Shopping Swisher
My question to the McCoven:
Would you trade for Swisher and if so, what kind of trade?
2 months ago
uber
58 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I’d love to get him, but you have to think he’d cost an arm and a leg. Also, it seems unlikely that Sabean would become enamored with a guy who hit .249 last year.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Nov 19, 2009 10:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Nov 19, 2009 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I assume you mean
That Sabes would ignore the rest of the line:
29HRs (probably inflated at YSIII), 88RBIs,.371OBP,.498SLG, and 129OPS+
And that has been pretty consistent except for his year playing for CHW — maybe a little better.
by uber on Nov 19, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that is what I meant.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Nov 19, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thought there was a sarchasm to fall into here
but instead, only a sad lonely world in which Rowand is pencilled into the lineup everyday.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!
by natteringnabob on Nov 20, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While he's not a platoon player type
Most of his power is from the left side. I’ve wanted the Giants to get Swisher in the past, but frankly, I’m not sure he’d be the masher we want him to be. Walks though- that would be sweet!
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Nov 19, 2009 10:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t give up prospects for him, but it would be pretty good as a FA signing at a reasonable rate.
by nataku on Nov 19, 2009 11:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I said Rowand last year when there were rumblings that CHW was looking for a CF. Also Kenny Williams is a Rowand fan apparently
Now though there are rumblings that NYY is looking for a CF.
If Sabean could somehow do a Swisher Rowand trade, this off season would be a win for me.
Its funny because fuck the dodgers
by kvdp12 on Nov 19, 2009 12:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees have a lot of money, sure, but there’s no reason to think they’d want to spend it stupidly.
by fantastical on Nov 19, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Swisher for LF/RF?
Maybe, if the price is right.
for 1B? naw.
I’d love to have him and Johnson on our team as a decent OBP punch.
by Giant Voodoo on Nov 19, 2009 12:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Save the bullets for Dan Uggla
Jayson Stark reports both the Giants and Rangers pushed hard for Senor Uggla at the recent GM meetings
by wilriv21 on Nov 19, 2009 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I wish we’d tried to get Swisher last offseason
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Nov 19, 2009 3:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You know, Sabean has a great track record in "buy low" trades.
Snow, Brian Johnson, Galarraga, Schmidt, Winn. He really needs to do more of those, because he can’t “buy high” worth a shit.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Nov 19, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Carter
"Why not trade Bumgarner for some banger stud?" - sfgiants.com commenter or online porn ad? You be the judge!
Adopted Giant: the probably soon to be ditched but still awesome Fred Lewis
by jcb9 on Nov 19, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Shea Hillenbrand!
Wait…
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Nov 19, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was buying high.
Literally and figuratively.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Nov 19, 2009 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess if the ship was sinking, it wasn’t getting any higher.
(Seriously, everyone knew Toronto had to trade him. It’s like the definition of buying low)
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Nov 19, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but that's not what I meant.
Before the deal, Hillenbrand was having a career year at the plate.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Nov 19, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
5 players in a 13-year career seems to me like a pretty terrible track record.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
by Cookyman on Nov 20, 2009 2:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It might be a bad rate, but the more important question is what percentage of the time is he successful at these kinds of moves…?
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes
and paying little means there’s not as much cod liver oil to swallow (or big checks to write) when one of these projects fails and they need to be unloaded. Brain doesn’t seem to like to clean up the expensive messes (absent a Matt Morris-type brain fart by another GM)
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!
by natteringnabob on Nov 20, 2009 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes! For The Right Price.
But I am betting the Yankees will want more then it makes sense for the Giants to pay.
by giantsrainman on Nov 19, 2009 4:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tough to say.
The Yankees are weird sometimes. Actually, as much as we all poo-pooed the idea of Affeldt getting anything in trade, I could actually see the Yankees taking him (probably with a second tier prospect) for Swisher.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Nov 19, 2009 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Would Do This Trade But I Really Doubt That The Yankees Would
by giantsrainman on Nov 19, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said, the Yankees are weird.
