Addison Reed trade from DBacks' perspective

[Dick Allen]

If you are this results oriented in everything that you do, I would love to get in a big poker game with you sometime.

I usually do OK when I gamble. The fact is part of the process is identifying and projecting talent. It has become a new pastime ripping Kevin Towers, yet somehow, he has been the GM of at least 5 playoff teams, and took over a team that lost 97 games, and his first year, won 94. I couldn't understand what he saw in Trumbo. To me he is a right handed Adam Dunn without the walks. He gives up Skaggs and Eaton. I thought that was crazy at the time, and it still seems it now, but the point is, he wanted power, yet was willing to dump Davidson and all his power for a so-called mediocre closer who is about to become really expensive. I think he and his people knew something a lot of the publications and the White Sox scouts did not.

 

I don't think this trade is the difference between winning the division and where the Sox are now. I am just saying it was a bad trade. You can't win them all.

[witesoxfan]

I don't think this trade is the difference between winning the division and where the Sox are now. I am just saying it was a bad trade. You can't win them all.

 

I don't think it's too late for it to redeem itself, but up to this point, you are correct. I also don't mind the intention behind the move and would support any similar move Hahn would make moving forward too.

[StrangeSox]

Aren't prospect rankings basically projections? The White Sox have reports on every player. Apparently they liked Davidson a lot. In the end, it is the result that matters. If Matt Davidson doesn't help the White Sox, trading for him was a mistake.

 

Something that's got a 90% chance of succeeding still fails one out of every ten times. Something that fails 90% of the time still works out one out of ten times. You're going to make some very poor decisions if you're playing the results and not the probabilities.

[Dick Allen]

I don't think it's too late for it to redeem itself, but up to this point, you are correct. I also don't mind the intention behind the move and would support any similar move Hahn would make moving forward too.

Frankly, I doubt Davidson becomes a contributor. But maybe and I hope, not getting the couple extra wins the Sox might have had with Reed on the team gets them to draft a perennial all star maybe even in a later round instead of a guy who never makes it. Sometimes things work out in the end. Hawk as a GM got ripped for trading Bobby Bonilla after drafting him in the rule 5. Who knows, maybe Frank Thomas or Robin Ventura or Alex Fernandez are never White Sox if that doesn't happen. The Bulls lost a coin flip and got David Greenwood instead of Magic. If they had Magic, they never would have had Michael. I will take Michael.

[Dick Allen]

Something that's got a 90% chance of succeeding still fails one out of every ten times. Something that fails 90% of the time still works out one out of ten times. You're going to make some very poor decisions if you're playing the results and not the probabilities.

I am actually a math guy. I do know the probabilities that Addison Reed contributes on the major league level vs. Matt Davidson was definitely greater coming into this season, and are now even greater at this point moving forward.

 

BTW, if I am playing the results, I will win every time. I get to put my chips on red after the ball as landed.and that is what I am getting at. We have hindsight to show this was a bad trade. Somewhere along the line, the White Sox failed on this one. It is obvious. I don't know why some are so offended that this could possibly be called a bad trade. Matt Davidson just isn't as good as what many thought. He won't be the last.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

I am actually a math guy. I do know the probabilities that Addison Reed contributes on the major league level vs. Matt Davidson was definitely greater coming into this season, and are now even greater at this point moving forward.

 

BTW, if I am playing the results, I will win every time. I get to put my chips on red after the ball as landed.and that is what I am getting at. We have hindsight to show this was a bad trade. Somewhere along the line, the White Sox failed on this one. It is obvious. I don't know why some are so offended that this could possibly be called a bad trade. Matt Davidson just isn't as good as what many thought. He won't be the last.

 

I think what everyone is trying to tell you over and over and over again, is that this isn't nearly as clean and simple as you want try to frame it. A deal like this isn't black and white. It isn't even close to done as the tradees are now 24 and 25. The need to rub it in everyone's face is more the problem than any actual evaluation of the trade.

[witesoxfan]

I am actually a math guy. I do know the probabilities that Addison Reed contributes on the major league level vs. Matt Davidson was definitely greater coming into this season, and are now even greater at this point moving forward.

 

BTW, if I am playing the results, I will win every time. I get to put my chips on red after the ball as landed.and that is what I am getting at. We have hindsight to show this was a bad trade. Somewhere along the line, the White Sox failed on this one. It is obvious. I don't know why some are so offended that this could possibly be called a bad trade. Matt Davidson just isn't as good as what many thought. He won't be the last.

