posted on Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:11 PM by Jim

Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

By my estimation, there's only one real justification has in trading Nick Swisher to the Yankees for two underwhelming minor-league arms and a Juan Uribe who, to my knowledge, has no self-promoting chant:

It's better to deal a guy a year too early than a year too late.

Since he's making only $5.3 million in 2009, there wasn't much of a risk keeping him around for the season ahead, even if he never returned to his prior greatness.  But if he had a similar year -- especially if it resembled his second half more than his first -- his price over the last two years becomes that much harder to swallow.  $16 million worth of the worst qualifying batting average in the league is pretty hard to move, I imagine.

And as much as bad luck struck him down in the first half, it's hard to classify him as anything but genuinely lousy in the second half of the season.  Not only did he hit .191/.298/.427, but his strikeout rate (28 percent) was double his line drive rate (14 percent).

He looked genuinely out of sorts -- especially on the road, where he hit .198/.301/.294.  He hit 19 of his 24 homers at U.S. Cellular Field.  And it's not a Jose Valentin situation where his overall line suffers because he could no longer hit from one side of the plate, so there aren't any easy answers aside from intangibles.

Kenny Williams has to be banking on Swisher never righting himself, doesn't he?  I've run this trade against his other moves that appeared to be largely lopsided at first, and I'm not getting it, otherwise.

Freddy Garcia-Gavin Floyd:  Like Floyd, Jeff Marquez is a former first-round pick.  Unlike Floyd, Marquez was not selected in the top five.  Nope, he was the 41st pick in the draft, so considering him a high-profile arm on draft slot alone is like doing the same for Lance Broadway (15th overall).

He throws harder than Broadway -- the scouting reports I've seen say 89-94 m.p.h. -- but to say he doesn't miss bats would be an understatement.  Compare their strikeout rates in Triple-A as 23-year-olds:
  • Broadway: 108 Ks in 155 innings
  • Marquez:  33 Ks in 80 innings.
That's incredibly low; almost impossibly low for somebody who throws as hard as Marquez.  Apparently he has no secondary pitch.

Williams compared Marquez to Jon Garland, but Garland had a much higher strikeout rate as a 20-year-old in Charlotte than Marquez did three years later.  Any comparison here is a stretch.  Based on what I've read, I'd peg Marquez as a Clayton Richard-type who throws with the wrong hand.

Garland also had the benefit of pitching with a defense that included Joe Crede and Juan Uribe in their primes.  Wilson Betemit scores nearly as bad as Josh Fields, Alexei Ramirez had range issues as a second baseman, and Chris Getz doesn't cover an exceptional amount of ground if he ends up replacing Ramirez, either.

Baseball America's John Manuel said part of Marquez's struggles were due to a poor defense behind him:

I wouldn't say it's normal development; he's a sinker-slider guy, and he's affected by poor defense behind him, but he did not make the development steps that he started to make last year with his curveball and changeup. I was higher on him than most last year and he didn't quite make me look good this year, did he?

Well.

At any rate, Floyd disappointed in his first go-around with the Sox, but the move was still considered a success in 2007 because Garcia's arm fell off early in the season.  If Swisher continues to head down the Brad Wilkerson Memorial Highway, then we have something here.

Carlos Lee-Scott Podsednik:  Dealing Lee was a fairly unpopular move until fans saw what Williams did with the money from clearing Lee's salary, picking up some combination of Tadahito Iguchi, A.J. Pierzynski, Orlando Hernandez and/or Dustin Hermanson.

But if this move was all about freeing up cash, trading Jermaine Dye -- who is set to make about $6 million more than Swisher this year -- would've been the far more logical choice.  And Dye, coming off a much better year, might have netted a similar haul.

Brandon McCarthy-John Danks:
  There's no advantage in potential.  Marquez projects as a No. 4-5 starter if he's extremely lucky, and Betemit is Betemit.  Jhonny Nunez is a more of an unknown quantity than Kanekoa Teixeira, since Nunez just became a reliever last year, but they don't appear to be too different to swing anything at this point, so Swisher's ability to rebound seems to be the biggest shot at upside at this point.

Reading this quote about Marquez's potential did give me pause:

"We will get him with our plan of attack, as well as picking up [pitching coach Don] Cooper's acumen on peripheral things we found," Williams said. "It will help raise that ground-ball ratio and strikeout ratio."

Because it reminded me of similar sentiment upon the acquisition of one Matt Thornton:

When the pitching coach tells you 'I want this guy,' and 'Don't worry about his ability to throw strikes,' and my scouts want the guy as well, I'm going to do everything I can to get him."