They have less use for prospects than other teams, and they tend to focus inordinately on their holes (bullpen depth clearly being one of them). .
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Nov 19, 2009 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt the Yankees would ask for much in the way of prospects. As an organization, they don’t seem to be too dependent on their farm system. They’d be looking for someone that could make their team immediately better. So, Buster, Neal, and Bumgarner are most likely safe.
That said, we have exactly what they need. Even just Affeldt would be a pretty major hit to our bullpen, forcing us to rely pretty much exclusively on Runzler for lefty shutdowness. They’d probably also want starting pitching. Cain, no way in hell we should do that, but Sanchez?
by fantastical on Nov 19, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Affeldt And Sanchez For Swisher Would be Insanely Stupid Move For The Giants
Are you really suggesting this?
by giantsrainman on Nov 19, 2009 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know that I’d make that move, but insanely stupid? Really? Do you have any justification that not only is it a bad idea, but an “insanely” bad idea?
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 6:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sanchez Alone Would Be An Over Pay
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, you’re simply making statements without giving any reasoning behind the statement.
Do you have any justification
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nick Swisher Has Peaked
Jonathan Sanchez has not yet peaked and over the last two year’s Jonathan is the one with the higer WAR (4.9 vs 4.5). The next three years of Swisher will cost $26M while the next three years of Sanchez should cost at least $6M less. These really are no brainers and I am suprised you can not see that.
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
These really are no brainers and I am suprised you can not see that.
Where did I even say I disagreed with you? I just don’t like definitive statements of “fact”, when in fact they’re opinions. When you give an opinion, it generally needs to be accompanied by facts, reasoning and analysis, as you just did, but I had to ask a couple of times to get you to finally come out with it.
Now, I think it’s a reasonable assumption to think Sanchez will cost less than $20M over the next 3 years (they both have 3 years of team control), so I think you’d be safe even if you wanted to increase the $6M a bit.
We hope Jonathan Sanchez has not yet peaked. He might have. Either way in terms of trade value, teams know they’re getting a solid pitcher with the chance to be anywhere from a little better to a lot better than he’s currently shown. He just turned 27. I think it’s fair to call him a ~2.5 WAR player, right now.
Swisher is 29, so he’s likely at his peak, it’s true point. He may lose a little value over the next 3 years, he may stay the same (those are the two most likely scenarios, I think?). He also had a fluky bad year last year, your 2 year WAR window was blatant cherry picking. His K% and BB% stayed very in line with his career norms, and it honestly looks like a drop in BABIP was the only reason he hit so poorly. He’s usually around a 20 runs above average hitter. Maybe drop it down to 16 or so because while last year was fluky, it did happen, and does mean something bad. He’s also about a +5 corner OF. Miscast in CF, but an above average defensive corner OF. Overall I think it’s fair to say he’s a 3-3.5 WAR player overall, and I think that’s a pretty fair range for the next 3 years (-7.5 position, +5 fielding, +16 hitting, +20 replacement = 33.5). 3 years, 9 WAR as an expectation, maybe?
I think there’s a pretty reasonable case to make that those two are pretty similar in trade value right now. I doubt I’d trade Sanchez for Swisher, but again, I’m just not seeing how this produces such definitive statements. The idea, thrown out there as a suggestion without much thought, really doesn’t seem that outrageous or out there to me.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even Nick's Career Avrage Is Not 3 WAR
Expecting him to average in his next three years more WAR then his career average is cerry picking his best years while ignoring his worst years. What is reasonable in my view is to see these two players as likely equals in value but with Sanchez having the greater upside and the lower cost. This to me indeed makes it a no brainer that the Giants should not do this trade.