 

I don't think it's so much that people are upset about calling it a bad trade but are more upset or agitated that you aren't acknowledging the intent behind the trade. The intent was good, but thus far the trade has been bad. It's similar to trading Sergio Santos to Toronto. Neither has worked out for the Sox, but it's not a bad process. You are essentially gambling that a prospect who will play 2-4 times as often as a reliever will pan out versus a solid but not spectacular reliever who has a limited ceiling.

[fathom]

I don't think it's so much that people are upset about calling it a bad trade but are more upset or agitated that you aren't acknowledging the intent behind the trade. The intent was good, but thus far the trade has been bad. It's similar to trading Sergio Santos to Toronto. Neither has worked out for the Sox, but it's not a bad process. You are essentially gambling that a prospect who will play 2-4 times as often as a reliever will pan out versus a solid but not spectacular reliever who has a limited ceiling.

 

The Reed trade was significantly better on paper than the Santos one.

[Dick Allen]

I don't think it's so much that people are upset about calling it a bad trade but are more upset or agitated that you aren't acknowledging the intent behind the trade. The intent was good, but thus far the trade has been bad. It's similar to trading Sergio Santos to Toronto. Neither has worked out for the Sox, but it's not a bad process. You are essentially gambling that a prospect who will play 2-4 times as often as a reliever will pan out versus a solid but not spectacular reliever who has a limited ceiling.

The intent with just about every trade is to improve the team. This one did not. If Adam Eaton blew out his hammy and Hector Santiago was a Cy Young contender, I bet all of these process people wouldn't have any problem saying it was a bad trade. Trades ultimately aren't determined by the initial intent. Most trades are made with the idea of improving your team. Some are made with he idea of saving money.

 

As far as I know. Kevin Towers intent was to improve his team. Why is it fair game to call his trades poor?

 

 

Why when people have posted time and time again you need a couple years to judge a trade weren't there these posts that say you judge a trade the moment it is made?

Edited September 19, 2014 by Dick Allen

[NorthSideSox72]

The intent with just about every trade is to improve the team. This one did not. If Adam Eaton blew out his hammy and Hector Santiago was a Cy Young contender, I bet all of these process people wouldn't have any problem saying it was a bad trade. Trades ultimately aren't determined by the initial intent. Most trades are made with the idea of improving your team. Some are made with he idea of saving money.

 

As far as I know. Kevin Towers intent was to improve his team. Why is it fair game to call his trades poor?

 

 

Why when people have posted time and time again you need a couple years to judge a trade weren't there these posts that say you judge a trade the moment it is made?

 

The intent is to improve the team? OK.

 

By your own standards... at the time of the trade, nothing occurs. Here a year in, we've replaced one cheap and below average closer with a committee of cheap and below average closers. Davidson does nothing. So as of now, it's a wash. Next year, Reed gets expensive. And Davidson may, or may not, be a contributor. So it could become a good trade, or it could end up remaining neutral. The only way it is a losing trade is if Davidson never contributes AND Reed suddenly becomes an elite closer. So there's a good chance the trade is a wash or a win.

 

And you just keep refusing to acknowledge that you cannot work this entirely in hindsight. At the time it looked like a clear winner.

 

Basically, I fail to see a way this was a losing trade at this point. And it only could be later if those two things I noted earlier both occur, which is pretty unlikely.

 

[witesoxfan]

The Reed trade was significantly better on paper than the Santos one.

 

I absolutely agree 100%, just wanted to cite the example.

[southsider2k5]

The intent is to improve the team? OK.

 

By your own standards... at the time of the trade, nothing occurs. Here a year in, we've replaced one cheap and below average closer with a committee of cheap and below average closers. Davidson does nothing. So as of now, it's a wash. Next year, Reed gets expensive. And Davidson may, or may not, be a contributor. So it could become a good trade, or it could end up remaining neutral. The only way it is a losing trade is if Davidson never contributes AND Reed suddenly becomes an elite closer. So there's a good chance the trade is a wash or a win.

 

And you just keep refusing to acknowledge that you cannot work this entirely in hindsight. At the time it looked like a clear winner.

 

Basically, I fail to see a way this was a losing trade at this point. And it only could be later if those two things I noted earlier both occur, which is pretty unlikely.

 

As support, I will repost this.

 

#1 This is the type of trade you make a GM when you are rebuilding, and you need position players.

 

#2 Matt Davidson has not performed how the White Sox wanted him to do up to this point. If you want to give up on a 24 year old with plus power at 3B, and just look a the today of the deal, the Diamondbacks have "won" the trade to this point.

 

#3 Just because Davidson has not performed so far, doesn't mean you wouldn't make the same sort of deal again.

 

[Dick Allen]

The intent is to improve the team? OK.

