Re: Reddick Taking The Gas Pipe In Sept. AGAIN!
posted at 10/1/2012 11:03 PM EDT
In response to J-BAY's comment:
I don't think anyone here is saying they'd rather have Bailey & Sweeney instead of Reddick based on what they have done this season alone. Judging only by 1 year.
In response to dgalehouse's comment:
Andrew Bailey looked sharp again tonight. Only gave up one run. ERA is now 6.00 . Reddick with another meaningless hit tonight. First inning single drove in Crisp. A's up 1-0.
gale, in fairness, Bailey's back from thumb surgery, this season and month. how about we wait until next season and see how he fairs?? I also think we need more than one season from Reddick before we call this trade.
What some seem to be arguing is that Reddick's HR total is not the only thing to look at when evaluating his overall offensive game.
The one thing I haven't heard the Reddick supporters argue is a major point missed, and that is this:
When we traded for Bailey and Sweeney we believed ourselves to be major contenders for a ring in 2013 and 2014. We basically traded 5 years of team control of Josh Reddick (2 pre-arb and 3 arb years) for 5 years of the two guys we got: Bailey (3 arb year)& Sweeney (2 years). Now that 2012 turned out to be a disaster, and 2013 looks to be a rebuilding year, the trade looks much worse from our side going forward. This could be somewhat rectified if one of these two things happen:
1) We do compete in 2013 and Bailey helps us get there.
2) We trade Sweeney and Bailey for players that help us in 2014 and beyond.
My guess is we trade Sweeney this winter for a prospect, so we basically have 2 years of Bailey with the new prospect compared to 4 more years of Reddick. In hindsight, the deal looks bad for the Sox on paper, but my major contention was that at the time of the trade we needed to upgrade our staff. Bailey had a solid record as a closer- no not Papelbon quality, but pretty darn good nonetheless.
Sure, most GMs are judged by hindsight, and injuries or sudden declines are supposed to be somehow devined and expected by savvy GMs. I get this part of the judgement equation- it's part of all sports, however, if we are going to judge in hindsight, we must realize that all numbers and performances are not easily transferable. Had we not made the trade, Bailey might not have gotten hurt and had a great 2012 season, while Reddick wilted in the Boston spotlight during a horrible team season while playing in a park not really well-suited for his game. Yes, I know Oakland is not considered a hitter's park, but Josh actually has a 68 point better OPS in Oakland than on the road this year. In 200 PAs at Fenway, Josh has 4 HRs, while in 321 PAs in Oakland, he has 17. There is just no way anyone can know for certainty that Josh would have had a comparable season had he stayed in Boston. You just can't assume he would have, in fact, I think we could have been justified to assume worse numbers here.
My guess is that if we had publically turned down this trade, and Josh hit .225 with 15 HRs and 55 RBIs with Boston this year, and Baliey had a nice year as closer for the A's, some of these Reddick supporters would be bashing Ben for not making the trade.