Top 10 list of traded away Sox prospects

[SSH2005]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/askba.html

With the recent trade of highly touted prospect Chris Young to the Diamondbacks for Javier Vazquez, I was wondering if any team has dealt away more prospects than the White Sox over the last five years. Could you do a Top 10 list for the prospects the Sox have traded away?

 

      Scott Reimers

      Springfield, Ill.

 

 

Kenny Williams became White Sox general manager in October 2000, just when we began work on our first Prospect Handbook. By my count, Williams has traded 21 players who have appeared on Top 30 Prospects lists in the Handbook, and that doesn't include six others who had lost their prospect status by playing too much in the majors by the time they were dealt (Rocky Biddle, Matt Ginter, Gary Glover, Jeff Liefer, Miguel Olivo, Josh Paul). I didn't take the time to check every club, but that total has to be one of the highest, if not the highest, in baseball.

 

Williams was Chicago's farm director before becoming GM, so you might think he would have been more attached to his prospects than most of his counterparts. But Williams explained the reasons for his willingness to part with young talent before the 2005 season: "Two words: nineteen seventeen. How many more generations of fans are going to have to wait? I don't want to wait." Obviously, Williams and the White Sox got the job done last year, ending an 88-year drought between World Series championships.

 

Below is my Top 10 list of traded White Sox prospects, which peters out quickly into question marks and middle relievers.

 

1. Chris Young, of (December 2005 to Arizona for Javier Vazquez)

Often compared to Mike Cameron, should be better

2. Jeremy Reed, of (June 2004 to Seattle for Freddy Garcia)

Better than advertised defensively, and his bat will come around

3. Gio Gonzalez, lhp (November 2005 to Philadelphia for Jim Thome)

Polished lefty was top pitching prospect in bat-heavy system before deal

4. Josh Fogg, of (December 2001 to Pittsburgh for Todd Ritchie)

Nothing special, but eats innings at back end of rotation

5. Mike Morse, ss (Garcia)

Cooled off after blazing big league start, then got suspended for steroids

6. Daniel Haigwood, lhp (Thome)

43-1 in high school and 32-11 in pro ball, though stuff isn't as good as numbers

7. Matt Guerrier, rhp (March 2002 to Pittsburgh for Damaso Marte)

Emerged in Twins bullpen last year after getting claimed off waivers

8. Gary Majewski, rhp (July 2004 to Montreal for Carl Everett)

Also traded in March 2001 for Antonio Osuna, reacquired that July for James Baldwin

9. Josh Rupe, rhp (July 2003 to Texas for Carl Everett)

Looked good in September, has above-average stuff but needs more consistency

10. Franklin Francisco, rhp (Everett/Texas)

Promising 2004 big league debut ended with chair-tossing incident, had TJ surgery in 2005

[OldSox2]

On the negative side we got Ritchie, Everett twice, and Thome/vazquez and gobs of payroll. You mentioned Fogg, but he wasn't the best pitcher we gave up in that deal. On the positive side we have Freddy.

[Rowand44]

On the negative side we got Ritchie, Everett twice, and Thome/vazquez and gobs of payroll.  You mentioned Fogg, but he wasn't the best pitcher we gave up in that deal.  On the positive side we have Freddy.

Cause Carl was absolutely horrible. Thome and Vaz have also been given quite the chance to prove their worth.

[Jordan4life_2007]

On the negative side we got Ritchie, Everett twice, and Thome/vazquez and gobs of payroll.  You mentioned Fogg, but he wasn't the best pitcher we gave up in that deal.  On the positive side we have Freddy.

 

Ritchie was garbage. Everybody knows that. Everett was a central figure on a World Series championship team. Thome and Vazquez have more than proven themselves over the years.

[Rowand44]

Ritchie was garbage.  Everybody knows that.  Everett was a central figure on a World Series championship team.  Thome and Vazquez have more than proven themselves over the years.

I know Carl wasn't the most popular player on this board but no Carl=No Championship.

[ZoomSlowik]

Notice that 3 of those 10 were dealth this off-season. I hope he's not starting to get too obsessed with winning now and starting to deal real talent that develops.

[WilliamTell]

At least we got rid of a steriod user and a chair thrower.

[Buehrle>Wood]

On the negative side we got Ritchie, Everett twice, and Thome/vazquez and gobs of payroll.  You mentioned Fogg, but he wasn't the best pitcher we gave up in that deal.  On the positive side we have Freddy.

How is getting Vazquez and Thome negative? And how is getting a huge piece to the World Series negative?

[GoodAsGould]

At least we got rid of a steriod user and a chair thrower.

 

Both were good players though and in Morse's case he got a bit screwed....

[Jordan4life_2007]

Notice that 3 of those 10 were dealth this off-season. I hope he's not starting to get too obsessed with winning now and starting to deal real talent that develops.

 

Yes, 3 of them were dealt. But what did we get back in return? A guy, who when healthy, is a sure bet to belt 40+ hr's and knock in over 100 runs. We got another guy who's a supremely talented, innings eater who would basically be at worst the 3rd starter for over half the teams in baseball, yet he's our 5th starter. I've always said, unless you have a no doubt about it like guy, somebody like a Mark Prior, A-rod or Felix Hernandez, all prospects are fair game as long as you're getting back PROVEN major league talent.

