Sabean's Worst Trade

by out machine on Jun 8, 2005 12:27 PM PDT Comment 20 comments

Without question, the Nathan, Boof Bonser and Francisco Liriano trade could be Brian Sabean's undoing. The Giants have nothing in their organization that came back in that trade. Mohr and Pierzynski left without even bringing the Giants a draft pick. Meanwhile, Minnesota has a closer, a 23 year old Bonser pitching well at AAA and a 21 year old AA left handed Liriano, also pitching well. Both prospects are putting up good strikeout ratios. If either of those two picks pan out and produce even a middle of the rotation starter, the glaring discrepancy in that trade alone may cost Sabean his job in another year or so, once the passage of time exposes how much prospect talent was sent. Add to that, the possible resurrection of Jerome Williams or development of Aardsma, and it will take some pretty miraculous moves to counter the loss of confidence of the fans, and possibly, the ownership.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No question

Yup, that's his worst trade. And I thought it wasn't all that bad at the time! Shows what I know.

by antinous on Jun 8, 2005 12:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Mohr

Wasn't Mohr acquired in a different deal? Either way, that was a pretty bad day, hindsight being 20-20.

by Skaldheim on Jun 8, 2005 1:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You're Right

Mohr was a different deal. Player to be named? I am not sure who that turned out to be.

by out machine on Jun 8, 2005 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

JT Thomas

by irwin on Jun 8, 2005 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bad Trades

My problem with Sabes isn't so much any one bad trade. That can happen to anybody. It's just that he seems to be making a habit out of it lately. The Hawkins trade is already starting to rival the AJ trade for worst in recent memory. That doesn't even count the Damian Moss acquisition which at least had Merkin as a possible redeeming feature, albeit one that has yet to see fruition.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jun 8, 2005 1:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Moss

It's hard to get much worse than sending away a 20-game winner for a pitcher who would be out of organized baseball a year later. Between Ortiz and Livan Sabes shipped out 75 wins over the last 2+ seasons and got Jim Brower and half a year of Damian Moss in return. Ouch!

Still, I agree Nathan was the worst. Getting rid of a potential closer when it's your most pressing need is ... well, maybe it's time for Brian to dust off the old "I'm not an idiot" line. Unlike Nick, I remember the radio crew debating all season long whether Nathan would be moved into the rotation the next year or tried as a closer. It was definitely in the air.

by Roger on Jun 8, 2005 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Worst Trade Ever

I disagree that the AJ/Nathan, Bonser, Liriano trade is Sabean's worst ever. In hindsight it looks like a freakin' disaster but it was at least defensible at the time. Bonser had not been terribly effective (sorry Grant) and Liriano was plagued with arm problems. A lefty hitting catcher seemed like a pretty good deal. I was disappointed in the trade because I had followed Nathan for such a long period of time and the Giants were so patient with him but it was likely that his trade value would never be higher.

I feel like the recent Hawkins trade will be the worst ever. Hawkins is absolutely useless to us and shouldn't have cost us two young arms. Even if Williams and Aardsma burn out it seems as though the Giants have NO long term vision.

by slcgiant on Jun 8, 2005 2:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Aaron Gleeman described that trade

As the best in the entire history of the Twins. That alone made me stop reading his blog. AAAAGH!

by Salemicus on Jun 8, 2005 2:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Context

As someone old enough to remember the George Foster and Chris Speier trades, I think we need just a dose of context here. As boneheaded as the Ortiz deal was, it was driven - as so many of Sabeans' deals are - not by talent or the quest for it, but by budgets.
I'm here in DC and a Nats season ticket holder -and just watched Livan hurl 150 at the Marlins, and it was a remarkable thing, but every once in a while he does something that makes you realize why the Giants got fed up. The Nats don't have to be so picky.
You're all correct in that the AJP trade is the weirdest, perhaps most outrageous deal, but the "win now at any cost" mentality that the ballpark financing, the fan base and the age of Bonds imposes, has created a different set of criteria upon which Sabean must make his deals. And the operative word there is "must."
My guess is that were it not for the shadow of Bonds, Sabean would be pulling the strings in a different manner than he is. But then again, without Bonds and the winning, we'd still be collecting Croix de Candlesticks and booing a latter day Johnny LeMaster. So what do we do?

by esfads on Jun 8, 2005 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Ortiz and Livan

In retrospect, keeping Ortiz would have been a bargain. Even if you factor in payroll, it was still a bad trade.

