Mortgaging the Future to Pay for the Past: Was It Worth It?

by baseballgirl on Sep 18, 2009 6:00 AM PDT

From Blez's February 2006 interview with John Sickels:

Blez: What do you think of the A's losing Ethier? Is that one that fans will regret down the line?

Sickels: I think Ethier will be a fine player, but with guys like Putnam, Buck, Herrera, and Robnett still in the system, they had the depth available to deal Ethier. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Opening with the caveat that it's rarely fair to judge past predictions (knowing that hindsight is 20/20), it's worth taking a look at this trade four years ago that sent the A's to the 2006 ALCS and Andre Ethier to the Dodgers.

Blez framed the question perfectly, as Ethier was not likely to be a regret in 2006. While he was starting his career for the Dodgers, we were too busy enjoying the A's first ALCS appearance in sixteen years to notice that Ethier's numbers as a rookie in 2006 bested Bradley's across the board.

It must be said that as someone who went to great lengths to travel to as many games as possible in 2006, including most of the stretch run and every home playoff game, I can't discount how perfect and exciting that season was as an A's fan, even three years removed.

I'd have a hard time trading 2006 for anything. That was a special, magical season of redemption, and the trade made sense at the time. It was a trade for a key starter for the 2006 and 2007 seasons (i.e. more than a mere rental); a good baseball player whose value was down because of on-and-off the field issues and personality conflicts.

Although it was a risk, I doubt the A's expected things to go as wrong with Bradley as they did during the 2007 season. Bradley played a total of 19 games for the A's in 07, was rumored to be involved in some clubhouse drama and was eventually dealt to the Padres for the oft-injured Andrew Brown. I also don't think anyone in their wildest predictions could have foreseen how good Ethier would actually be, pretty much from Day 1. The A's traded from depth and strength to make the 2006 run and it worked at the time, but there is the obviously emerging question of whether they may have traded the wrong player for the wrong player.

Like any trade that involves a prospect, the trade really can't be evaluated until years down the road, and here we are. And the conclusion is just bleak: The A's would have been better off--in the long run for sure, and perhaps even in 2006--if they had just called up Ethier and let him play.

We remember Milton Bradley for all of his dramatic moments during the season and the playoffs, and it has been widely accepted that he lead the A's to their postseason berth, but the numbers simply don't bear that out. Bradley only played in 96 games in 2006, hitting .276 with 14 home runs (one very dramatic one on AN Day), 52 RBIs, an OPS of .818, just ahead of his replacements; Jay Payton .743 and Bobby Kielty .743. In fact, Milton Bradley only once in his whole career played over 130 games in a season, only once hit over 20 home runs, and only once has had over 70 RBIs.

In contrast, Andre Ethier has been an absolute stud for the Dodgers the last four years; he is also the walk-off rival of Marco Scutaro, except with the career .294/.364/.495 line instead of Marco's .266/.337.385. In the very season he was traded, Ethier played twenty more games than Milton Bradley did, batted 30 points higher, with almost as many home runs, and a 30 percent higher slugging percentage. In his rookie year!

As an A's fan, who really questions the A's scouting system (Ethier is one of the rare offensive players from the A's system to be legitimately great, since Tejada? Chavez?), these numbers were painful to look up. As much as I enjoyed 2006, I don't want to think about what Ethier has done, or what he'll continue to do in his career. And somehow, looking at his 2006 numbers, and knowing that he could have had those numbers for us, it makes it worse. It's one thing if he was in Double-A during the playoff run. Instead, he was in the league, and actually outperformed his replacement. Ouch.

