• Bobby Richardson

    Posted by on August 18th, 2013 · Comments (71)

    Have you ever looked at his stats?

    For a guy who couldn’t hit a lick, and that’s being kind, he was always mentioned in the MVP voting, no?

    Year Age Tm G PA R 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+ Awards
    1959 23 NYY 134 507 53 18 6 2 33 5 26 20 .301 .335 .377 99 AS,MVP-18
    1960 24 NYY 150 507 45 12 3 1 26 6 35 19 .252 .303 .298 67
    1961 25 NYY 162 704 80 17 5 3 49 9 30 23 .261 .295 .316 67 MVP-24,GG
    1962 26 NYY 161 754 99 38 5 8 59 11 37 24 .302 .337 .406 101 AS,MVP-2,GG
    1963 27 NYY 151 668 72 20 6 3 48 15 25 22 .265 .294 .330 76 AS,MVP-10,GG
    1964 28 NYY 159 728 90 25 4 4 50 11 28 36 .267 .294 .333 73 AS,MVP-17,GG
    1965 29 NYY 160 713 76 28 2 6 47 7 37 39 .247 .287 .322 74 AS,MVP-20,GG
    1966 30 NYY 149 648 71 21 3 7 42 6 25 28 .251 .280 .330 79 AS
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
    Generated 8/18/2013.

    .

    Comments on Bobby Richardson

    1. Sweet Lou
      August 18th, 2013 | 11:46 pm

      243 career strikeouts; that’s a season for Granderson…

    2. Evan3457
      August 19th, 2013 | 12:46 am

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      243 career strikeouts; that’s a season for Granderson…

      34 career HRs…that’s also a season.

    3. Sweet Lou
      August 19th, 2013 | 10:17 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      34 career HRs…that’s also a season.

      Eight All-Star appearances; that’s almost three careers for Granderson; and Granderson’s had the advantage of a hitting coach like Kevin Long.

      How many top prospects did George Weiss give up for Richardson? 0?

      Who did Detroit acquire in that trade? An 18-1 starting pitcher (as of Aug. 21)? And as if an 18-1 SP wasn’t enough, one of the top five starting center fielders in the A.L. And as if an 18-1 SP and one of the top five starting CFs in the A.L. were not enough, a very capable left-handed middle reliever.

      Great trade…

    4. Mr. October
      August 19th, 2013 | 2:07 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      34 career HRs…that’s also a season.

      Richardson was a second baseman; Mantle was in center field compiling 536 career home runs at the time…

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Who did Detroit acquire in that trade? An 18-1 starting pitcher (as of Aug. 21)? And as if an 18-1 SP wasn’t enough, one of the top five starting center fielders in the A.L. And as if an 18-1 SP and one of the top five starting CFs in the A.L. were not enough, a very capable left-handed middle reliever.

      Scherzer in the Yankees’ starting rotation and Jackson in centerfield behind him, with Kennedy having been packaged with another player(s) and sent directly to Arizona in 2009 – what a difference a G.M. makes…

    5. Evan3457
      August 19th, 2013 | 2:28 pm

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      34 career HRs…that’s also a season.
      Eight All-Star appearances; that’s almost three careers for Granderson; and Granderson’s had the advantage of a hitting coach like Kevin Long.
      How many top prospects did George Weiss give up for Richardson? 0?
      Who did Detroit acquire in that trade? An 18-1 starting pitcher (as of Aug. 21)? And as if an 18-1 SP wasn’t enough, one of the top five starting center fielders in the A.L. And as if an 18-1 SP and one of the top five starting CFs in the A.L. were not enough, a very capable left-handed middle reliever.
      Great trade…

      The eight All-Star selections is testimony to the scarcity of good secondbasemen in the AL at that time, and to the fact that the Yanks were winning the pennant every year of his career. Nellie Fox was in the AL until 1963. After that, the other second baseman with Richardson on the AL All-Star teams were, in order, Jerry Lumpe, Felix Mantilla and Bobby Knopp. None of them were anything remotely close to great players, or even very good ones, except, perhaps in the season they were selected.

      It is interesting to note that Granderson’s terrible season last year, in which, as is frequently noted, he hit .232 and struck out 195 times, and which was in fact the least valuable season of his career as a full-timer, was more valuable, according to Bwar, than any season of Richardson’s career except for the peak season Richardson had in 1962. Richardson’s best year beat Curtis’ worst year, 3.3 WAR to 3.0 WAR.

      Yanks didn’t trade Scherzer to the Tigers, that was the D’backs.

    6. August 19th, 2013 | 3:06 pm

      Richardson was a player, the sum of which was greater than the parts. He finished number 2 in voting for MVP in 62, and had one other top ten MVP finish. He had two blowout World Series in 60 and 64. Last year Steve listed the top 50 Yankee WAR players, Richardson finished around 34 (I think), and Ron Blomberg finished around 25. I only caught the last year of Richardson’s career, but I was around to see all of Blomberg’s, I can tell you, Blomberg was the most disappointing player I ever saw. In the case of Richardson, WAR obviously does not tell the whole story.

    7. Evan3457
      August 19th, 2013 | 5:00 pm

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      Richardson was a player, the sum of which was greater than the parts. He finished number 2 in voting for MVP in 62, and had one other top ten MVP finish. He had two blowout World Series in 60 and 64. Last year Steve listed the top 50 Yankee WAR players, Richardson finished around 34 (I think), and Ron Blomberg finished around 25. I only caught the last year of Richardson’s career, but I was around to see all of Blomberg’s, I can tell you, Blomberg was the most disappointing player I ever saw. In the case of Richardson, WAR obviously does not tell the whole story.