It's true, Livan had worn out his welcome in SF and if looked like AFW was on the threshold of a 5-6 year run of glory. My question about Livan is, he never seemed to "listen" to Rags pleadings to throw inside. He goes to Montreal/Washington and, low and behold, starts to throw inside more. I'm not sure we have really scrutinized just how good or not so good a pitching coach Rags really is.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jun 8, 2005 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You may be right

I've come to wonder if Rags really is that good myself. I like the guy, which is why I've defended him a lot, but, when you adjust for Mays Field, it's our hitting that has brought home the eight consecutive first or second place finishes.

Another thing with Livan - since he went to the Expos, he's become much more consistent with his arm angle, so that every pitch looks the same until the release. If your angle doesn't tip your pitch, you give the hitter significantly less time to identify the pitch.

by antinous on Jun 8, 2005 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ortiz...

...was a straight salary dump because Sabean went over budget. Of course, he went over budget with Grissom and Neifi, so there's still some blood on his hands in that whole affair. But if a trade accomplished its primary goal (dumping salary, helping the team in the short run, etc.), it is at least partially defensible, even if it wasn't negotiated very well.

The trades that kill me are the ones that fail at their primary purpose. Forget Boof and Liriano, who haven't made the big leagues yet... the 2004 Giants would have been much more successful with Nathan than with A.J. And I can't help but think that the 2005 Giants' chances (as slim as they are) would be better off with Jerome than with LaTroy. Schmidt is helpless out there these days, Cain is struggling with his control, Foppert is fighting blisters, Fassero is a fossil, and Lowry/Hennessey/Rueter are getting tattooed. If the Giants needed to win one game this weekend, I would take my chances with a bloated depressed Williams over any of those guys.

The Nathan trade has a lot going for it, including the potential of Boof/Liriano and the fact that Sabean greatly underestimated both A.J.'s arbitration value and his trainer-kicking tendencies. I don't think it can be beat.

But the LaTroy trade came right after Hennessey's meltdown and right before it became clear that Schmidt was still not right. It was becoming obvious that the Giants a) needed all the starting pitching help they could get, b) could use the $4M that LaTroy will get next year when they'll probably have to overpay Tomko or other free agent starters, and c) were looking more like "sellers" than "buyers."

I actually am a LaTroy Hawkins fan, and I think he will contribute this year and next. But this trade is still a solid second in my book.

"Robb Nen is going to get you" - Benito Santiago to Chipper Jones, 10/7/02

by Pants Man on Jun 8, 2005 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey Esfads

I'm a DC-ite, too and can also remember those horrific early 70s trades. But in fairness, they knew that the Foster deal could come back to bite them, but they were afraid Speier's iffy back would go down the stretch in 71 and kill their playoff chances. And with Kingman already on the team, they figured they were full-up of surly, stone-gloved homerun hitters. The Bonds, Perry, and McCovey deals, however were absolute betrayals.

by Roger on Jun 8, 2005 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Sabean had been pretty amazing up till that deal. To toot my own horn, I had written up an article on the subject

http://ballparkanalysis.com/articles/020104.htm

Sabean simply didnt lose, except potentially the White Flag deal, and that was one in which the stadium concern was huge.

by Aadik on Jun 8, 2005 5:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Dola

To expound, somewhere in there, Sabean lost his ability to tell talent apart. That being said, look at the Ponson deal now - all 3 pitchers are out of baseball, or close to it (Hanamman was released, Ainsworth was considering Retiring, and I have no clue what happened to Moss).

by Aadik on Jun 8, 2005 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs