Nice article about Danks1 and Floyd

[Jordan4life_2007]

Yeah, it's hard to write a 24 year old lefty off after only ~130 ML IP espcially when he's sporting a 9+ K/9. Unless I'm missing a real obvious one that Swisher trade is probably the worst of KW's career.

 

The Koch deal has to be right up there. Koch gave us nothing while Keith Foulke dominated in 2003 and was nasty during Boston's title run in 2004. Of course, we did get a fluke year from Neal Cotts in 2005.

[Jordan4life_2007]

fixed

 

Oh give me a break. Sox fans talk about that trade as if it were the equal to the Bedard for Jones/Tillman/Sherrill trade.

[Kalapse]

The Koch deal has to be right up there. Koch gave us nothing while Keith Foulke dominated in 2003 and was nasty during Boston's title run in 2004. Of course, we did get a fluke year from Neal Cotts in 2005.

There's the key. At least we got 1 good piece out of that trade and he played a crucial role on the Wold Series winning club.

[Kalapse]

fixed

Because that '02 team was $3.5M away from a title?

[Harry Chappas]

Only on Soxtalk can an article praising the work of KW turn into a thread about the worst trades he has made.

 

The Mariners got nothing out of the Freddy Garcia trade.

[BigSqwert]

Because that '02 team was $3.5M away from a title?

Ah I get it now. As long as you're not considered a contender for a WS for that particular season then it doesn't matter if you make terrible trades that can impact subsequent seasons.

[chisoxfan09]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2010/c...&id=4981678

 

Well written, here's to both of them having great 2010 pitching results!!

[Kalapse]

Ah I get it now. As long as you're not considered a contender for a WS for that particular season then it doesn't matter if you make terrible trades that can impact subsequent seasons.

What profound effect did it have on subsequent seasons? The cheap players they gave up were bad and the $3.5M terrible pitcher they acquired was only on a 1 year deal.

[BigSqwert]

What profound effect did it have on subsequent seasons? The cheap players they gave up were bad and the $3.5M terrible pitcher they acquired was only on a 1 year deal.

 

Seeing that the 2003 year was one where we were quite close to winning the division, who knows what might have happened had we not made that trade. Many people think that the 2003 team was arguably the best we've had in over a decade. We wound up 4 back for the division and who knows if we kept those 3 nobodies if maybe one of them had a flash in the pan year that could have gotten us over the top...ala Cotts in 2005. Or maybe we could have used them as trade pieces for something more effective for 2003 instead of a complete waste in Ritchie.

Edited March 11, 2010 by BigSqwert

[Kalapse]

Seeing that the 2003 year was one where we were quite close to winning the division, who knows what might have happened had we not made that trade. Many people think that the 2003 team was arguably the best we've had in over a decade. We wound up 4 back for the division and who knows if we kept those 3 nobodys if maybe one of them had a flash in the pan year that could have gotten us over the top...ala Cotts in 2005. Or maybe we could have used them as trade pieces for something more effective for 2003 instead of a complete waste in Ritchie.

You can say that about any failed trade, especially the Swisher deal. We could have gotten quite a haul for De Los Santos, Sweeney and Gio but instead we got 1 bad year from an expensive player. I'm not going to consider a trade especially bad because we may have caught lightning in a bottle from the bad players we lost in the deal especially when the team in question's best starting pitcher was, himself, an incredible flash in the pan.

[Harry Chappas]

Seeing that the 2003 year was one where we were quite close to winning the division, who knows what might have happened had we not made that trade. Many people think that the 2003 team was arguably the best we've had in over a decade. We wound up 4 back for the division and who knows if we kept those 3 nobodies if maybe one of them had a flash in the pan year that could have gotten us over the top...ala Cotts in 2005. Or maybe we could have used them as trade pieces for something more effective for 2003 instead of a complete waste in Ritchie.

 

They would not have given Loiaza the opportunity he got if those three were still around and thus 2003 would have sucked.

 

Then not traded Estaban for Jose the ace of the 2005 playoff run.

 

In that regard the Ritchie trade was a gem.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Jenks Heat

[Crash73]

They would not have given Loiaza the opportunity he got if those three were still around and thus 2003 would have sucked.

 

Then not traded Estaban for Jose the ace of the 2005 playoff run.

 

In that regard the Ritchie trade was a gem.

 

This is starting to sound like an episode of LOST.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

The Ritchie trade sucked because we gave up value for a bunch of crap, but at least that deal didn't come back to haunt us. The first Swisher deal we did the same thing, except that one may come back to haunt us.

 

It's kind of pointless to argue over though, since DLS is probably the only guy who would still be here anyway. Kenny didn't want Sweeney anymore and wasn't going to give him a real shot (remember the Sox playing garbage in the OF in '07 instead of calling up Sweeney?) and Kenny also wouldn't have let Gio give it up like Oakland has done. Gio still needs a lot of work and Kenny wouldn't let that happen here while trying to contend.

 

The only thing to wonder about regarding the first Swisher deal is what might we have gotten from another team for that same package. Not saying we definitely could have done it, but the one I always think back to is Hamilton, since that was the year Hamilton went to Texas for Volquez. In hindsight, a Fields + Sweeney + Gio + DLS package for Josh Hamilton and change would have been pretty sweet for us, and it would have been very hard for the Reds to pass up.

[Jordan4life_2007]

The Ritchie trade sucked because we gave up value for a bunch of crap, but at least that deal didn't come back to haunt us. The first Swisher deal we did the same thing, except that one may come back to haunt us.