      I agree, Richardson was likely a better player than his numbers show. He certainly has a tremendous defensive record, as well as a reputation. His post-season record was outstanding more times than it wasn’t.

      But during the regular season, his offensive numbers show him to be a negative offensive player every year of his career, except for 1962. Let me put it this way…

      In 1961, playing in 162 games, starting in 159 of them, and piling up 704 PA, batting leadoff most of the time (100 games) for a time that hit a then record 240 HR, with Maris and Mantle coming up #3 and #4 and hitting 115 of them, Richardson scored a total of 80 runs. Think about that one for a while.

    8. Mr. October
      August 19th, 2013 | 5:27 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Yanks didn’t trade Scherzer to the Tigers, that was the D’backs.

      The D’backs traded Scherzer and a pitcher for Ian Kennedy and Edwin Jackson.

      Unfortunately, Jack Curry apparently did not suggest Cashman structure a deal centered on the inclusion of Kennedy to acquire Scherzer from Arizona directly, and perhaps give Austin Jackson a chance in center field in 2010, or come up with a different solution for the outfield.

      As a result, the Detroit has the 18-1 starting pitcher, one of the top center fielders in the A.L. at age 26, etc., and N.Y. has had four years of Kurtis Granderson…

    9. Kamieniecki
      August 19th, 2013 | 6:08 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      [Robert Clinton Richardson's] post-season record was outstanding more times than it wasn’t.

      Much like Kurtis Granderson’s…

      Evan3457 wrote:

      In 1961, playing in 162 games… and piling up 704 PA… on a time that hit… 240 HR… Richardson scored a total of 80 runs. Think about that one for a while.

      In 1962, playing in 161 games… and piling up 754 PA… on a team that hit… 199 HR… Richardson scored a total of 99 runs.

      In 1963, playing in 151 games… and piling up 668 PA… on a team that hit… 188 HR… Richardson scored a total of 72 runs.

      In 1964, playing in 159 games… and piling up 728 PA… on a team that hit… 162 HR… Richardson scored a total of 90 runs.

      I’m missing the point.

    10. Evan3457
      August 19th, 2013 | 8:51 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Yanks didn’t trade Scherzer to the Tigers, that was the D’backs.
      The D’backs traded Scherzer and a pitcher for Ian Kennedy and Edwin Jackson.
      Unfortunately, Jack Curry apparently did not suggest Cashman structure a deal centered on the inclusion of Kennedy to acquire Scherzer from Arizona directly, and perhaps give Austin Jackson a chance in center field in 2010, or come up with a different solution for the outfield.
      As a result, the Detroit has the 18-1 starting pitcher, one of the top center fielders in the A.L. at age 26, etc., and N.Y. has had four years of Kurtis Granderson…

      The Yankees didn’t trade Scherzer to the Tigers; the D’backs did.

    11. Evan3457
      August 19th, 2013 | 9:18 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      [Robert Clinton Richardson's] post-season record was outstanding more times than it wasn’t.
      Much like Kurtis Granderson’s…
      Evan3457 wrote:
      In 1961, playing in 162 games… and piling up 704 PA… on a time that hit… 240 HR… Richardson scored a total of 80 runs. Think about that one for a while.
      In 1962, playing in 161 games… and piling up 754 PA… on a team that hit… 199 HR… Richardson scored a total of 99 runs.
      In 1963, playing in 151 games… and piling up 668 PA… on a team that hit… 188 HR… Richardson scored a total of 72 runs.
      In 1964, playing in 159 games… and piling up 728 PA… on a team that hit… 162 HR… Richardson scored a total of 90 runs.
      I’m missing the point.

      Yes, I know.

      I’ll explain: Richardson missed very little time with injuries in the years 1960-1964. He batted 1st or 2nd for just under 80% of his PA in those five seasons. The Yankees were either 1st or 2nd in the league in runs scored in all five of those seasons. Richardson led the team in runs scored only in 1962, his career year. It was the only time he finished in the top 5 in the AL in runs scored. In 1964, he was 10th. The other three seasons, he wasn’t in the top 25 in the AL in runs scored. He offensive job, most of the time, was to be a table setter; he wasn’t good at it. In fact, he was pretty poor at it.

      As Richardson had very little power, he was not a big RBI threat. He did fairly well for a guy with little power, but never finished above 45th in the league in RBI. So his offensive contribution was quite limited. With the exception of his career year in 1962, he was a poor offensive player. He did lead the league in batting outs used up in 1961, 1962, 1964, and 1965, and finished 2nd in 1963 and 5th in 1966, his last year,

      In Richardson’s 7 best seasons, his OBA is a miserable .302.

      He was an excellent defensive player, that much seems certain. But he was a quiet little drain on the Yankees offense most seasons, because his ability to hit for a respectable batting average masked the fact that he had no power, and never drew more than 37 BB in a season.

    12. Evan3457
      August 19th, 2013 | 9:22 pm

      As for Richardson’s post-season record…

      It is interesting that in 2 of his 3 great World Series, the Yanks lost. (In fact, in 1960, he became the only member of a losing team to win the World Series MVP Award). In one of his two awful World Series, the Yankees won.

    13. Evan3457
      August 19th, 2013 | 9:53 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Mr. October wrote:
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Yanks didn’t trade Scherzer to the Tigers, that was the D’backs.
      The D’backs traded Scherzer and a pitcher for Ian Kennedy and Edwin Jackson.
      Unfortunately, Jack Curry apparently did not suggest Cashman structure a deal centered on the inclusion of Kennedy to acquire Scherzer from Arizona directly, and perhaps give Austin Jackson a chance in center field in 2010, or come up with a different solution for the outfield.
      As a result, the Detroit has the 18-1 starting pitcher, one of the top center fielders in the A.L. at age 26, etc., and N.Y. has had four years of Kurtis Granderson…
      The Yankees didn’t trade Scherzer to the Tigers; the D’backs did.

