Weird trade for both sides, I think. 

The White Sox are terrible and should probably be going the Oakland route rather than dealing away good prospects for older players.  After the Garland trade I thought they understood this, but I guess not.   On the other hand, Nick Swisher is only 27, and more importantly is locked up through 2011 at a relatively low cost.  I don't really see why Beane felt the need to deal him away so soon.  You would think Swisher would be a player Beane is building around. 

So the White Sox cut down their mediocre farm system even more, while the A's lose a very good player who is still 4 years away from free agency.  Strange deal, all around.

This is  a very interesting trade from the A's perspective.  Beane has decided that the A's cannot compete this year, it is not unknown for a team to come to that conclusion.  But what is unusual is to trade your top players at such a young age.  If Beane does want to rebuild what players are tradeable and have significant value? 

Yes: Nick Swisher; Danny Haren; Joe Blanton; Houston Street

Maybe: Eric Chavez; Bobby Crosby; Chad Gaudin (all due to injuries in 2007)

Not so much: Kurt Suzuki; Dan Johnson; Mark Ellis; Mark Kotsay; Shannon Stewart; Travis Buck; A's farm system

If Beane decided to build around the four players with value how would he do it?  The A's are not big players in free agency and the farm system is not one of the best so the A's might not have been able to build much.  What is unusual is trading players with several years of cheap salaries left.  However Beane is likely to trade Street and maybe Blanton and with the ten or twelve prospects he lands between the three or four trades, the A's are banking on being better in 2009 or 2010.

It will be interesting to see if the plan works in Oakland and if a similar plan works in Florida with the Marlins.

Didn't Beane say that defence is the new OBP? Swisher may be able to hit, but his outfield play leaves a lot to be desired. This move makes sense from the A's perspective of blowing it all up and rebuilding around a pitching/defence team, and it's not like he got nothing in return: Gio Gonzalez is supposed to be seriously hot stuff. What Kenny Williams is doing, on the other hand, is beyond me.

This is the type of move that makes it easy to be an A's fan from a distance but must make it extremely hard to follow them closely. They make a better second/third team than a primary one - losing Swisher and Haren must be heartbreaking. Objectively I do admire what they do and I root for them casually but I would not like to get too attached. Of course they make regular playoff appearances, which the Jays have not done since 1993 - maybe it's Jays fans who have it tough.

According to a poster on John Sickels' site the Jays top 10 prospects according to BA are:

1. Travis Snider
   
2. Brett Cecil
   
3. Kevin Ahrens
   
4. J.P. Arencibia
   
5. Ricky Romero
   
6. Justin Jackson
   
7. John Tolisano
   
8. Curtis Thigpen
   
9. David Purcey
   
10. Ryan Patterson

Am I right to assume Lind wasn't considered eligible?

Yep, you are. He spent a lot of time in the majors. He would rank second otherwise, perhaps third. Last year he was first, ahead of Snider, with an A-. High praise from Sickels!

No love for Robinson Diaz? Or is my perception that he's as good or better a prospect then Thigpen out of wack.

When the Marlins do this, it's "dumping" or "breaking up the team." When the A' do this, it's "re-building" or "the admirable thing for Beane to do."

Ah, well. It's not like Swisher and Haren were fun to watch or anything. Thank goodness we still have Blanton, Crosby, Chavez, and Harden around!

Blanton will likely be next to go - but probably right after Johan and perhaps Bedard.  I'm guessing Beane will try to hold on to Chavez and Harden and hope they get better value if they can stay healthy and perform for the first half of the season.

If the jays are still alive by the all star break, and Harden is healthy and having a reasonably good season, i suspect we may hear his name quite a bit.  However, if his numbers are too good during the first half, probably our prospects wont be enough to swing a deal.

I don't think Swisher was on the trading block, but the offer was just too good to pass.