[qwerty]

I know Carl wasn't the most popular player on this board but no Carl=No Championship.

 

He was the worst three hitter in baseball. Cleveland's 8-9 hitters out produced him. You cannot just say no carl everett = no championship... because we would of course had some one replacing him putting up similar numbers... and trust me it wouldn't have been that hard to find. Sure he was ''clutch'' but did he ever get a hit without someone on base... would have been nice considering you come up with no one on the majority of the time.

[Jordan4life_2007]

He was the worst three hitter in baseball. Cleveland's 8-9 hitters out produced him. You cannot just say no carl everett = no championship... because we would of course had some one replacing him putting up similar numbers... and trust me it wouldn't have been that hard to find. Sure he was ''clutch'' but did he ever get a hit without someone on base... would have been nice considering you come up with no one on the majority of the time.

 

Who would've been replacing Everett? Joe Borchard?

[ZoomSlowik]

Yes,  3 of them were dealt.  But what did we get back in return?  A guy,  who when healthy,  is a sure bet to belt 40+ hr's and knock in over 100 runs.  We got another guy who's a supremely talented,  innings eater who would basically be at worst the 3rd starter for over half the teams in baseball,  yet he's our 5th starter.  I've always said,  unless you have a no doubt about it like guy,  somebody like a Mark Prior,  A-rod or Felix Hernandez,  all prospects are fair game as long as you're getting back PROVEN major league talent.

 

I'm not arguing that we didn't get crap back for them, or that they were bad deals, I'm just kind of worried that he's seemingly shifting towards trading our top prospects more. B-Mac is about the only guy that I always thought was pretty safe, and obviously he was planning on keeping Anderson around. This was also the first time that I really thought that we were trading high-ceiling guys like Young and Gio (I guess Wells was too).

 

If he keeps that up eventually he's going to get burned, especially since the guys we're getting have some question marks (Freddy was inconsistent and a pending FA, Thome is old and got hurt a lot last year, and Vazquez hasn't been all that great of late). I guess I shouldn't worry about it right now, since the only really good guys we still have are already on the pro team.

[qwerty]

Who would've been replacing Everett?  Joe Borchard?

 

84368 different players could have been acquired. He put up a .746 ops this year which is just disgusting from a player that was our three hole hitter the majority of the season. I believe williams just reacquired him because he liked his attitude when we traded for him before and was familar with him.

 

Overall he played s***ty but we ended up with a world series championship so i am not gonna complain much .

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm not arguing that we didn't get crap back for them, or that they were bad deals, I'm just kind of worried that he's seemingly shifting towards trading our top prospects more. B-Mac is about the only guy that I always thought was pretty safe, and obviously he was planning on keeping Anderson around. This was also the first time that I really thought that we were trading high-ceiling guys like Young and Gio (I guess Wells was too).

 

 

What's the problem with trading them if you're getting proven major league talent in return? Neither Young or Gio were gonna help us this year. With Thome and Vazquez, we got a legitimate shot at winning another title. I don't see a problem with Kenny's philosiphy.

 

 

If he keeps that up eventually he's going to get burned, especially since the guys we're getting have some question marks (Freddy was inconsistent and a pending FA, Thome is old and got hurt a lot last year, and Vazquez hasn't been all that great of late). I guess I shouldn't worry about it right now, since the only really good guys we still have are already on the pro team.

 

 

Freddy was inconsistent? And Kenny doesn't make the deal if he didn't think he could lock Freddy up long term. Which he was able to do. Thome is somewhat of a risk, but everything points to him being healthy in 06. Think Kenny even considers the deal if he had doubts? Vazquez has been inconsistent the last year and a half. But the talent is undeniable. You don't think Ozzie and Coop will make a difference?

[Jordan4life_2007]

84368 different players could have been acquired. He put up a .746 ops this year which is just disgusting from a player that was our three hole hitter the majority of the season. I believe williams just reacquired him because he liked his attitude when we traded for him before and was familar with him.

 

Overall he played s***ty but we ended up with a world series championship so i am not gonna complain much .

 

How do you figure? Kenny tried to make like 5 different deals last year and we ended up with Geoff Blum. There's nobody we could've gotten last year that would've been better than Everett.

[Rowand44]

84368 different players could have been acquired. He put up a .746 ops this year which is just disgusting from a player that was our three hole hitter the majority of the season. I believe williams just reacquired him because he liked his attitude when we traded for him before and was familar with him.

 

Overall he played s***ty but we ended up with a world series championship so i am not gonna complain much .

23 homers, 87 rbi's. OPS ain't everything. He also was the only hitter in the middle of the order who did anything at the beginning of the season, him, tad and pods kept this o going at hte beginning of the season. Like I said, no Carl=no championship.

[qwerty]

23 homers, 87 rbi's.  OPS ain't everything.  He also was the only hitter in the middle of the order who did anything at the beginning of the season, him, tad and pods kept this o going at hte beginning of the season.  Like I said, no Carl=no championship.