      Oh, and the Yanks didn’t have Edwin Jackson along with Kennedy to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

    14. Sweet Lou
      August 20th, 2013 | 9:35 am

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      WAR obviously does not tell the whole story.

      Agreed.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      He was an excellent defensive player, that much seems certain. But he was a quiet little drain on the Yankees offense most seasons, because his ability to hit for a respectable batting average masked the fact that he had no power, and never drew more than 37 BB in a season.

      So the whole point of this was that Richardson could have been a better table-setter, or could have drawn more walks, and if either was true, he would have been less of a quiet little drain to an offense with Mantle and Maris?

      He was the league’s Gold Glove second baseman from 1961 to 1965, and one of the best second baseman overall of the 1960s.
      The explanation as to why he was mentioned so often in M.V.P. voting would appear to be that he was the type of player whose value statistics alone can not adequately convey.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh, and the Yanks didn’t have Edwin Jackson along with Kennedy to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      The point might have been that Scherzer was available on the open market in 2009, and Yankees or their G.M. had in their possession 50% of the package that was eventually used to acquire or land him, and did not.

      Was it reported the Diamondbacks would not have traded Scherzer for any package that did not include Edwin Jackson?

      To extend the point, Scherzer is presently 28 years old with an 18-1 W-L record as of Aug. 21, and the Yankees’ no. 2 and no. 3 starters will both be retired from professional baseball within the next few years.

      “Oh,” and Austin Jackson is roaming center field for Dombrowski’s Tigers too.

    15. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 10:28 am

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Joseph Maloney wrote:
      WAR obviously does not tell the whole story.
      Agreed.

      No, it doesn’t tell the whole story, but at least it tells what it tells impartially, without the bias of memory coloring judgment.

      So the whole point of this was that Richardson could have been a better table-setter, or could have drawn more walks, and if either was true, he would have been less of a quiet little drain to an offense with Mantle and Maris?

      Yep, you got it. Congratulations to you.

      He was the league’s Gold Glove second baseman from 1961 to 1965

      He sure was, it looks like.

      and one of the best second baseman overall of the 1960s.

      Not really. 15th in total WAR among players who played 80% of their games at 2nd base in the years 1960-1969. 13th of 23 such players who accumulated at least 1000 PA in the years 1960-1966.

      The explanation as to why he was mentioned so often in M.V.P. voting would appear to be that he was the type of player whose value statistics alone can not adequately convey.

      Or it could have been the same 2 or 3 writers giving him a couple of down ballot votes every year except 1962, and maybe 1963. You know who else made the MVP voting list 4 times in 5 years from 1962-1966? Tom Tresh. Floyd Robinson of the White Sox made it 4 straight years from 1962-1965. Dick Donovan made it 4 times in 6 years from 1957-1962.
      Pete Runnels made it 4 times in 5 years from 1958-1962.

      Bobby Richardson was very likely overrated as a player, because

      1) He played for the Yankees, who won the pennant most of the time he was there
      2) He was an excellent defender
      3) Modern analysis of hitting had not been popularized yet.

      The point might have been that Scherzer was available on the open market in 2009, and Yankees or their G.M. had in their possession 50% of the package that was eventually used to acquire or land him, and did not.
      Was it reported the Diamondbacks would not have traded Scherzer for any package that did not include Edwin Jackson?

      That might be a A point, but the Yanks didn’t have a Jackson to trade in 2009, that is, an established pitcher who had pitched well in 2009, was 25, had an expiring contract but was still under team control (arbitration eligible) for 2 more seasons. You can’t trade what you don’t have. The D’backs had a solid everyday lineup and were trying to rebuild their rotation with one move. I suppose the Yankees could have offered Jackson in a deal for Scherzer, but they needed/wanted a slugging outfielder, not a young pitcher with potential who hadn’t figured things out at the big league level yet.

      To extend the point, Scherzer is presently 28 years old with an 18-1 W-L record as of Aug. 21, and the Yankees’ no. 2 and no. 3 starters will both be retired from professional baseball within the next few years.
      “Oh,” and Austin Jackson is roaming center field for Dombrowski’s Tigers too.

      To extend the point, the mistake was made by Josh Byrnes, who traded Scherzer for Kennedy/Jackson. Cashman has mistakes of his own, let’s not blame him for Byrnes’ mistake.

    16. Kamieniecki
      August 20th, 2013 | 10:28 am

      @ Sweet Lou:
      Stop making sense Lou…
      @ Evan3457:
      @ Raf:

    17. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 10:34 am

      Let’s stipulate that WAR doesn’t tell the whole story of Richardson. I’ll buy that his overall value, especially on defense, could move him into the top ten of the 23 second basemen of the period, but not the top five.

    18. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 10:34 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Sweet Lou:
      Stop making sense Lou…
      @ Evan3457:
      @ Raf:

      Yeah, right.

    19. Kamieniecki
      August 20th, 2013 | 10:51 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      [T]he mistake was made by Josh Byrnes, who traded Scherzer for Kennedy/Jackson. Cashman has mistakes of his own, let’s not blame him for Byrnes’ mistake.

      To me, this is a classic example of Ignoratio elenchi.

    20. Ricketson
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:14 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Let’s stipulate that WAR doesn’t tell the whole story of Richardson. I’ll buy that his overall value, especially on defense, could move him into the top ten of the 23 second basemen of the period, but not the top five.

      @ Evan3457:
      A familiar M.O.: lose the argument, and then make it sound like there was not much disagreement to begin with or all along. You’re the one that brought up WAR.