But that only goes so far, too, because:
  1. Thornton was a lefty.
  2. Thornton could reach the high-90s with his fastball.
  3. Thornton was used in relief, and most importantly...
  4. Thornton only cost Joe Borchard.
Thornton-Borchard was pretty much an even trade on its face -- two high-upside first-round picks with humongous strengths and weaknesses, and neither finding any success in the big leagues.

This one?  Not quite.

I get that Williams sold Swisher at his lowest possible value.  But at the same time, Williams is acquiring Marquez and Betemit on their downswings as well.  Marquez had a poor season at Scranton/Wilkes-Barre (12 homers in 80 innings at a pitcher-friendly park), and Betemit is a half-priced Juan Uribe (he comes with only half the glove).

Somehow, a bad year for a former fringe All-Star is equivalent to bad years by a fringe prospect and an unremarkable utility infielder, and that's a big part of the reason why it seems like an awful deal on its face.

More reaction:

Here's the other part -- in order for this trade to truly make sense, Swisher's going to have to fail.

Swisher wasn't brought in last year to be an over-the-top piece -- he was presented as a long-term fixture with his affordable five-year contract.  He might start out as a make-believe center fielder, but eventually he'd shift to a corner spot when Jermaine Dye left, and then possibly first base when Jim Thome headed out of town.  With the ability to at least fake three positions, he seemed like a perfect transition piece.

The Sox's official Web site tries to frame the trade as a solution to the problem -- the secondary headline is "Sox ease glut, send Swisher to Yanks."  But if they were concerned about freeing up the jam at the corner outfield/first base position, trading Swisher creates a new set of problems.  Now they lack an immediate and affordable replacement for Dye or Thome next year, and there aren't any obvious solutions in the system.

If Swisher resembles the guy he was in Oakland next season in the Bronx, then the Sox automatically are in a gigantic hole, losing out on the excellent eye and good power he was supposed to provide for a few years while the Sox cycle younger.  So the only way to truly recoup is value is to hope he never rediscovers his bat. 

That doesn't make a trade particularly fun.  Compare it to the trade that brought him to Chicago -- sure, he cost a hefty price in Fautino De Los Santos, Gio Gonalez and Ryan Sweeney (a package superior to Marquez, Betemit and Nunez, to pour salt in the wound), but if Swisher produced, the rest didn't really matter.  No matter how much you may like Marquez, that's not the case this time.

I'm leery of emptying both barrels on any Williams trade because he has the habit of making a lot of people look foolish with their first reactions.  But after going through the mental gymnastics, unless you can find anything else, it seems like the Sox are counting on Swisher's best baseball being behind him.  Even if he was in Ozzie Guillen's doghouse in September, this seems like too drastic of a move otherwise.

*************************

Arizona Fall League roundup:
  • Peoria Javelinas 9, Peoria Saguaros 6
    • Gordon Beckham went 2-for-5 and hit a solo homer, his third.
    • Cole Armstrong singled and struck out in four at-bats.  He picked off a runner at third.
    • Jordan Danks hit a sac fly in his only plate appearance.
    • Lucas Harrell allowed two runs on three hits over three innings, including a solo homer.
    • Carlos Torres allowed a run over two-thirds of an inning.

Comments

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:50 PM by astralpanda
This is Bill Bevasi bad. I don't know what the hell Kenny is thinking. Think this is the end of Toby Hall too? As those two were the biggest clowns in the clubhouse and maybe Kenny is looking for a "win-first" mentality.

Either way this has to hurt team morale.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 2:23 AM by Jim Margalus
Actually, this move might've been an attempt to improve it if you believe the Sun-Times' report, among others. (Click name for link)

But even if Swisher were a problem, it's interesting that they wouldn't try to work past it. Not exactly real strong management to trade a dollar for 50 cents when he already says he's short on dollars.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 2:32 AM by Jim Margalus
And that also makes a good chunk of what I wrote moot. I'm not sure which frustrates me more.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 7:26 AM by Dr. Lingerie
Clearly you missed this quote:

"People can't look at a deal like this in a vacuum. What this does is gives us a couple arms with little or no value to our club and frees up both the cap space and locker space for us to go after our REAL offseason trade target, Derek Lowe."

--White Sox Asst. GM Jason from the Trib

I couldn't shake the thought that maybe this was some kind of coup to nab Betemit (former top-10 prospect in all of MLB per BA), and the thing that struck me throughout his entire career is his walk rate:

1997: 7.3%
1998: 10.7%
1999: 9.3%
2000: 10.3%
2001: 7.0%
2002: 9.5%
2003: 7.3%
2004: 8.9%
2005: 7.9%
2006: 8.6%
2007: 13.4%
2008: 3.0%

'08 looks like the outlier here, especially against a decade-plus of a pretty consistent rate between 7% and 9% of his PA's. Not to say he's Ted Williams, but he's no Uribe in that regard. The last time he played regularly he posted a .231/.359/.474 line in just shy of 200 PA's with the Dodgers.

