SWISHER TRADED TO WHITE SOX

External Since: Dec 21, 2007 Posts: 30

On Jan 10, 10:18 pm, thisplanetsux <thisplanet....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> No one is skirting any issue except you. He didn't ask why you post
> if you disagree with the trades, he asked why you post if you see no
> reason to even follow the team anymore, as you keep saying. See the
> the difference? I didn't think so.

And I said it is my right to post, despite his theory that you can
only post if you like what the A's do. This is an A's group and I've
voiced an opinion abuot the A's. Get it?

External Since: Dec 05, 2007 Posts: 49

On Jan 6, 5:16 pm, The Dave© <n....RemoveThis@no.com> wrote:
> Solnichka Frankenstein wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 6:44 pm, The Dave© <n....RemoveThis@no.com> wrote:
>
> > > For those of you complaining about the trade, does it matter that
> > > virtually every single outside observer, as well as White Sox fans,
> > > says that Beane absolutely fleeced the White Sox?
>
> > > According to Susan Slusser, Swisher was not available, but Williams
> > > was desparate and willing to overpay for him.
>
> > > Don't tell me none of you would sell your car if someone offered
> > > double what it was worth. Sometimes when a steal of a deal is
> > > staring you in the face, you'd be a fool to not take it.
>
> > I see that angle, but prospects often don't pan out. I remember people
> > saying the same thing about the Hudson trade with Atlanta, and look
> > what happened to Meyer. Sure, maybe he makes the rotation this year
> > since Haren, Blanton and Gaudin, et al, won't be in it, but ...
>
> > I prefer proven talent to speculative talent.
>
> Way to cherry-pick. Your point is specious. No GM can have a 100%
> success rate. You conveniently left out the Mulder trade, to give just
> one counter example.

No, I didn't conveniently leave out anything. I just don't think this
is a slam dunk trade for the A's, or a "steal of a deal" to use the
phrase I was responding to in my post. I am under no obligation to
list every success and failure in the trade column when I merely point
out I prefer proven talent to speculative talent. Your knee-jerk
reaction was a little over-the-top and Shooty-like.

Only time will tell if this trade is "a steal" or not ... right now,
I'm not liking it, nor do I think it's a "steal of a deal" for the
A's. I think it sucks on the surface, and while I trust Beane's
instincts more than someone like yours, I also think this deal is a
"steal" for the White Sox considering what they're trying to do in
2008. The A's? They already quit on 2008. This is about 2009 and
beyond for the A's, and as I said, only time will tell, so rushing to
judgment now is not prudent.

> If you prefer "proven talent", then you'd be better served as a Giants
> fan. Lots of "proven major league veterans" over there.

Irrelevant and "specious", to use your poor choice of adjective.