    21. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:20 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      [T]he mistake was made by Josh Byrnes, who traded Scherzer for Kennedy/Jackson. Cashman has mistakes of his own, let’s not blame him for Byrnes’ mistake.
      To me, this is a classic example of Ignoratio elenchi.

      Nonsense.
      Cashman didn’t trade away Scherzer for Kennedy/Edwin Jackson. Byrnes did. Blaming Cashman because the Tigers wound up with Scherzer is ridiculous.

    22. Ricketson
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:27 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Richardson was very likely overrated as a player, because… He was an excellent defender [and modern analysis of hitting had not been popularized yet].

      LOL! Richardson was overrated because half of his game was excellent, and because people of in the 1960s knew how to put a man on the moon, but didn’t know how to evaluate the other half of Richardson’s game…

    23. Ricketson
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:36 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Blaming Cashman because the Tigers wound up with Scherzer is ridiculous.

      No one’s blaming John Cashman’s son for Dombrowski’s acquisition of Scherzer.

      They’re questioning why John Cashman’s son did not acquire Scherzer from Arizona directly when he had 50% of the personnel required to complete the deal, and a farm system and more financial resources than any team in the history of M.L.B. to draw from.

      Do you have an answer to that question, without bringing up Dombrowski or the Tigers? What package was offered by John Cashman’s son for the probable 2013 Cy Young Award Winner that was declined by Byrnes?

    24. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:38 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Let’s stipulate that WAR doesn’t tell the whole story of Richardson. I’ll buy that his overall value, especially on defense, could move him into the top ten of the 23 second basemen of the period, but not the top five.
      @ Evan3457:
      A familiar M.O.: lose the argument, and then make it sound like there was not much disagreement to begin with or all along. You’re the one that brought up WAR.

      A familiar M.O.: declare victory when none was won, then mis-characterize my argument.

      The statement was made that Richardson was one of the best secondbaseman of the 60′s. I said he ranked 13th of 23 secondbaseman who had significant playing time at 2nd during the period 1960-1966 in WAR. I then said that I might move him into the top ten in that period because of his defense and overall contributions, but not into the top five. That doesn’t mean I think he was one of the best secondbasemen of the 1960′s.

      Among secondbaseman in the 1960′s who saw any significant playing time and were at least partially contemporaries of Richardson, I’d rate the following players ahead of Richardson:

      Joe Morgan, Rod Carew, Bill Mazeroski, Dick McAuliffe, Ron Hunt, Jim Giilam, Glenn Beckert, and arguably, Jim Gilliam, Tony Taylor and Pete Runnels.

      That list leaves out several players who ranked above Richardson in WAR in the 1960′s, including Julian Javier, Bobby Knoop, Jerry Lumpe, Dick Green, Mike Andrews, and Davey Johnson.

      To me, being no better than the 8th best 2nd baseman in the decade doesn’t qualify as “one of the best secondbaseman of the 1960′s”. You might disagree; and that’s OK with me.

    25. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:40 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Blaming Cashman because the Tigers wound up with Scherzer is ridiculous.
      No one’s blaming John Cashman’s son for Dombrowski’s acquisition of Scherzer.
      They’re questioning why John Cashman’s son did not acquire Scherzer from Arizona directly when he had 50% of the personnel required to complete the deal, and a farm system and more financial resources than any team in the history of M.L.B. to draw from.
      Do you have an answer to that question, without bringing up Dombrowski or the Tigers? What package was offered by John Cashman’s son for the probable 2013 Cy Young Award Winner that was declined by Byrnes?

      Having 50% of what was needed is having nothing. If you don’t have what they want, then you don’t have what they want.

      The question is therefore moot.

    26. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:43 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Richardson was very likely overrated as a player, because… He was an excellent defender [and modern analysis of hitting had not been popularized yet].
      LOL! Richardson was overrated because half of his game was excellent, and because people of in the 1960s knew how to put a man on the moon, but didn’t know how to evaluate the other half of Richardson’s game…

      Defense is NOT half of a player’s game. Stating that some people knew how to put a man on the moon, but didn’t know how to evaluate the other half of Richardson’s game…now THAT is Ignoratio elenchi at its finest.

      Once again, when you LOL at a valid argument, you make yourself look like an idiot.

    27. Sweet Lou
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:47 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      To extend the point, the mistake was made by Josh Byrnes, who traded Scherzer for Kennedy/Jackson. Cashman has mistakes of his own, let’s not blame him for Byrnes’ mistake.

      Nonsense. No one is blaming Cashman for a mistake of Byrnes.

    28. Kamieniecki
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:55 am

      @ Ricketson:
      Another M.O.: Argumentum verbosium: Proof by verbosity (“this fallacy provides the illusion of proof by the sheer mass of material flung”).

    29. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:58 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Ricketson:
      Another M.O.: Argumentum verbosium: Proof by verbosity (“this fallacy provides the illusion of proof by the sheer mass of material flung”).

      Same M.O.: False characterization of presentation of evidence (that you will not accept) as a logical fallacy.

    30. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:59 am

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      To extend the point, the mistake was made by Josh Byrnes, who traded Scherzer for Kennedy/Jackson. Cashman has mistakes of his own, let’s not blame him for Byrnes’ mistake.
      Nonsense. No one is blaming Cashman for a mistake of Byrnes.

      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.

    31. Ricketson
      August 20th, 2013 | 12:01 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Once again, when you LOL at a valid argument, you make yourself look like an idiot.

      @ Evan3457:
      You wouldn’t know logic if it hit you in the face with a 2″x4″.

      Ricketson wrote:

      Do you have an answer to that question, without bringing up Dombrowski or the Tigers?

      I guess not…

    32. Ricketson
      August 20th, 2013 | 12:04 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:

      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.