That's all I can do. Not exactly a silver lining.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 9:38 AM by Dr. Lingerie
There's this, too, courtesy of Gonzo:

"Betemit hasn't lived up to his billing since becoming a prospect in Atlanta's organization at 16, but Williams believes he could blossom thanks to his adjustment to prescription goggles."

Fill in your own obligatory Rainier Wolfcastle commentary.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 AM by knoxfire30
So the sox have tried to justify this move with Betemit is gonna learn to see better, and Marquez wasnt healthy when getting hammered in triple A last year. As oppose to Swisher having a horrible balls in play average, a pretty bad average to line drive rate, and the fact he was working counts and hitting balls out of the park at his career normal rates.

This trade is absolutely baffling, its not like we freed up 15 mil for 08, Swisher was set to make 5.3 and even with a couple raises the next two years, the total package of swisher of 22 mil for 3 years is anything but awful.

If Swisher devotes himself a little more to baseball and a little less to the bottle, he is going to have a big bounce back year and the sox will again be looking for OBP, versatility, fire, and left handed pop.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 12:08 PM by soxfan1
I am also somewhat baffled by the trade. Swisher had a very poor year but when you look at what cost us a year ago maybe he should have been given one more year in a Sox uniform. Now it looks like both Dye & Konerko will stay put which is pretty much what most of us expected. Maybe Betemit will beat out Uribe for the utility infield spot or 3rd base. If not we are left with Marquez in the bullpen.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 12:32 PM by Jim Margalus
Uribe and Hall are gone.

Betemit's struggled for a year and a half in the American League. Goggles or not (and I'd be more excited if it were Lasik, e.g. Denard Span), I'm thinking he's more of a Edgar Renteria type where the AL is poison.

"Fill in your own obligatory Rainier Wolfcastle commentary."

If you were Gordon Beckham, you would explain the Simpsons to me before dropping that reference. Click my name for his last blog entry. He absolutely cannot trust his audience to stay with him.

And I may have to incorporate that into my style.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 12:54 PM by Salty Dog
I'll take the bait:

Director: Up and atom!
McBain: Up and at them.
Director: Up and ATOM!
McBain: Up and atdem!
Director: UP AND ATOM!
McBain: UP AND ATEM!
Director: .. Better.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 1:32 PM by Dr. Lingerie
Reading Beckham's blog is like taking Comm 101 at VH-1 State University.

For those of you who don't know, VH-1 is a cable channel that has a lot of pop culture-related programming, including movies, music, and television.

lol
LAUGHING TIME IS OVER


# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 1:58 PM by Fundman
Two quick thoughts - I think Jim is being too kind in his analysis. Swisher had a horrible year, and it's unreasonable to expect a lot for a guy who not only struggled all year, but faded down the stretch. Second, what does this say about Jordan Danks? I'd guess that the Sox seriously envision him making a huge jump.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 2:08 PM by knoxfire30
A HUGE jump for Danks, would be playing well at Double A, I hope you dont think he is even remotely an option for the big league club in 09 because he simply isnt.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 4:20 PM by Jim Margalus
Too kind to Kenny or Swisher?

"A HUGE jump for Danks, would be playing well at Double A, I hope you dont think he is even remotely an option for the big league club in 09 because he simply isnt."

I think it's more about '10, since then Dye's contract expires and the Sox potentially have two holes in the OF. Optimistically, Danks might be ready by the second half that year.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 5:34 PM by dudeman
I hate to say this, but since I am not a journalist and therefor have no obligation to back this up, here goes... I think Swish was on steroids as a youngster.
And beyond that, he seemed to lose his confidence, of all things, this year. Not that confidence is something you can't get back, but if you developed the confidence while on steroids, that's a different animal altogether.
And for those of you that will accuse me of slinging mud or being wildly speculative, I say: This is not my mess. I think ALL players of this era are fairly subject to scrutiny, if not for their use of steroids, then for their silence on the issue.
Also, while Swish's numbers in his better years are great for a center fielder, they really are not so great as a corner outfielder or first baseman.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 6:25 PM by knoxfire30
Everyone in sports is a suspect as far as Im concerned. My only defense on the dropoff for Swisher would be if you were a roids guy, why not be an HGH guy? They still struggle to test for HGH and its actually superior to steroids. Wouldnt make a lot of sense to me for him to be on one and not the other.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Friday, November 14, 2008 6:38 PM by Joist
Ugh.