 

By your own standards... at the time of the trade, nothing occurs. Here a year in, we've replaced one cheap and below average closer with a committee of cheap and below average closers. Davidson does nothing. So as of now, it's a wash. Next year, Reed gets expensive. And Davidson may, or may not, be a contributor. So it could become a good trade, or it could end up remaining neutral. The only way it is a losing trade is if Davidson never contributes AND Reed suddenly becomes an elite closer. So there's a good chance the trade is a wash or a win.

 

And you just keep refusing to acknowledge that you cannot work this entirely in hindsight. At the time it looked like a clear winner.

 

Basically, I fail to see a way this was a losing trade at this point. And it only could be later if those two things I noted earlier both occur, which is pretty unlikely.

You traded an asset the team has few of and basically received nothing. That is why it is a loser. And Reed won't be as expensive as Belisario or Downs, so lets get away from that thought.

 

You can say it looked like a winner at the time it was made, but again, that is just your opinion. I am sure there were people in the DBacks organization that thought the same thing about their trade.

 

You can say a guy with 30 saves on the major league level vs. a guy who can't hit or field in AAA cannot be a loser, and that Reed has to be an elite closer and Davidson never contributes is the only way it can be a loser, but I think if you actually think about that, you will realize it doesn't make sense.

 

If the White Sox trade a prospect who never makes it for a decent and not elite, reliever this offseason, you will say it was a good trade, a trade the Sox won.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

Have to agree with dick Allen on this one.

 

It's like arguing trading santos was smart because Molina could have been a starter....whereas we'd be in far better shape despite his ups and downs with josh reddick plus.

 

We can at least say the jake peavy/Red Sox trade is looking better and better by the month...if montas becomes a closer/starter, Garcia a 2-3 war player and rondon makes it eventually.

Edited September 19, 2014 by caulfield12

[greg775]

As support, I will repost this.

 

#1 This is the type of trade you make a GM when you are rebuilding, and you need position players.

 

#2 Matt Davidson has not performed how the White Sox wanted him to do up to this point. If you want to give up on a 24 year old with plus power at 3B, and just look a the today of the deal, the Diamondbacks have "won" the trade to this point.

 

#3 Just because Davidson has not performed so far, doesn't mean you wouldn't make the same sort of deal again.

 

3.) See I don't understand this reasoning. I understand the "logic" behind the trade. But if you are going to trade the ONLY closer on the team, make sure u have a fricking closer before doing so. Sox fans giving Hahn a pass on this deal confuse me.

YES YES YES I understand the reasoning behind the trade. Relievers/closers are a dime a dozen and Reed wasn't that good anyway and he's just going to get worst. In return, Sox get an everyday third baseman for 10 years! Yes I understand the reasoning.

I do not applaud the reasoning. Davidson is a huge flop right now and the Sox had a bullpen so bad it is beyond belief. Don't trade all your closer candidates. You must keep at least one who CAN CLOSE.

I wish I had bosses like you guys. You guys give Hahn the benefit of the doubt cause on paper it was a good trade. Like Dick said SO WAS LOU BROCK FOR ERNIE BROGLIO.

Hahn on this issue in my mind gets a big, fat grade of D. You know if we had a killer bullpen this season, the Sox might be right there with the Royals.

Edited September 19, 2014 by greg775

[caulfield12]

3.) See I don't understand this reasoning. I understand the "logic" behind the trade. But if you are going to trade the ONLY closer on the team, make sure u have a fricking closer before doing so. Sox fans giving Hahn a pass on this deal confuse me.

YES YES YES I understand the reasoning behind the trade. Relievers/closers are a dime a dozen and Reed wasn't that good anyway and he's just going to get worst. In return, Sox get an everyday third baseman for 10 years! Yes I understand the reasoning.

I do not applaud the reasoning. Davidson is a huge flop right now and the Sox had a bullpen so bad it is beyond belief. Don't trade all your closer candidates. You must keep at least one who CAN CLOSE.

I wish I had bosses like you guys. You guys give Hahn the benefit of the doubt cause on paper it was a good trade. Like Dick said SO WAS LOU BROCK FOR ERNIE BROGLIO.

Hahn on this issue in my mind gets a big, fat grade of D. You know if we had a killer bullpen this season, the Sox might be right there with the Royals.

 

Not without another good starting pitcher, a better defense and more offense from the corners 2b catcher and Dunn.

[southsider2k5]

3.) See I don't understand this reasoning. I understand the "logic" behind the trade. But if you are going to trade the ONLY closer on the team, make sure u have a fricking closer before doing so. Sox fans giving Hahn a pass on this deal confuse me.