      The original question, once again:
      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Was it reported the Diamondbacks would not have traded Scherzer for any package that did not include Edwin Jackson?

    33. Ricketson
      August 20th, 2013 | 12:08 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Defense is NOT half of a player’s game. Stating that some people knew how to put a man on the moon, but didn’t know how to evaluate the other half of Richardson’s game…now THAT is Ignoratio elenchi at its finest.
      Once again, when you LOL at a valid argument, you make yourself look like an idiot.

      @ Evan3457:
      As Raf would say, “your (sic) out of your depth.”

    34. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 12:20 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Once again, when you LOL at a valid argument, you make yourself look like an idiot.
      @ Evan3457:
      You wouldn’t know logic if it hit you in the face with a 2″x4″.

      Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
      Ricketson wrote:
      Do you have an answer to that question, without bringing up Dombrowski or the Tigers?
      I guess not…

      Already answered. Several times.

    35. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 12:21 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:
      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.
      The original question, once again:
      Sweet Lou wrote:
      Was it reported the Diamondbacks would not have traded Scherzer for any package that did not include Edwin Jackson?

      Was it reported that the Germans might have won World War II if they invaded England instead of Russia?

      I don’t really have to answer a hypothetical, even though I did.

    36. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 12:21 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Defense is NOT half of a player’s game. Stating that some people knew how to put a man on the moon, but didn’t know how to evaluate the other half of Richardson’s game…now THAT is Ignoratio elenchi at its finest.
      Once again, when you LOL at a valid argument, you make yourself look like an idiot.
      @ Evan3457:
      As Raf would say, “your (sic) out of your depth.”

      Not that you’ve ever proven.

    37. Raf
      August 20th, 2013 | 12:56 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      one of the top center fielders in the A.L. at age 26

      Yankees have one of the top center fielders in the A.L. at age 29
      http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gardnbr01.shtml

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      a very capable left-handed middle reliever.

      Who’s currently 0-5, 5.00.

      Yanks already have a very capable left-handed middle reliever.
      http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/loganbo02.shtml

      :P

    38. Ricketson
      August 20th, 2013 | 3:18 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      THAT is Ignoratio elenchi at its finest.

      For at least as many years as John Cashman’s son has been masquerading as a G.M., you seem to have been masquerading as someone with the background, education, or knowledge to “employ facts and logic” in your disagreements with people on topics relating to baseball, and you have no competency to do so in either of the two areas or subjects (i.e. baseball and logic); you don’t even understand the very simple concept of post ergo propter hoc, for example.

      Since you have the summer off, why don’t you pick up one book on baseball, and one book on logic, and try learn something, and spend a little less time worrying about how to win an argument you spent three weeks of your life losing?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I don’t really have to answer a hypothetical, even though I did.

      The question asked was not a hypothetical. Once again, you’re in more need of summer reading than your own students…

    39. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 4:12 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      THAT is Ignoratio elenchi at its finest.
      For at least as many years as John Cashman’s son has been masquerading as a G.M., you seem to have been masquerading as someone with the background, education, or knowledge to “employ facts and logic” in your disagreements with people on topics relating to baseball,

      LOL; like you’d know. Aw, did I strike a nerve by calling you on your own hypocritical use of the type of fallacy that you falsely cited me for using?

      and you have no competency to do so in either of the two areas or subjects (i.e. baseball and logic)

      On the contrary, I get paid to do the second, and my work has always been rated highly by my superiors. You also have no way of proving the first.

      you don’t even understand the very simple concept of post ergo propter hoc, for example.

      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.

      Since you have the summer off, why don’t you pick up one book on baseball, and one book on logic, and try learn something, and spend a little less time worrying about how to win an argument you spent three weeks of your life losing?
      </blockquote.
      No need, I already won the argument. sSveral times, in fact.
      You lost every aspect of the argument, including the long logic chains that you constructed, because they were based on false premises themselves. You're simply too stupid to realize or too stubborn to admit it.

      Once again, you’re in more need of summer reading than your own students…

      I think you’re more in need…of active brain cells.

    40. Sweet Lou
      August 20th, 2013 | 7:24 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.

      You can’t trade for Scherzer, if you don’t have Jackson? They couldn’t trade Chamberlain, or Melancon, or several prospects with Kennedy? Did they even try? They knew Scherzer was available.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.

      Why would you need inductive support with post hoc/ergo propter hoc?

    41. Mr. October
      August 20th, 2013 | 7:43 pm

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Why would you need inductive support with post hoc/ergo propter hoc?

      You don’t: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc. We should call him Evan042013, as in 0-for-2013.
      @ Evan3457:

    42. McMillan
      August 20th, 2013 | 8:06 pm

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      Richardson was a player, the sum of which was greater than the parts.

      Agreed.

      @ Sweet Lou:
      @ Mr. October:
      Post hoc is a logical fallacy as I’m sure you’re aware; you obviously wouldn’t use a logical fallacy as support for anything, much less an “inductive support” of an argument – that doesn’t even make sense.

    43. Sweet Lou
      August 20th, 2013 | 9:00 pm

      @ McMillan:
      I know… Thanks.

    44. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:47 pm

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.
      You can’t trade for Scherzer, if you don’t have Jackson? They couldn’t trade Chamberlain, or Melancon, or several prospects with Kennedy? Did they even try? They knew Scherzer was available.

      The Diamondbacks traded Scherzer, whom they were worried about in terms of his high effort, delivery, in exchange for two starting pitchers. At the time, they were coming off a season in which their lineup was solid, but their rotation was weak. They were using Scherzer’s potential to rebuild their rotation.

      Jackson was coming off a season in which he pitched well for the Tigers, was 25, and the team acquiring him had two seasons of control left.