I feel like Kenny Williams saw my comment earlier this year, when I was reflecting on the unexpected success of Danks, Ramirez, Floyd, and Quentin, that Kenny had earned my unquestioning gratitude and devotion, and that I wouldn't second-guess his moves even if they seemed indefensible. Now, between the Griffey trade, which was at least defensible in the sense that we didn't give up anything, and this Swisher deal, which, while I admire Jim's (and others') efforts, doesn't seem like a wise move.

Even if one buys that Swisher is on a horrible, irreversible decline, the fact is that Kenny raped the already-thin farm system LESS THAN A YEAR AGO to get him. Swish had a bad year, sure, but he wasn't the worst guy on the team. He still hit a few homers, drew a few walks, etc. How could his stock have possibly fallen so far, so fast?

ARRRGGHHHH. Okay, Kenny, this one will slide, but you make another move like this one and I'm rescinding my statement. I'm a man of my word, but my word only gets you so far.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:26 AM by Conor
"And for those of you that will accuse me of slinging mud or being wildly speculative, I say: This is not my mess."

Does that somehow make what you said NOT mud slinging or wild speculation?

Jason from the Trib has a sweetheart. Her name is Mary Kate from the Sun-Times. This was pulled from the comments under Cowley's article Jim linked.

"If Ken Williams was not so stupid for trading Jon Garland in the first place he would not be so weak in pitching . Who cares what he dose now , now that he has traded the best pitcher he will ever see away I do not care , I did not watch one White Sox game in 2008 and I will not watch any in 2009 Who cares they are going to stink again . 2005 was it for the White Sox !!!!!!!! We will never see another year like that not if KW is the GM!!!!!!"

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:37 AM by Fundman
Huge jump would be '10, not '09. Jim, you were being too kind to Swisher - Other than the homer you listed as, I believe, #4 or #5 this year, it's hard me to be point to anything he did that was worth much.

And let's all remember this - It's highly likely that 1) KW is not done and 2) we'll have plenty of chances to complain about that trade/s as well. Don't waste all your energy hating this one.........and then taking it back later.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:28 AM by chisoxt
ARRRGGHHHH. Okay, Kenny, this one will slide, but you make another move like this one and I'm rescinding my statement. I'm a man of my word, but my word only gets you so far.

Funny, but after review of Kenny's trades, one can conclude that he tends to struggle on deals where:
1. He acquires the older veteran player for the younger ones
2 He acquires anybody during the season

On the other hand, those deals where he does very well:
1. He gets a young guy for an older player, or one of our young guys
2 He signs the guy for cheap money off of the scrap heap

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:53 PM by Jim Margalus
I don't waste time pondering PEDs for a couple reasons. Even beyond a journalism standpoint, pitchers use(d) them too, so it's not like there's a constant to hold a variable against.

"Who cares what he dose now , now that he has traded the best pitcher he will ever see away I do not care"

So she's roughly 12 months into not caring. I see that's going well for her.

"And let's all remember this - It's highly likely that 1) KW is not done and 2) we'll have plenty of chances to complain about that trade/s as well. Don't waste all your energy hating this one.........and then taking it back later."

Well, unless Swisher completely flames out (Ben Grieve is another good name I heard; he watched pitches into oblivion), it looks like a bad trade on its face, regardless of what he does. By trading Dye:

1) He could've freed up more payroll.
2) He could've swung the roster younger.
3) He could've had cost certainty for another pricey position, whether first or right field.

If both Dye and Swisher have solid years, then Williams loses this trade. Maybe there's a chance Marquez contributes, but with the infield defense and his strikeout rate, I'm not buying it.

You're right that he hasn't lost the offseason by any means, because he could theoretically get a steal for Vazquez or Fields or somebody else and even the ledger. And I think I've considered enough scenarios to reduce my embarrassment if if Swisher tanks, Dye doesn't and Marquez actually sticks in the starting five.

# re: Attempting to rationalize the Swisher trade

Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:51 PM by The6thJackson
I feel like kw has a plan and i think he's a good g.m. i trust it. i just hate this trade because for the last two months i have been ready to celebrate trading (or dumping) jim thome and paul konerko, and now i feel like that is not gonna happen. I did not want them on the sox last year, and i do not want them on the sox this year or ever.

One thing about swish though, its cool to goof around and be care free and the class clown when your good, but if you suck like he did last year, cut that crap out! I think he wanted out cuz ozzie sat him on the bench at the end of the year. The stone poney was talking about that at the end of the year last year, and said he would be surprised to see swish coming back. i'll miss the dirty thirty, but it did drive me nuts watching him smile after going 0 for 4 and with two strikeouts.