The 21-year-old De Los Santos was ranked the top prospect in the Chicago farm system by Baseball Prospectus. The right-hander went 10-5 with a 2.65 ERA for Class-A Kannapolis and Class-A Winston Salem. He was picked as the South Atlantic League's top prospect.


Depending how Sweeney compares to Swisher in 2-3 years, this could be a huge steal.

Gio, based on his size, strikeouts, and lefthandedness, reminds me a lot of Scott Kazmir.  If that's what he turns into, then the trade is a win for the A's based on him alone.

De Los Santos had some frightening strikeout numbers down in A/A+, and seems to have a lethal fastball/slider combo.  He will need a quality 3rd pitch to start at AA and above (see Bonderman, Jeremy) but that combo will work fine as a closer or setup man (see: Chamberlain, Joba).

Sweeney the a wild card here.  Everyone has raved about his sweet swing over the years, but it has never translated into raw power.  Maybe they can turn him into John Olerud?  At worst, he's a decent 4th outfielder who can play CF in a pinch.

Like the Haren trade, it looks like Beane pulled the trigger early.  But maybe he figured that he was better off getting a big return while his trading chip still had value?  Look at what is happening with Johan Santana.  Even though he's the best lefthanded starter on the trading block, teams are not willing to mortgage the future for only 1 year of service.  If Beane was running the Twins, he probably would have unloaded Santana _before_ the 2007 season for a boatload of bluechip prospects.

Beane may also have also had some legitimate concerns about Swisher's tendency to party a little too much.   I'm sure he was expecting 40+ HR out of him last year, not 22.  Maybe he was afraid that if he hung on to him any longer, he would turn into a pumpkin?

I don't think this is so bad for the White Sox. If I remember correctly, TINSTAAPP.

Quentin, Swisher, Thome and Konerko can work the count and wear out pitchers. If they get better seasons from Dye, Pierzynski and Fields ... you never know.

Before this off-season, I was wondering whether the Jays should have done what the A's have done so far. Let's face it, the Jays are a long shot to make the playoffs, and with nothing in the farm system, it will make it difficult to sustain even their .500 benchmark in subsequent years with the potential losses of Burnett, Glaus, Eckstein, and Zaun after 2008. I wonder what the Jays would have been able to get if they put Halladay, Rios, Burnett, Glaus, Thomas, Overbay, etc, on the block? It would have been a short-term PR and on-field disaster, but is running on a .500 treadmill any more appealing?

I'm not a Beane jockrider like many others are, but I do agree with what he's doing here. The A's don't have a lot of talent on the MLB side or minor league side. Their core (Swisher, Haren, Blanton, Chavez, Kotsay, etc) was not going to win anything. So why not sell high with your flawed core, accumulate as many high upside assets as possible for them, and try to make a run in a few years?

I truly believe teams should be in one of two areas: rebuilding or competing. Being in the middle (i.e. Toronto Blue Jays) is meaningless.

I think the Jays see themselves as 'upper-middle' at the moment. ie: 85-90 wins is the base talent with potential for more. Health killed them last season yet we still saw over 80 wins. If they could shift to a 90-95 base then playoffs would be made regularly, but 85-90 would put them solidly in the playoff picture with a bit of luck (which they have lacked lately outside of 1 or 2 players a season, more than offset by bad luck with 2-4 it seems each year).

The A's are on a _very_ tight budget (sub-70 million I think) which makes life much more difficult. That the A's have done as well as they have is amazing (just like the Twins). The Jays can stay in the 80's forever with their budget (or potential budget), hoping for that 'lucky' year to come but the A's cannot, nor can the Twins or anyone who has a sub-median budget.

Also note: The A's have never had the attendance the Jays have had when both teams are playing at the same level (ie: when the Jays make the playoffs or are close ala the late 80's they are top 5 in attendance, the A's are lucky to be top half when in the playoffs every season). The Jays have a more variable audience than most - outside of the Leafs Toronto fans are very fickle - which makes it so they need to be 500 or better to get any attention or potential profit (outside of going the Marlin method).