      Chamberlain was coming off a season in which he started well, but collapsed so badly in the 2nd half that Girardi felt he could not start him in the post-season, and went with a 3 man rotation instead. Melancon was a reliever; not what the D’backs were looking for. Kennedy at that time WAS the prospect, but the D’backs were looking for a young, established reasonably effective starter they could control for a couple of years. The Yanks didn’t have one of those.

      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.
      Why would you need inductive support with post hoc/ergo propter hoc?

      Nifty non-sequitur.

    45. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:47 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Sweet Lou wrote:
      Why would you need inductive support with post hoc/ergo propter hoc?
      You don’t: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc. We should call him Evan042013, as in 0-for-2013.
      @ Evan3457:

      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.

      And you? You’re probable 0 for your entire life.

    46. Evan3457
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:48 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Joseph Maloney wrote:
      Richardson was a player, the sum of which was greater than the parts.
      Agreed.
      @ Sweet Lou:
      @ Mr. October:
      Post hoc is a logical fallacy as I’m sure you’re aware; you obviously wouldn’t use a logical fallacy as support for anything, much less an “inductive support” of an argument – that doesn’t even make sense.

      Which is why I called that statement a non-sequitur.

      Thanks for confirming.

    47. McMillan
      August 20th, 2013 | 11:58 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I get paid to do the second, and my work has always been rated highly by my superiors.

      If the superiors of a high school teacher receiving a paycheck for teaching logic superiors saw that the teacher doesn’t even understand post hoc by way of baseball blog, that teacher would, or should, lose his or her job.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      To me, it seems the entire reasoning behind your position that the post-season isn’t a crapshoot boils down to this: the better post-season teams are the teams that play better in the post-season…

      This is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

      Causation? Temporal sequence?

      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc.”
      @ LMJ229:
      @ JeremyM:
      @ redbug:
      @ KPOcala:
      @ ahrmon:

    48. McMillan
      August 21st, 2013 | 12:00 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      To me, it seems the entire reasoning behind your position that the post-season isn’t a crapshoot boils down to this: the better post-season teams are the teams that play better in the post-season…

      This is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

      Causation? Temporal sequence?

      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc.”

    49. McMillan
      August 21st, 2013 | 12:04 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.

      You did, and incorrectly, Evan042013…

    50. PHMDen
      August 21st, 2013 | 12:08 am

      McMillan wrote:

      If the superiors of a high school teacher receiving a paycheck for teaching logic… saw that the teacher doesn’t even understand post hoc by way of baseball blog, that teacher would, or should, lose his or her job.

      Agreed.

    51. PHMDen
      August 21st, 2013 | 12:15 am

      @ Evan3457:
      I wonder why Maloney didn’t respond to your nonsense?

    52. McMillan
      August 21st, 2013 | 12:19 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Which is why I called that statement a non-sequitur.

      It was in reference to something you wrote, you idiot:

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Ricketson wrote:

      you don’t even understand the very simple concept of post ergo propter hoc, for example.

      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.

    53. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:26 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I get paid to do the second, and my work has always been rated highly by my superiors.
      If the superiors of a high school teacher receiving a paycheck for teaching logic superiors saw that the teacher doesn’t even understand post hoc by way of baseball blog, that teacher would, or should, lose his or her job.

      LOL. You know even less about the teaching profession than you do about logic. Or baseball.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      To me, it seems the entire reasoning behind your position that the post-season isn’t a crapshoot boils down to this: the better post-season teams are the teams that play better in the post-season…
      This is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
      Causation? Temporal sequence?
      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc.”

      @logic failure
      @mischaracterization of an argument
      @failure to understand simple definitions
      @trollobvious

    54. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:28 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      To me, it seems the entire reasoning behind your position that the post-season isn’t a crapshoot boils down to this: the better post-season teams are the teams that play better in the post-season…
      This is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
      Causation? Temporal sequence?
      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc.”

      @false connection
      @linking two things that weren’t orginally linked.
      @typical obvious troll

    55. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:28 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.
      You did, and incorrectly, Evan042013…

      No, I used the definition correctly. Your side used it.

    56. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:32 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I didn’t use post hoc ergo propter hoc, your side did.
      You did, and incorrectly, Evan042013…

      False.
      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Which is why I called that statement a non-sequitur.
      It was in reference to something you wrote, you idiot:

      No, it was in reference to a quote that mischaraterized an argument I made, you moron.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Ricketson wrote:
      you don’t even understand the very simple concept of post ergo propter hoc, for example.
      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Which is why I called that statement a non-sequitur.
      It was in reference to something you wrote, you idiot:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Ricketson wrote:
      you don’t even understand the very simple concept of post ergo propter hoc, for example.
      No, YOU don’t understand it, as evidence by my use of it as an inductive support, while you claimed it’s always a fallacy. It isn’t.

      Thanks for quoting something of my without an idiotic comment on it.
      For once.

    57. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:33 am

      PHMDen wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      If the superiors of a high school teacher receiving a paycheck for teaching logic… saw that the teacher doesn’t even understand post hoc by way of baseball blog, that teacher would, or should, lose his or her job.
      Agreed.

      Agreed and incorrect. Not even close to reality.

    58. Evan3457
      August 21st, 2013 | 2:34 am

      But all well trolled.

    59. Kamieniecki
      August 23rd, 2013 | 1:05 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh, and the Yanks didn’t have Edwin Jackson along with Kennedy to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      And the Tigers didn’t have Ian Kennedy along with Jackson to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.

      They are not blaming Dombrowski for not trading for Scherzer, when the Tigers didn’t have an Ian Kennedy to trade.