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He has 11.2 WAR over the last 4 years combined, with one fluky bad year. 3 of those 4 years he was over 3 WAR. In addition – I showed the the component math why he should be a 3-3.5 WAR player. I don’t parcticularly care that he was only a 2.2 WAR player 5 years ago in his first full season, nor do I care that he was 0 WAR in 71 PA’s the previous season. I think my components were extremely reasonable, including a downgrade on his hitting to take his poor season last year into account. In addition, he’s often been played out of position, which hurts his value. In the correct position (corner OF), he becomes more valuable. Just for the math behind that – I think it’s fair to call him a -10 CF and +5 corner OF, check out his career UZR stats at each position, I think you’ll more or less agree those are fair estimates. So he gets +15 runs moving to a corner. He only loses 10 runs in positional adjustment*, so that adds half a win to his value right there. I think it’s extremely fair to expect him to be a 3 WAR player, on average, over the next 3 seasons (I think his talent level is above that, as I’ve shown, but went with 3 on average to take into account the possibility of him getting a little worse as he ages). Also, probability of injury or a down year or whatever is not included, but again, this is to make it an apples to apples comparison since I didn’t include these for Sanchez, either, when I called him 2.5 WAR.
*I’ve never quite understood how they worked out CF being only +2.5, which is equal to 2nd or 3rd base. I think CF is a more important and demanding position than those two (and should have the 3rd highest positional adjustment after C and SS), and filled with better defensive players overall. That’s just my impression, though…
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your "Component Math" Is Just Seeking a Desired Result
Even 11.2 WAR over 4 years does not average more then 3 WAR. You have to project upside to project the next three years to average above 3 WAR. There is much more reason to project this type of upside for Sanchez then there is for Swisher.
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Look, if you have disagreements with my components, you have to get more specific than that. For instance, over the last 4 years, Swisher has essentially averaged 15 batting runs per year, which includes his bad year and doesn’t discount it at all. Takes it at full value, not changing anything for a desired result. I went with 16, fine, we can knock off 1 run and we’re at 3.25 WAR talent level instead of 3.35. What quibbles do you have with this math? I just don’t see anything that even suggests I’m trying to alter it for a desired result. The only “upside” I’m projecting is making sure he’s playing his most valuable defensive position, instead of being miscast as a CF. I went through this in my last post. It’s like you either don’t read or don’t bother considering a person’s arguments sometimes before you respond with a general statement that doesn’t include any specifics to argue your point…
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No I Don't
The fact is that it does not matter if we average the last 5, 4, 3, or 2 years of Swisher. None of these averages get above 3 WAR. Your “component math” is all about trying to ignore these obvious facts.
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
…what about Swisher not playing CF for us do you not understand? Seriously, I’ve made this point in my last three posts, and you just completely and utterly ignore it. I really think you read the first setence of a post and nothing else.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because It Is Not Relevent
Just like tossing his 2008 season is not relevent. In both cases you are ignoring some of his worst performances to come up with the new improved performance level you want. If you have an arguement with positional adjustments take that up with Tango or MGL not me.
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve completely missed the argument. Entirely, 100%, missed it. My thing about positional adjustments was just a side note, I have my questions, but it really isn’t relevant to this conversation. The point is what he does in CF doesn’t matter if we don’t play him in CF. What matters is how good he is where we play him. It’s essentially like letting Sandoval play SS for a year and using that sample to project his value at 3B. All we care about is what he’ll do at 3B. With Swisher, we don’t care what he did in CF, all we care is what he’ll do where he’s playing, corner outfield. It’s not a difficult concept, I honestly don’t see how you possibly fail to grasp it, unless you are legitimately making an effort not to recognize this point because you know you’re wrong.
I’ll do the math again for you. He’s a +15 hitter. He’s a -7.5 positional adjustment player. He’s a +5 defender. Add in +20 for replacement level, and you’re at 32.5. These are not made up numbers, I’m not projecting anything, extrapolating anything, distorting anything, I’m simply using his averages over the last 4 years. It’s that simple. You have no argument against it. If you don’t have anything worthwhile and well thought out to say (which so far, you have not), just let it go. You are 100% wrong, not because you disagree with me, but because you refuse to give a well thought out argument. Right now, you’re basically the equivalent of a Cardinals fan whining about Wainwright’s W-L record. It’s not relevant, just like Swisher’s CF performance is not relevant.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 5:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But What He Did In CF Does Matter In Judgeing His True Talent
What he did in CF combined with positional adjustment says he isn’t as good a defender as you think. You are just droping this from your sample size to get to the conclusion you want to get to.