Who do the Jays have right now that can get top young talent anyways? AJ & Glaus both have injury issues and potential contract headaches that most would avoid, or would get just 50 cents on the dollar. Eck/Zaun are one year deals for little and won't be worth anything in trade until mid-season and only then if they are having amazing years. Halladay has a lot of value but trading him would really be sending up the white flag. Rios they tried to trade for top talent. Thomas has no real value in trade due to age/contract, Overbay low due to last season, Wells due to contract, Ryan due to injuries/contract.

The only guys who would get anything like Beane has picked up are Rios, Halladay, maybe Hill & Accardo (both of which would be defeating the purpose given they are young and cheap).

Don't forget, we have a lot of good young pitching plus A+ defense (top defensive efficiency in the AL last season). That is a very good combo which, with just a bit of good luck on health and a career year or two from regulars, could easily push into the playoffs.

It's important to realize that prospects don't always work out.  The equation where you get great prospects/draft picks that blossom into superstars and ultimately  on-field success is sometimes flawed.  Just ask the Washington Capitals and the Rays.

Sometimes all you accomplished is blowing up your team.

I'm not sure I have faith in JP's ability to deal current assets for future strength.  Right now, I'm convinced that Oakland's previous success was a result of having uniquely talented guys like Hudson and Zito and not Beane's magic.  Well, Beane's not afraid to prove me wrong with these moves.  I agree with the poster that it must be hard to be an A's fan but as a casual observer, the A's make a great experiment  in talent development and turn over.

The way I see it is Beane sees his core as not good enough in another year or 2 anyway so he will trade the young guys despite the fact they are cheap in the hopes of getting 2 younger guys who are even cheaper.  As in the Haren trade he took quantity over quality.  One prospect can bust, but if 3 of the 6 players he gets make an impact for 3 years at the minimum and a few arbitration years as well that's better then just having Haren as your number #2 starter cheap.  He can't fill the gaps so he'll pave over completely. 

If he had the money he could sign free agents to compliment his incomplete young core, but he does not.  If he had the time to develop his own talent he could just try to draft smartly (as always) however if he goes that way his core will be older and more expensive then and he could be forced to trade them instead of willingly trading them.  By then they could have also declined due to age injury or simply weren't as good as he or others think they are now.    His parent club becomes worse for the present which will give them a lower draft pick which may help him take a higher upside player who might be ready by the time the new prospects have established themselves as the new young core.

I think John and Mylegacy's user names got switched up in the system or something?

Damn John -- you're down right jolly today

I can't say it often enough - a team that upgrades 11 positions (or in our case upgrades a few and has 4,000 guys coming back from injury) after winning 83 games IS a contender.

Let the good times roll! 

Right now, I'm convinced that Oakland's previous success was a result of having uniquely talented guys like Hudson and Zito and not Beane's magic.

Beane isn't brilliant from a pure assembly of talent standpoint. He's brilliant from a cost effective standpoint. He's also a hell of a planner. I don't think you can give a young Hudson and Zito to every GM and have him churn out the same kind of success that Billy Beane has on that budget. I'm no Oakland fan by any stretch, but give credit where credit is due.

With the Nick Swisher case in particular, the guy is 27. That's not old by any stretch but he's just now in his prime. And cheap. That means he's at maximum value right now and it seems that's what Beane has attempted to capitalize on.

Here's how it might play out: say Beane's plan is to contend again as early as 2010 (wow, is that really only two years away...where's my flying car?!?). Let's also suppose that Swisher will continue at his current level of production and make about $8MM in arbitration that year (or whatever number). If only one of these prospects is a major leaguer by then, and worth about 80% of Swisher's value, that gives Beane more than $7.5MM in payroll flexibility to make up the difference in production. Beane's sure to get that and better with that kind of money.

