,
seemingly across the board and in both leagues. The number of HR hit this year was like 500 less than in 2006.
Everyone’s having a power outage— either EVERYONE is on steroids, or there’s something fishy going on with the baseball. Faced with the choice between “everyone in baseball suddenly deciding to straighten up and fly right” and “MLB monkeyed with the ball to make the public believe steroids weren’t a problem anymore”, I’m going with the latter explanation.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
+1
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
Here's HR/Game: 1901 - 2008
There are all kinds of trends and turnarounds that it would be interesting to understand, but at least by eye the changes in the last two years specifically could just be in the low frequency noise.
My MLB history is pretty shaky … I’ve included some of the events that are known to have had an impact, but if there are others I’d love to know. Like what happened (apart from the unmentionable) in 1988, when HR rates suddenly dropped 33% ? Or maybe – since the rates actually returned to their pre-85 levels – the question is what happened in 1985-7 ?
by green star oakland on Jan 18, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
It has been persistently rumored
that the ball was “juiced” in 1987. That was the year quite a few players saw a big spike in HR rates. Wade Boggs for example hit 24, whereas his next best season was 11 (in strike-shortened ’94, another season rumored to have a more lively ball by the way – look at some of those HR totals before things shut down).
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 18, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Right
Another argument for tampering with the ball— evidence, admittedly not proven, suggests that it’s happened before. Well, it was proven to have happened in the ‘20s and ’30s, but I’ll admit that’s ancient history.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Hey - those were some of my best years!
Dayam keeds.
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
Well using the most popular way to find any thing about anything
I found, on Wikipedia so take it how you will, info on Baseball Collusion going on at the time (around 1985-1988). In this case it refers to owners working together to avoid competitive bidding for player services.
How this is just pure speculation on my part, but players would have been trying to perform at higher levels in order to secure more money from the team they were going to wind up re-signing with or if possible a new team. I mean if a player put up great offensive numbers this year his team (or a new team) would be more inclined to give said player more money on an one year deal the next time around. Which could have resulted in the "over performance" those years.
Think of it as contract years for just about every one every year but again that is just a thought.
If that doesn’t work for you, then all I can come up with is the fact that aliens adducted and replaced the MLB players with genetically altered clones and after their experiments were over they brought the originals back. This led to crappy play as the players coped with the adductions and knowledge that aliens do exist. But like most stories with a happy ending they over came their struggles and went on to lived very fulfilled lives.
Of course baseball will not admit to any wrong doing or fault in either case.
Question
what would it take to get Phil Hughs? I feel like people are more down on him than they should be. The guy is only 22, and in 106.2 IP he has a 4.35 FIP and this pas year his BABIP was quite high. I’m not saying the guy is a hands down stud, but he could be a good #2 if things break right. Not that we really need the pitching right now, but I still wonder nonetheless.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
It now appears...
…that the Nats are considering adding Swisher in a direct trade with the Yanks. Such a trade would still presumably include Milledge going to the Yanks. They appear to be willing to add Nick’s salary since they have basically spent nothing else this off season. That could conceivably change if they decide to add FA Orlando Hudson. If they do decide to sign OH they’d probably be less willing to add further salarly with Swish, so perhaps we could still get in on this action. I still say we should try and get involved.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Maybe instead of a three-way deal,
Beane can just wait for a Swisher-Milledge trade to happen and then talk to NYY or WAS about the player he wants.
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
where are you getting this info?
could i get a link?
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
MLBTradeRumors.com is a good source.
There is a lot to filter through on that one. Sometimes they’ll just have a little one liner that will link to a story with some detail. If you find the story I’ve posted below at the site, there is a link to Kepner’s story going into things a bit further, including the Yankees hope to add another CF. As for the Milledge rumors, those have been bouncing around for some time now, and Jim Bowden has a history of being willing to trade just about anyone, even if it doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense. If the Nats do choose to deal Lastings, they would be left will only Dukes as any sort of viable option in CF. I for one wouldn’t be comfortable with that, but I’m not Bowden.
Yankees Still Fielding Calls on Swisher, Nady
By Ben Nicholson-Smith [January 17 at 10:21am CST]
“According to Tyler Kepner of the New York Times, Brian Cashman’s spending lots of time talking with other clubs about Nick Swisher and Xavier Nady. Cashman’s open to moving either player, but he says he won’t make a deal for the sake of making one: "we’re not going to do anything unless there’s a reason to do it.”
Cashman also said most reports about trade discussions have been accurate. The Braves, Nationals and Reds are among the teams who have reportedly had interest in Swisher and Nady."
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 18, 2009 5:18 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, I think you should be able to find the latest O-dog rumblings there, too.
I also have a few friends in the industry that I went to school with. Occasionally I’ll playfully pump them for something juicy, but they rarely know more than the websites and beat reporters do. Sometimes though…
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-Thomas Jefferson
by thinwhiteduke on Jan 18, 2009 5:22 AM PST up reply actions
swisher was the only guy...
to have a LOWER average than barton.
If you had a lineup of 9 Jack Custs who hit(Cust career average) .239 AVG, .382 OBP, and .475 SLG, then your team would score 6.12 runs per game-totalling to 991runs a season.The 08 rangers lead the majors in runs score with 901.
Have you checked his websight.
Already a picture of him in a Yankee uniform. So Cheeeeessssy! Swish!
Green and gold in the freezing cold!!!
Buffalo NY.
Swisher seemed to fall in love with a swing for the fenses approach
The last 2 full years Swishers swing and miss percentage increased 22%. Was it the pressure to perform for a new team? I don’t think so. He has power but gets his best coaching reviews when he goes to all fields and he has always seemed to be destined to be a 20HR/35DBL/.280 avg. guy to me. As far as bringing him back – well it would give me a reason to wear another of my old jersey shirts that are gathering moths deep down in my drawer. Giambi came back just before holes in my old shirt started to show. By they way – anyone read about Harden and a small tear in hit rotator cuff? Ooops.
Baja been here
The Harden news is going to make for a long year for Cubs fans.
I wonder how long it will take for them to start complaining that the A’s shafted them if he does go down?
If Gallagher starts off 6-2, 3.15 while Harden is on the DL,
you can bet the Cubbie fans won’t be thrilled.
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
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