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a reasonable argument, I don’t know why it was so difficult to get out of you.
Ok, I went back and looked into it some more. Swisher is a -9.5 fielder in CF in ~1000 innings. That’s basically 1000 innings of 0 UZR/150 defense in a corner spot (difference between -7.5 and 2.5 = 10). He has 3500 innings of +6 defense at a corner spot. These are his career UZR numbers. Add these and weight them by innings, and you’re looking at a ~4.5 corner fielder. We’re still looking at a 3.2 WAR player.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Try
Now you are now ignoring his time at 1B and rounding up in all of your “component math”. Things are not that complicated. He has produced 13.5 WAR in 5 full seasons for an average of 2.7 WAR with a peak of 3.6 and a valley of 1. Over the next three years we should expect his average to at best remain the same with a good chance that it will decline some.
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now you’re just getting ridiculous. 1B requires a completely different skillset than OF. It should not be included in an estimation of OF defense.
As for your accusation that I’m rounding up, that’s BS, frankly. It’s entirely false. Doing the math using the exact numbers puts him at a 4.697 fielder, so I was actually rounding in your favor. Offensively, the average of his past 4 seasons is 15.2 – again, if anything, I was rounding in your favor.
What your WAR argument fails to realize is defense is an estimation, and it includes performance from places where his value wasn’t optimal. We would place him in a position that maximizes his value. My argument is not complicated, either, and it is much more correct than yours. You’ve simply decided beforehand what you think of Swisher, and refuse to listen to anything that contradicts that. You clearly have even thought about my argument with your one sentence attempts to poke holes in it, which have, so far, not been successful.
by Missing Barry on Nov 21, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Swisher would be very good
29 HR’s 20 Away from the Bandbox that is the new Yankee Stadium…But I wouldn’t sell the farm to get him
Grab Some Pine Meat!
by Gobroks on Nov 19, 2009 7:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
or Matsui
or Dye
or Klesko (he’s available)
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!
by natteringnabob on Nov 20, 2009 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depending on what it would take...
I would love to get swisher on the team. How’s his defense at first?
Rafael Rodriguez: #8 on our list, tearing up Scottsdale, and has been alive long enough to see the Warriors make the playoffs once.
by BrianBokake on Nov 19, 2009 10:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
More Like Slightly Below Average At -3.5 UZR/150 For His Career
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The variation at 1B seems to be much less than other positions.
-3.5 would indeed be merely below average at most positions, but it’s closer to the bottom at 1B.
Then again, IIRC, UZR makes no attempt to account for 1B receiving, so it’s more suspect than usual.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Nov 20, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Then What Does That Say About Ryan Garko's Career -4.6 UZR/150 At 1B?
That said, I think we can agree that trading for Swisher to play 1B would be a bad idea. The advantage of his career .353 wOBA over Garko’s career .347 wOBA like his equally slight career UZR/150 advantage at 1B just does not represent much of an upgrade.
by giantsrainman on Nov 20, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1B receiving is generally a small factor. Others have noted it does have general problems with 1B, though, decisions by the 1B to take a GB or let another fielder take it (assuming it’s an out either way) seems to have weird effects on it, and weird things like that that are unique to 1B.
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 5:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why put him at 1B when he’s a pretty decent corner OF, which is also something we need?
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 6:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, especially when there are better options for 1B than the OF in free agency.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Nov 20, 2009 7:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well we could play him at either. As long as we don’t think Garkokawa is going to be an adequate first base option.
Rafael Rodriguez: #8 on our list, tearing up Scottsdale, and has been alive long enough to see the Warriors make the playoffs once.
by BrianBokake on Nov 20, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it depends on who else we sign. As of now, I think Swisher would play corner OF, because Garkawa is a hell of a lot better than Velez or Schierholtz, who I assume would play OF if there was a spot open. Now, if you start talking about about Lewis and Bowker in the corner spots, that does change things a little. One problem I see is Swisher at 1B really isn’t that much better than Garkawa…
by Missing Barry on Nov 20, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