Admittedly, I'm pulling these suppositions out of the air, but I don't think that's an overly optimistic view of how it might go down. The prospects, after all, are 3 of Chicago's Top 5 and the potential upside is much rosier than what I've described above. This is about lining up Oakland's ducks as part of a cost effective plan and I understand its point.

I'm not really arguing your point because I agree with you.  However, I think this is the crux of the love/hate affair with Beane.  As a fan, should we care about the wins per dollar rate of the Oakland A's?  The A's haven't seen the success they once had since their big 3 pitchers left.  Why is this?  Well Crosby and Chavez have not been super human.

Beane works in a tight fiscal environment so I don't think he has that much choice in the matter but if I was an A's fan, I'd just see less wins and wait for next year (2 years later).  Tough  place to be.

I thinks it's obvious that  baseball teams should just draft and develop their own superstars, 1 per position would be enough to get things started. :)

Well the Jays were all set to trade Rios, a guy one year younger than Swisher with no contractual obligation for one young pitcher with less than a full season under his belt and one in which he wasn't completely healthy.  It's true these pitchers that Beane is getting have not proven anything at a major league level but he's getting a couple of them plus a young outfielder.

I think the object is always to build a critical mass of talent at the major league level.  If you're still in between then it's probably a good idea to continue to leverage your most marketable assets into multiple new ones until you get the overload of talent you need to make a run at it.  If the A's were in the National League things might be different.  But in response to the big five teams (New York, Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, Anaheim) the A's seem to have decided that they don't have the horses to compete and the minors are not going to supplement their current core fast enough.

Heh. Just looking at the Jays right now and going 'hmmm, not too bad'. Probably a bit optimistic for the new year. Give it a week or two :)

I truly believe teams should be in one of two areas: rebuilding or competing. Being in the middle (i.e. Toronto Blue Jays) is meaningless.

Not to the people selling tickets, advertising, and merchandise.

But beyond that: Is there really a need to unload players?

Are players becoming too expensive? Not unless there's a budget crunch coming. But the budget seems to be going up these days, rather than down.

Are players getting too old? Overbay, Glaus, Halladay, Burnett, Wells, Rios, Hill, Marcum, and McGowan are all 30 or under. There's some very young help in the form of Lind and Snider coming within the next year or so. Glaus, Burnett, Zaun, Eckstein, and Thomas could all come off the books in the next year or two, freeing up salary for a replacement or two.

Maybe most importantly: Will you get back as much talent as you give away? Sometimes.  Dan Haren was a return for dumping Mark Mulder's salary, so that worked out pretty well. But Beane didn't do so well when he sold off Tim Hudson - Juan Cruz was probably the best player coming back to Oakland, and he was pretty terrible with the A's.

How optimistic are you that you can replace a player the calibre of Roy Halladay? How many elite prospects become elite players, and how many just become good  or okay ones?

I'm not suggesting that all of Ricciardi's moves have been flawless, but I also don't think that the dichotomy of All or Nothing is very helpful, either.

So when is everyone going to start praising Jeff Loria and his crew in Florida?

What I'm hearing is 'if you're not going for the championship, sell off your parts for shiny cheap tools and rebuild towards being the greatest'.

If the Marlins reach a championship by 2010, will they become the model franchise of the new millenium? They win the World Series in 1997 and 2003 and gut their team afterwards each time for young players to help them the next time around.

Common sentiment I've heard is that the Marlins are a joke in their tightwad ways. Are they just smart baseball guys who know how important it is to maximize the value of proven players?

I'd say the owners are incredibly cheap, but they've hired some smart people to run the team.

Ultimately, you need to spend money if you want a team that's any good for more than a year or two. I mentioned this a couple weeks ago when everyone was raving about the Devil Rays being contenders - having a bunch of hot young players blossom isn't quite as exciting if it happens at the same time the team decides it doesn't want to pay Kazmir and Crawford.

I always felt that people flocked to battersbox and also to the blue jays/A's/twins because they were both "smart" teams with GMs that tried to be cutting edge.  That used to be OBP and now it seems to be defence, which for all we know on the internet, is still not measured well.

The teams may not win every year, but then our supported teams don't outspend everyone for the top players and contend.  This doesn't excuse teams from spending large amounts of cash onto bad players (ala the orioles in the past, not so much going forward...)

With this kind of premise, most of us can get behind Billy Beane.  Obviously there are some players out there, Jeremy Bonderman, comes to mind, who hates Beane (although I think this is entirely based on his chair throwing incident in a fictional book...), but when it comes to the fan on the internet, at least you know what he is doing - getting back talent and saving money at the same time.  Heck, people complain about the marlins and how they cut salary and dump players every 5 years or so, but they have had more success than our beloved Jays/A's/Twins combined this past decade!  More power to the A's for figuring out the rules of the game for their team.  I agree with the other readers that correctly analyse that the Jays are in a slightly richer market and therefore should keep plugging away until it is entirely hopeless!

Here's how it might play out: say Beane's plan is to contend again as early as 2010 (wow, is that really only two years away...where's my flying car?!?). Let's also suppose that Swisher will continue at his current level of production and make about $8MM in arbitration that year (or whatever number). If only one of these prospects is a major leaguer by then, and worth about 80% of Swisher's value, that gives Beane more than $7.5MM in payroll flexibility to make up the difference in production. Beane's sure to get that and better with that kind of money.

Swisher is actually signed long term for the next four years (with a 5th option year):

2008: 3.5 MM
2009: 5.3 MM
2010: 6.75 MM
2011: 9 MM
2012: 10.25 MM club option (1 MM buyout)

Assuming Swish gets his partying under control and has some good years in his late 20's, that's an extremely cost effective player.   That arbitration computation you supposed was not too far off the mark, and if the A's have someone comparable in their lineup from that trade making 400 K in 2010, then they will feel good about the trade.

Haren was also signed to a very cost effective deal:

2008: 4.0 MM
2009: 5.5 MM
2010: 6.75 MM option (IP target guarantees this)

As others have pointed out, Haren and Swisher were the only star players on what was projected to be a pretty mediocre team.  Beane's attitude was why pay them nearly 12 MM per year over the next 3 years to make the A's an 80 win team instead of a 70 win team?

I can understand the rationale for making the move, but I think Beane could have gotten a similar payoff by waiting an additional year, and paying the pair of them a total of 7.5 MM in 2008 to give the fans something to watch next year.  Is that 7.5 MM going to go into player development and signing bonuses, or is ownership simply going to pocket the money?  I think that's why some Oakland fans are a bit angry about the trade.   

Both Mulder and Hudson were traded after 5 years of service, with 1 arb year left, and look what they brought in:

Mulder: Daric Barton, Dan Haren
Hudson: Dan Meyer, Juan Cruz

Are those hauls appreciably worse than what they got in the latest trades?

Haren: Gonzalez/Anderson/Cunningham/Carter
Swish: Gio/Fautino/Sweeney

There is certainly volume and quality in those deals, but neither deal nets them a pitcher or position player who is ready to step into the starting lineup next year (unlike that Mulder and Hudson trades).   Which adds a lot of risk to those deals.  Many prospects (especially pitchers) get injured or just plain don't develop.  The closer they are to the majors, the better your chances.

People are comparing the A's fire sale to your typical Marlins fire sale, but even they allowed themselves the luxury of having Miguel Cabrera on their roster for 4.5 glorious years before trading him away (along with Willis) for two very good prospects.

I'm usually a big fan of Beane's moves, but in this case, it seems like he jumped the gun a little bit.

December 27th on the "Replacement Level Yankees Weblog" "SG" did an article comparing teams offensive construction. His finding was that a 'League Average" team projected more wins than other combinations. It makes sense. If you're firing at least league average from all nine cylinders you'll run more smoothly and by not having any weak links (ie rally busters) you'll be able to keep rallies going. When you've got a pitcher on the hook you'll have a better chance of going for the kill.