    60. Evan3457
      August 23rd, 2013 | 4:07 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Oh, and the Yanks didn’t have Edwin Jackson along with Kennedy to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.
      And the Tigers didn’t have Ian Kennedy along with Jackson to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      Irrelevant. The Tigers did have a Curtis Granderson to get Kennedy from the Yankees. It doesn’t work both ways.

      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.
      They are not blaming Dombrowski for not trading for Scherzer, when the Tigers didn’t have an Ian Kennedy to trade.

      Again, who’s blaming Dombrowski or not blaming him is irrelevant.

    61. Sweet Lou
      August 23rd, 2013 | 4:51 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Oh, and the Yanks didn’t have Edwin Jackson along with Kennedy to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      Oh, and the Tigers didn’t have Ian Kennedy along with Jackson to trade for Scherzer and Schlereth.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      They are blaming Cashman for not trading for Scherzer, when the Yanks didn’t have an Edwin Jackson to trade.

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      They are not blaming Dombrowski for not trading for Scherzer, when the Tigers didn’t have an Ian Kennedy to trade.

      @ Kamieniecki:
      Agreed. Sounds like a fair point: Both Cashman and Dombrowski had 50% of the asking price for Scherzer, but Dombrowski came away with Scherzer…

      and one of Cashman’s top prospects.

    62. Evan3457
      August 24th, 2013 | 2:42 am

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Agreed. Sounds like a fair point: Both Cashman and Dombrowski had 50% of the asking price for Scherzer, but Dombrowski came away with Scherzer…
      and one of Cashman’s top prospects.

      It’s not a fair point. Jackson was considerably more than 50% of the value of the deal, as Kennedy had proven nothing at the big league level to that point.

      Ask yourself this: would the Tigers have traded Edwin Jackson for Kennedy, even up? If you’re at all fair, you know the answer is “no”.

    63. Sweet Lou
      August 24th, 2013 | 9:31 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Jackson was considerably more than 50% of the value of the deal.

      No he wasn’t.

    64. Kamieniecki
      August 24th, 2013 | 10:05 am

      @ Sweet Lou:
      The D’Backs were more interested in Kennedy as a long-term fixture; they just wanted two years from Jackson before free agency. For the D’Backs, Kennedy was certainly more than 50% of the value of the deal.

    65. Raf
      August 24th, 2013 | 10:47 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It’s not a fair point. Jackson was considerably more than 50% of the value of the deal, as Kennedy had proven nothing at the big league level to that point.

      Kennedy was also coming off surgery and A. Jackson had proven less at the big league level.

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The D’Backs were more interested in Kennedy as a long-term fixture; they just wanted two years from Jackson before free agency.

      They may have been more interested in Kennedy, but there was no need for them to trade for E. Jackson when they already had Scherzer who was younger, cheaper and had performed at Jackson’s level.

      The Tigers got salary relief, a CF to replace the CF they traded. The Yankees got a LHB that better matched up with their home park, who was going to replace Johnny Damon (it wasn’t known if Granderson was going to remain in CF or move to LF; Melky & Gardner were with the team at the time)

    66. Sweet Lou
      August 24th, 2013 | 1:35 pm

      Raf wrote:

      They may have been more interested in Kennedy

      They were.
      Raf wrote:

      Raf wrote:

      there was no need for them to trade for E. Jackson when they already had Scherzer who was younger, cheaper and had performed at Jackson’s level.

      Arizona made a mistake – that’s obvious. But that’s not relevant to the question of why New York didn’t pick up Scherzer when New York had more than 50% of the package Arizona accepted.

      Raf wrote:

      The Yankees got a LHB

      @ Raf:

      Well, that’s the point: New York got a LHB and a replacement for Damon when Detroit got more than a RHP – they got Max Scherzer – with less than 50% of the package the Diamondbacks took to start with.

      Regardless of whether Kennedy was coming off of surgery of any kind, he was still more than 50% of the deal in the Diamondbacks’ eyes that New York had in its possession, and Detroit ended up with Scherzer – and A. Jackson!

      The question is why New York didn’t take Scherzer themselves – one can’t say because they didn’t have E. Jackson – Detroit didn’t have I. Kennedy, either.
      And If you’re correct that it wasn’t known if Granderson was going to move to LF, the trade’s worse: a team doesn’t pass on Scherzer to get to a left fielder, unless Scherzer wasn’t on its radar or it didn’t evaluate him properly:

      Raf wrote:

      I guess one of the stories that caught your eye was the powwow in Tampa?
      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/hall-calls-tampa-meeting-address-barren-farm-system-article-1.1431853

      … Look at how long New York’s gone without a consistent presence in LF with the exception of Matsui. Plus, A. Jackson’s worked out fine.

    67. Evan3457
      August 25th, 2013 | 12:29 am

      Sweet Lou wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Jackson was considerably more than 50% of the value of the deal.
      No he wasn’t.

      From Tyler Kepner’s article on the piece after the 2011 season:

      While Cashman and Dombrowski discussed Granderson, Byrnes was pursuing Edwin Jackson, who was coming off an All-Star season. He was also intrigued by Kennedy, who had spent most of 2009 dealing with an aneurysm under his right armpit but looked sharp in the Arizona Fall League.

      Byrnes introduced the three-way concept as a way to satisfy all parties. He and Cashman knew the Tigers wanted younger versions of the players they would be trading — and then some. Austin Jackson gave Detroit a younger center fielder than Granderson, and Scherzer a younger starter than Edwin Jackson.

      Cashman also parted with Coke, a left-hander who could start or relieve, and Byrnes included Schlereth, another lefty, who had been a first-round pick. Because Byrnes was trading Scherzer, too, he needed another young starter in return. So the Yankees gave up Kennedy, a fly-ball pitcher who seemed to be a better fit for the National League West than the American League East.

      “As much as we liked Scherzer and Schlereth,” Byrnes said, “the notion of getting two starters back was pretty compelling.”

      As I said earlier, from the D’backs standpoint, Jackson was the key to the deal, and the D’backs were trying to rebuild their rotation by getting two starting pitchers at once. Byrnes was intrigued by Kennedy, but was pursuing Jackson.

    68. Evan3457
      August 25th, 2013 | 12:30 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Sweet Lou:
      The D’Backs were more interested in Kennedy as a long-term fixture; they just wanted two years from Jackson before free agency. For the D’Backs, Kennedy was certainly more than 50% of the value of the deal.

      In the actual event, they kept Jackson for one season, then traded him for a good young starter in Daniel Hudson, who then blew out his elbow.

      So yes, after the fact, in hindsight, Kennedy had more direct value to the Diamondbacks than Jackson, but the deal would never have been done for Kennedy, or for Kennedy as the key component.

    69. Sweet Lou
      August 25th, 2013 | 11:47 am

      @ Evan3457:
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Jackson was the key to the deal

      The Kepner article is inaccurate: Kennedy was the primary; not E. Jackson:

      “Dipoto, then the Diamondbacks’ senior vice president of scouting and player development, watched every pitch KENNEDY threw, and came away impressed…
      ‘He was outstanding every time, right through the championship game of [the AFL]‘ Dipoto… recalled…

      Arizona needed to improve its rotation after Webb had made only one start… and had uncertain shoulder health. The club wasn’t concerned with… finding a substitute ace… just a quality pitcher on whom they could depend for SEVERAL YEARS…
      ‘We had identified [KENNEDY, not Jackson] as a very good fit… He was young, CONTROLLABLE and had a quartet of pitches he could control… and we felt like he could deliver quality innings,’ Dipoto said…”

      Arizona was interested in KENNEDY in Oct., 2009, not Jackson. At the same time, Cashman was interested in GRANDERSON. Cashman called Dombrowski to inquire about Granderson on the evening of Game 1 of the 2009 World Series. One month later, in Nov., 2009:

      “Dombrowski was driving… to Chicago… His cell phone rang, and [Byrnes] was on the line. ‘He said he talked to [Cashman]. There was the potential of a three-way deal… And that…got that ball rolling,’ Dombrowski related…”

      “Byrnes had called Cashman [about KENNEDY] BEFORE contacting Dombrowski [about the potential for a three-way deal involving Kennedy and Granderson], feeling out [Cashman] on what he might be looking for [in terms of the team's needs]…

      Byrnes… guessed New York was focused on Granderson. ‘We sat down… and felt like the Yankees [not the Tigers] were the logical spot,’ Byrnes said. ‘We didn’t know that. We just thought about that…’ The deal was finalized on Dec. 9.”

      Arizona was interested in Kennedy, and believed New York to be interested in Detroit’s Granderson and contacted Detroit to negotiate the three-way deal with New York. Cashman has never been reported to have inquired about Scherzer, who’s gone 62-28 since the trade, at the time Byrnes was inquiring about Kennedy and before Byrnes approached Dombrowski about a three-way deal.
      So Scherzer was available, and Cashman had the more significant of two pieces Dombrowski used to acquire Scherzer. And Dombrowski also walked away with A. Jackson; it was a heist.

      After the trade:

      “If Kennedy pans out like the D-backs think he will, AND Jackson gives them TWO good years BEFORE becoming a FREE AGENT, then this will wind up being a good deal for the D-backs. Is there risk involved in giving up someone with Scherzer’s ability? Absolutely… In the end you have to trust your scouts and if the D-backs feel as strongly as they do about KENNEDY they have to follow that… if KENNEDY turns out to be a solid 3/4 starter, then the deal will be worthwhile for Arizona…”

      “The Diamondbacks got Ian Kennedy from the Yankees, and he posted a 3.80 ERA in 32 starts in 2010. They didn’t keep Edwin Jackson for long, trading him to Chicago for promising right-hander Daniel Hudson…

      “‘I think the [Dec., 2009 trade] made sense for all the teams involved, which is rare for a three-way deal,’ Byrnes said… ‘From our perspective, we wanted to add depth to our rotation. As much as we liked Scherzer and Schlereth, getting Kennedy and Jackson LED TO TWO LONG-TERM starting pitchers (Kennedy and Hudson)…’”

    70. Evan3457
      August 25th, 2013 | 12:57 pm

      The article you quoted says the D’backs were interested in Kennedy first. It doesn’t say they’d have traded Scherzer for him.

      From the same SB Nation article you posted:

      Rob Neyer is a good example: “All my friends seem to have this one the same: Great for Yanks, good for Tigers, terrible for Diamondbacks. My friends are usually right.”

      Also from the same article:

      Ken Rosenthal says the reason for dealing Scherzer is that Arizona “view Scherzer as a reliever, not a starter. Scherzer had Tommy John surgery in high school. He was a reliever in college. And his mechanics remain a concern.” Therefore, we are effectively converting two relievers into two starters.”

    71. Sweet Lou
      August 25th, 2013 | 1:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The article you quoted says the D’backs were interested in Kennedy first. It doesn’t say they’d have traded Scherzer for him.

      @ Evan3457:
      My earlier post actually references more than 5 articles altogether, not just 1.

      The D’Backs did trade Scherzer for Kennedy – for Kennedy AND E. Jackson; Kennedy was the primary.

      It hasn’t been reported that Cashman attempted to acquire Scherzer when Scherzer was available and the Diamondbacks was interested in Kennedy; Cashman appears to have had an opportunity to acquire Scherzer and did not; Dombrowski did. And Dombrowski also pocketed one of Cashman’s top prospects at the same time.

      Neyer’s friends were obviously quite wrong: Great for the Tigers.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.