 

You take out the three hitter on all the teams that made the playoffs and replace them with no other player. See how well they would have done over the course of the season. You just don't do things like... just like stats shouldn't be cherry picked from pitchers. If you take these seven starts out or these 12 outings... he would have had a 2.27 era. Give me a break... it happened and there is no going back.

 

Ops is the easiest stat to tell how well a player is doing. Even people that do not like stats should look at it because it is just a basic stat... much like slugging and obp. I don't want my six hitter having a .746 let alone my 3 hitter. You have always seemed to like a certain type of hitter though...

[qwerty]

How do you figure?  Kenny tried to make like 5 different deals last year and we ended up with Geoff Blum.  There's nobody we could've gotten last year that would've been better than Everett.

 

We traded for everett again in 2004 mid way through the season. I don't understand the reason to bring up geoff blum. If we were able to make two three trades this off-season i don't see any reason we couldn't do anything more substantial the previous off-season. I don't buy that there just wasn't any sort of trade market out there. I think they just were content with everett and were hopinh for another .800 ops type season from him.

[Rowand44]

You take out the three hitter on all the teams that made the playoffs and replace them with no other player. See how well they would have done over the course of the season. You just don't do things like... just like stats shouldn't be cherry picked from pitchers. If you take these seven starts out or these 12 outings... he would have had a 2.27 era. Give me a break... it happened and there is no going back.

 

Ops is the easiest stat to tell how well a player is doing. Even people that do not like stats should look at it because it is just a basic stat... much like slugging and obp. I don't want my six hitter having a .746 let alone my 3 hitter. You have always seemed to like a certain type of hitter though...

I'm not cherry picking any stats. The fact is, his ops sucked, and he was a horrible number 3 hitter but he wasn't a horrible hitter for this team. Like you noted earlier he had plenty of clutch hits and drove in plenty of runs. Whatever though, I'm done. I can argue with you over other things.

[klaus kinski]

Thats a good list of prospects traded-but where we have failed thru the years is trading young players right after a short time in majors, that went on to be really good players. This trend started in 1960, and continued. That list would include guys like Norm Cash, John Callison, Rich Gossage, Sammy Sosa and on & on.

[Jordan4life_2007]

We traded for everett again in 2004 mid way through the season. I don't understand the reason to bring up geoff blum. If we were able to make two three trades this off-season i don't see any reason we couldn't do anything more substantial the previous off-season. I don't buy that there just wasn't any sort of trade market out there. I think they just were content with everett and were hopinh for another .800 ops type season from him.

 

If you say so. I don't think it was just coincidence that not a single team last year was able to make any significant deals.

[ZoomSlowik]

What's the problem with trading them if you're getting proven major league talent in return?  Neither Young or Gio were gonna help us this year.  With Thome and Vazquez,  we got a legitimate shot at winning another title.  I don't see a problem with Kenny's philosiphy.

 

Freddy was inconsistent?  And Kenny doesn't make the deal if he didn't think he could lock Freddy up long term.  Which he was able to do.  Thome is somewhat of a risk,  but everything points to him being healthy in 06.  Think Kenny even considers the deal if he had doubts?  Vazquez has been inconsistent the last year and a half.  But the talent is undeniable.  You don't think Ozzie and Coop will make a difference?

 

My problem is that if you keep giving up stud youngsters for guys with some question marks something is eventually going to go horribly wrong. The guys you get aren't always going to make a major impact, just like the prospects aren't always going to pan out. Wells and Ritchie ended up being less than stellar acquisitions, and we were fortunate that none of the guys we gave up did anything major. With the exception of dealing Sosa for Bell, none of our guys that we dealt have become major players, at least as long as I can remember. Other teams have had much more bad luck on that front than we have, and if things really go wrong you can cost yourself 6 cheap years for a high productive player, something everyone needs. What if we had slipped up and dealt Thomas, Buehrle, Lee (we did eventually, but he got us a lot more value when we did deal him), Jenks, or B-Mac? People on this board would be going nuts. Many of us didn't like the deals when we made them, imagine if some of the youngsters actually did something.

 

Freddy was inconsistent before he got here. The last few years before he came here he was not very good at all. Even now he isn't a world beater. Thome is still a pretty big risk given his health last year and his salary. Vazquez is another talented guy, but if he sucks he'll cost us a lot of money and we're not going to sign Contreras because of it. It's still possible that things can go wrong.

 

It's working right now, but that's no guarantee it will work in the future. I'm not saying we shouldn't trade any prospects for anyone, I just liked it better when I was fairly sure that the guys we were dealing weren't going to do anything of note. The guys we're acquiring also look fairly good right now, but I and others might not necessarily like some guys that we get in the future.

[qwerty]

My problem is that if you keep giving up stud youngsters for guys with some question marks something is eventually going to go horribly wrong.

 

It happens. Teams get burned all the time... that is how baseball works.

[qwerty]

If you say so.  I don't think it was just coincidence that not a single team last year was able to make any significant deals.

 

Once more i am talking about last off-season...

 

Either way everett sucks.