 

It's kind of pointless to argue over though, since DLS is probably the only guy who would still be here anyway. Kenny didn't want Sweeney anymore and wasn't going to give him a real shot (remember the Sox playing garbage in the OF in '07 instead of calling up Sweeney?) and Kenny also wouldn't have let Gio give it up like Oakland has done. Gio still needs a lot of work and Kenny wouldn't let that happen here while trying to contend.

 

The only thing to wonder about regarding the first Swisher deal is what might we have gotten from another team for that same package. Not saying we definitely could have done it, but the one I always think back to is Hamilton, since that was the year Hamilton went to Texas for Volquez. In hindsight, a Fields + Sweeney + Gio + DLS package for Josh Hamilton and change would have been pretty sweet for us, and it would have been very hard for the Reds to pass up.

 

They did just that with Danks/Floyd in 2007. There was obviously something they didn't like about Gio (you don't trade a guy twice before he's even pitched an inning at the big league level otherwise). Looks to me that Gio is going to be the traded prospect that finally comes back to bite us in the ass.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Jordan4life

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

They did just that with Danks/Floyd in 2007. There was obviously something they didn't like about Gio (you don't trade a guy twice before he's even pitched an inning at the big league level otherwise). Looks to me that Gio is going to be the traded prospect that finally comes back to bite us in the ass.

I don't think Kenny would have gotten Gio back had he not cared much for him. I think the Sox just saw Gio as being further away than he looked to us as fans and so Kenny decided to get something for him then rather than wait.

 

Danks and Floyd though - that kind of just happened. The Sox brought in Danks to ST to push Floyd, and they wanted Danks to start in AAA with the one open spot going to Floyd, but Floyd looked absolutely terrible and so did everyone else, so the Sox ended up in a position where they had to go with Danks. By the time Floyd came up in '07 to pitch regularly we were well out of the race. Had we been contending that year I'm not sure we'd have stuck with Danks so long or even seen Floyd at all. As it turned out, Floyd finished strong, Danks showed flashes of what he had and showed that he was learning, so Kenny went ahead and traded Garland to give them both full shots. It worked out in the end, but I think we'd be fools to think Kenny expected the Danks and Floyd experiments to go as smoothly as they did. I mean it's pretty rare to see someone like Floyd get turned completely around from a guy who couldn't even take the mound without pissing himself to a 17-game winner flirting with no-no's in the span of a year, or someone like Danks go from a AA starter coming off an average season in Midland to one of the best lefties in baseball also in the span of a year. Kenny liked Floyd and Danks, obviously, but it was kind of a perfect storm scenario that got them where they are IMO and things could have very easily gone the other way.

[SoxAce]

or someone like Danks go from a AA starter coming off an average season in Midland to one of the best lefties in baseball also in the span of a year.

 

I did.. in fact.. I called it a couple years back. Danks has had a history of excelling, then getting promoted to only struggle to adjust, then adjust the following season. He's done that for quite sometime now even comming out of high school in Texas. I knew he was going to be a damn good young LHP. Hell, you don't get picked #10 overall in the country, if you don't have some kind of talent (whether a prospect bust or not) The only thing I never thought would happen.. was what you mentioned earlier. Never would had thought he would beat out Floyd and the others to make the team that season. Thought he would pitch decent in ST, dominate AAA (like his record suggest and he probably would had done) struggle in the 08 season getting promoted to the bigs with us and then dominate in 09 and so on. I'm jut glad it worked out with him and his bulldog mentality. Some pitchers would not recover mentally after getting hit around putting up a 5.50 era their first year. (and of course you would see them out of baseball more often than not anyway)

Edited March 12, 2010 by SoxAce

[southsider2k5]

The Ritchie trade sucked because we gave up value for a bunch of crap, but at least that deal didn't come back to haunt us. The first Swisher deal we did the same thing, except that one may come back to haunt us.

 

It's kind of pointless to argue over though, since DLS is probably the only guy who would still be here anyway. Kenny didn't want Sweeney anymore and wasn't going to give him a real shot (remember the Sox playing garbage in the OF in '07 instead of calling up Sweeney?) and Kenny also wouldn't have let Gio give it up like Oakland has done. Gio still needs a lot of work and Kenny wouldn't let that happen here while trying to contend.

 

The only thing to wonder about regarding the first Swisher deal is what might we have gotten from another team for that same package. Not saying we definitely could have done it, but the one I always think back to is Hamilton, since that was the year Hamilton went to Texas for Volquez. In hindsight, a Fields + Sweeney + Gio + DLS package for Josh Hamilton and change would have been pretty sweet for us, and it would have been very hard for the Reds to pass up.

 

The only guy in the Ritchie trade who had any potential value at the time was Wells, and he even had gotten a reputation as being pretty mentally weak. We got back a guy we though could be a middle of the rotation starter, which is pretty solid value. Now Ritchie completely flopped after the fact, but that doesn't mean we didn't get a good value.

[YASNY]

The only guy in the Ritchie trade who had any potential value at the time was Wells, and he even had gotten a reputation as being pretty mentally weak. We got back a guy we though could be a middle of the rotation starter, which is pretty solid value. Now Ritchie completely flopped after the fact, but that doesn't mean we didn't get a good value.

 

All true. Personally, I've always pinned that trade on Schuler.

[Steve9347]

"I bet I've shaken off A.J. three times in my career, and two of them are home runs," Danks said. "He can have the reputation of being a jackass, or whatever, but he's one of the smartest baseball people I've ever met."

Love it.

[southsider2k5]

All true. Personally, I've always pinned that trade on Schuler.

 

IIRC he was the one who accepted responsibility for that deal.