YES YES YES I understand the reasoning behind the trade. Relievers/closers are a dime a dozen and Reed wasn't that good anyway and he's just going to get worst. In return, Sox get an everyday third baseman for 10 years! Yes I understand the reasoning.

I do not applaud the reasoning. Davidson is a huge flop right now and the Sox had a bullpen so bad it is beyond belief. Don't trade all your closer candidates. You must keep at least one who CAN CLOSE.

I wish I had bosses like you guys. You guys give Hahn the benefit of the doubt cause on paper it was a good trade. Like Dick said SO WAS LOU BROCK FOR ERNIE BROGLIO.

Hahn on this issue in my mind gets a big, fat grade of D. You know if we had a killer bullpen this season, the Sox might be right there with the Royals.

 

Now what did I do with my shocked face...

[Dick Allen]

The Nick Swisher trades were bad. The reasoning solid the trades turrible.

[Balta1701]

The Nick Swisher trades were bad. The reasoning solid the trades turrible.

But when I gave you the opportunity to say how close to a "fireable offense" this became for the GM, you defended the GMs for making bad trades saying that if every GM were fired for a bad trade it would be an extremely high turnover job.

 

Who are you criticizing? You won't criticize the managers or guys in the organization for poor play on the field, you won't criticize the GM for putting crappy talent on the field 2 years in a row and making trades that you want to harp about their terrible-ness.

 

So what should happen as a consequence if Davidson blows up but the reasoning is solid? If we do the same thing 3 more times and they all blow up is that fireable? Based on this statement, no.

[Dick Allen]

But when I gave you the opportunity to say how close to a "fireable offense" this became for the GM, you defended the GMs for making bad trades saying that if every GM were fired for a bad trade it would be an extremely high turnover job.

 

Who are you criticizing? You won't criticize the managers or guys in the organization for poor play on the field, you won't criticize the GM for putting crappy talent on the field 2 years in a row and making trades that you want to harp about their terrible-ness.

 

So what should happen as a consequence if Davidson blows up but the reasoning is solid? If we do the same thing 3 more times and they all blow up is that fireable? Based on this statement, no.

It is fireable when it becomes a pattern or when the talent level of the team doesn't improve even with expanded resources. I criticize the players all the time. I don't know where you get that I don't.

[Jerksticks]

But when I gave you the opportunity to say how close to a "fireable offense" this became for the GM, you defended the GMs for making bad trades saying that if every GM were fired for a bad trade it would be an extremely high turnover job.

 

Who are you criticizing? You won't criticize the managers or guys in the organization for poor play on the field, you won't criticize the GM for putting crappy talent on the field 2 years in a row and making trades that you want to harp about their terrible-ness.

 

So what should happen as a consequence if Davidson blows up but the reasoning is solid? If we do the same thing 3 more times and they all blow up is that fireable? Based on this statement, no.

 

Just too many unpredictable human factors to really necessitate blame. I think as long as a GM has a vision agreed to by a FO, then he should always get a pass as long as he holds to his guns. In our case it's like a 3-5 man round table at all times and I respect the brotherhood of our FO.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Now what did I do with my shocked face...

 

Found it.

 

Greg continues to forget Nate Jones even after claiming he knows.

[greg775]

Not without another good starting pitcher, a better defense and more offense from the corners 2b catcher and Dunn.

I'll give you the point on defense. It would have reared its ugly head eventually. You do remember when the Sox were a few games over .500 it was looking like the team had enough to contend except a bullpen and defense.

 

Found it.

 

Greg continues to forget Nate Jones even after claiming he knows.

I'm not a big Nate Jones fan. In fact, I can guarantee you he's just another guy.

[Balta1701]

It is fireable when it becomes a pattern or when the talent level of the team doesn't improve even with expanded resources. I criticize the players all the time. I don't know where you get that I don't.

Like the 2013 White Sox with a $120 million+ opening day payroll?

[oldsox]

Frankly, I doubt Davidson becomes a contributor. But maybe and I hope, not getting the couple extra wins the Sox might have had with Reed on the team gets them to draft a perennial all star maybe even in a later round instead of a guy who never makes it. Sometimes things work out in the end. Hawk as a GM got ripped for trading Bobby Bonilla after drafting him in the rule 5. Who knows, maybe Frank Thomas or Robin Ventura or Alex Fernandez are never White Sox if that doesn't happen. The Bulls lost a coin flip and got David Greenwood instead of Magic. If they had Magic, they never would have had Michael. I will take Michael.

Wasn't that coin flip fixed? Been a long time. I might have the coin flip fiasco confused with the Worthy fiasco with Cleveland.