Bad Trades

[klaiggeb]

It's really hard to evaluate trades when they are first made... but when looking in the rear view mirror, sometimes you have to ask yourself: "What in the HELL were they thinking?"

For instance;

Frank Duffy for Foster- NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE saw Foster's future coming. I remembering seeing him and saying, "So long! Get outta here!"

Man! Was I wrong.



Perry for McDowell-Everyone, it seemed, knew that Sudden Sam had a drinking problem. Everyone, it seems, but the Giant front office.

When he was dealt by Cleveland, Sam was at the pinnacle of his career. He was only 30 years old at the time the deal was made.

No one could have predicted what happened next, and I remember at the time, SF was DESPERATE for LH starters.


Nathan, and Liriano of Pierzinski

I put this one on Felipe Alou.

I really, really do.

This deal was stupid from the get-go and I remember the board being ENRAGED when it happened.

As I recall, only Mark was in favor of the deal saying something to the effect that, "when you have the chance to get an All Star catcher, you pull the trigger."



Correct me if I'm wrong, but Alou was TICKED at Nathan's performance in the post season the year before, and took the first chance he saw to aid Joe in his departure.

My question:

How come freakin' Minnesota could see he was more suited to the pen then starting, and the Giants couldn't?

That deal baffled me, and still does.


Orlando Cepeda for Ray Sadecki.

They had too many first base men, I get it.

And they ended up keeping the guy who, at the time, had more upside.


But my thing is that you never, EVER trade a proven HR/RBI bat, for an arm.

And even WORSE, Sadecki wasn't even a proven winner!

Starting in 1962, his ERAs were:

4.54
4.10
3.68
5.21
4.80

And THAT is whom you traded Cepeda for? Even at the time, everyone could see that wasn't a smart deal.

Now to be fair, in 1965 Cepeda has injured his knee sliding into 2B.

I understand moving him and keeping McCovey.


But ONLY getting a very mediocre starter in return?

That made no sense.


But I also remember that Cepeda and Perry were NOT popular with Giant management.



So... I guess here's how management works: because you're ticked at a guy... see Felipe and Joe Nathan, you move him.

Smart. Really smart.

Prior to our being saved by the group that kept us in SF... Giant management did NOT have a good history in SF. It did not.

Thank GOD we now do!

boly

[Rog]

Nathan, and Liriano of Pierzinski

I put this one on Felipe Alou.

I really, really do.

This deal was stupid from the get-go and I remember the board being ENRAGED when it happened.

As I recall, only Mark was in favor of the deal saying something to the effect that, "when you have the chance to get an All Star catcher, you pull the trigger."



Correct me if I'm wrong, but Alou was TICKED at Nathan's performance in the post season the year before, and took the first chance he saw to aid Joe in his departure.

My question:

How come freakin' Minnesota could see he was more suited to the pen then starting, and the Giants couldn't?


Rog -- Let's look at a few points here:

. It wasn't just Nathan and Liriano for Pierzynski, the somewhat forgettable Boof Bonser was dealt too.

. Hard to know if Alou was the "culprit." Certainly he wasn't the general manager, and usually the GM has the final say.

. The Giants were indeed disappointed in Nathan's performance in the 2003 postseason, but I don't think it was just Alou who felt that way.

. Nathan WAS a reliever at the time of the trade. He was the set up man. There was a period from June 21 through September 6 where he was virtually unhittable, yielding only four runs in what was nearly half a season. There was no good reason to believe he couldn't close.

. Liriano was likely considered the key piece in the deal. He was ranked the #6 overall prospect. He had endured arm problems, and the Giants felt he would continue to do so, which has indeed been the case.

. Alhough he didn't seem to meet the fans' lofty expectations, Pierzynski did hit a career high 77 RBI's in his sole season with the Giants.

. A.J. went on to a reasonably successful career. This is his 19th season, and he has over 2000 career hits. What made the trade even worse is that the Giants essentially released him after that one season. There were other reasons involved, but A.J. went on to become a postseason hero, hitting .292/.867 in October.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3476/bad-trades#ixzz4JPbcfHp0

[Rog]

But ONLY getting a very mediocre starter in return?


Rog -- The Giants thought he was better than mediocre -- and in his first two full seasons with them, they were right.

In 1967 he went 12-6 with a 2.78 ERA. The Giants' four starters that season had sub-3.00 ERA's. Gaylord Perry led them with 2.61, Juan Marichal was at 2.76, and Mike McCormick was 2.85 and won the NL Cy Young Award. Known for their hitting and decried for their pitching, the Giants led the NL that season with a 2.98 ERA, but Willie Mays began to decline that summer and hit only .263. The Giants finished second to the Cardinals that season, with Cepeda being named the MVP.

In 1968 Ray posted a 2.91 ERA. He led the league with 18 losses, but pitched six shutouts. He pitched 253 innings, but the Giants gave him only 3.23 runs of support. The Giants had their SF-best 2.71 team ERA, but their hitting was limited by Hal Lanier's .206 and Ty Cline's .239. The Giants once again finished behind the Cards.

Clearly a bad trade. But few Giants fans remember that Sadecki posted sub-3.00 ERA's in his first two full seasons, and the Giants as a team posted the two best ERA's in their SF history.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3476/bad-trades#ixzz4JPfaeCzd

[klaiggeb]

I'm not questioning what he did as a Giant, Rog... but for Cepeda? After the poor seasons Sadecki had?

We should have gotten much more than that.

boly

[Rog]

I think there may have been concerns about Orlando's health. You'll recall that knee surgery was much more worrisome back then. (Think Gayle Sayers.) Orlando missed almost the entire 1965 season after his surgery, although he was playing well in 1966 at the time of the trade.

Remember too that those were the Horace Stoneham/Chub Feeney days, and I think there may have been a little too much alcohol involved.

[klaiggeb]

I mentioned in my original post he was coming off a knee injury.

But his track record showed what he could do.

Stoneham/Feeny.

Not days to remember fondly.

boly