This is why Eckstein makes sense. When you remove a black hole (ofensively) you greatly increase your chance of big innings. 

Are you sure it's not April yet? I'm getting awfully antsy. 

Josh Towers has signed with the Colorado Rockies.  Towers is guaranteed only $400,000, jumping to $1.8 million if he makes the opening day roster, with the chance to make additional money in incentives.  I am not sure what other offers Towers had, this one is obviously risky as the guaranteed money is low, Towers must feel confident he will make the team. 

The Rockies rotation features Jeff Francis, Aaron Cook, Ubaldo Jiminez and Frankin Morales.  Morales is still young and could go back to the minors.  The last one or two spots will be a battle between Jason Hirsh and retreads Kip Wells, Mark Redman, Ramon Ortiz, John Koronka and Towers.  Towers will have to pitch well to earn a spot.

Swisher is actually signed long term for the next four years (with a 5th option year):

I'd completely missed that. Thanks.

Still, the point remains. When the trade is viewed as Swisher for 3 prospects plus whatever player $6.75MM will buy Beane in 2010, as opposed to just the prospects, it looks better. While there is risk associated with the prospects, the cost avoidance is guaranteed.

Oakland fans have every right to be pissed though. It's hard to remain a fan through times where a team basically says "we have no chance".

I'd completely missed that. Thanks.

Cot's MLB Contracts is a fantastic place to go for salary and contract information.

Still, the point remains. When the trade is viewed as Swisher for 3 prospects plus whatever player $6.75MM will buy Beane in 2010, as opposed to just the prospects, it looks better. While there is risk associated with the prospects, the cost avoidance is guaranteed.

Oakland fans have every right to be pissed though. It's hard to remain a fan through times where a team basically says "we have no chance".

I guess Beane's attitude is "Why wait until 2009, when we know we will have to rebuild anyways"?  By moving his hot commodities now, he removes the risk of them being hurt in 2008 and destroying their trade value.  I think part of the shock value of the trades it that it seems like only yesterday that Beane traded Mulder for Haren and he drafted Swisher out of college.

I had a second look at the Cunningham and Chris Carter's stats today.  Even though they don't have the same pedigree as Gonzalez and Brett Anderson, both of them put up outstanding numbers at a very young age.    Even Ryan Sweeney is a fairly decent prospect who could turn the corner and become a regular.  Getting 7 guys who project to be decent major league players, maybe even stars, out of two trades is a pretty good deal.  Even if half of them don't make it, the trade will probably still be a net positive.

I think it's a good time to be and Oakland fan.  The team is going to be stacked by the time 2010 rolls around, and it should be quite interesting seeing who they put on the field this year.  They may end up with a lot of "Ken Phelps All-Stars" out there.  They also might end up doing a lot better than people expect.

So...

How much can we get Rich Harden for then?

I dont think tearing the team down for prospects is the way to go.

Take Tampa for example. Despite having a boatload of young talent, more than any other franchise in the MLB, they still will not make the playoffs in the foreseeable future. In another division it is possible, but not in the AL East because the top 2 teams do not have cyclical down years unlike teams in other divisions.

I like where the Jays are at the moment , they have the talent and with a little bit of luck on theinjury front, can compete for playoffs.

The Andujar race has a new contender. Jays sign righty Shawn Camp to a minor-league deal.

Nice move. I've been a Camp fan for a while. He's a sinker pitcher who gets lots of ground balls and a good number of K's too but gets hit extraordinarily hard. He has a 2.55 career K/BB and a 56.4% groundball rate in 230.2 innings, but the BABIP gods really don't like him so his stats are kind of atrocious. He'll need some luck to crack the Jays' bullpen, but he's great for depth purposes. I'm surprised he cost nothing.

Todd Stottlemyre got a Hall of Fame vote!

Todd Stottlemyre got a Hall of Fame vote!

What's even more disturbing is that Travis Fryman got two.  I smell a conspiracy!