While researching Ethier a bit closer, I was surprised to see just how different a player he has been since Manny Ramirez donned the Dodger blue. The stats clearly show so far that Ethier goes from a good player to an elite one with Manny's big bat behind him. His numbers before and after Manny became a Dodger on August 1, 2008 are dramatically different. From the start of the season through the end of July, he played 95 games putting up a solid but unspectacular line of 274-11-46. After Manny arrived in Hollywood, Ethier played 45 games with amazing stats of .368-9-31 - try working out that pace over a full season! This season, in the 48 games he played while Manny was suspended for snacking in the woman's supplement aisle, he checked in at a Crosby-esque.222 with 9 HR and 25 RBI. With Manny in the lineup, Ethier has been far more productive, hitting over .300 with 21 bombs and 73 RBI in less than 100 games. So Andre is no doubt a a really good player, yes, but hard to dispute that he has benefited greatly from the superstar behind him as he has put up elite All Star level numbers when Manny is in the lineup.

If it's any consolation at all, we don't have a Manny, and we haven't since 2006. That doesn't make you feel better? Me either.

Cleveland again tonight; 7:05. A's rapidly running out of starting pitchers.

Poll

We know how it turned out...but did you like the trade at the time?

Yes

371 votes

No

248 votes

619 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | 217 comments

Comments

And I'd do it again

I mean, I wish we had Ethier in the outfield now, but like you said, I wouldn’t trade in 2006 for anything.

And even without the ALCS, we had a lot of fun with Milton while he was here.

No regrets.

tosk - September 18, 2009 reply

I agree

Bradley put us on his shoulders and carried us to the ALCS in ‘06. When you’ve got a chance to make it to the World Series, you have to go for it.
It’s about one thing in this game … did you win the whole thing? Nothing else matters. Say what you will about how the Marlins do things … they’ve got two rings. Tell me we’ll suck for 10 years, but we get a title in year 11? I’ll take it. That beats “being competitive” for 20 years without winning the championship all …. day …. long.

Vacafan - September 18, 2009 reply

I agree with your first paragraph, but not the second.

Bradley was a primary piece that pushed us over the edge. And I do agree with the part in the second paragraph about winning the “whole thing”, but that relates to the first paragraph as well.

Totally disagree about sucking for ten years then getting a ring. First off, no one can tell you that. No one can plan to make it happen just like that. “Being competitive” every year will give you a chance at that every year, and depending on whether you buy into the “post-season crapshoot” theory, the more chances you get the more likely you are to get a ring. Everybody likes to point to the Marlins as their prime example, but seriously they are an anomaly.

Note that my definition of "being competitive is 90+-win seasons and playoff appearances more often than not… not just a winning season with 85 wins.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

about the Marlins

I totally agree that the Marlins are an outlier. Making the playoffs only twice but then winning the World Series both times is crazy.

But there is a very pessimistic argument that teams with Oakland-ish payrolls might have to adopt the Marlins build-up/tear-down strategy just in order to achieve those 90+ win seasons that you need to be fairly well assured of a playoff berth.

With teams like the Red Sox combining smart player evaluation and huge budgets and most of the small market teams smartening up, it might be true that the feat accomplished by the A’s from 1999-2006 just isn’t possible anymore.

I’m not saying that I necessarily think this is the case — I think that there are still opportunities for teams that can draft really well — but it would support the idea of going all in for select seasons. Also, this would be a total drag because it will result an increasing percentage of championships going to a few dominant teams.

colin - September 18, 2009 reply

Times do changed, indeed.

And team-building strategies need to adapt accordingly. But, other than everybody knowing what the A’s did from 1999-2006, and the competition thus being more intense, I’m not sure I see it as being impossible. I feel that the complete tear-down was done by choice… with the specific strategy of not having to do it again for several years… rather than the alternative which would have probably involved constant heavy tweaking from year-to-year.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

Of course, I understand that the two scenarios are completely unpredictable.

Let me try and explain it this way … if there were some magical machine that let us take one or the other, I’d take two championships in the last 20 years and 90-100 loss seasons for 18, over 20 years of 90 win teams with zero championships.
IMO, I think the rings are the only thing that matters. If you don’t win it all, you’ve got nothin’ to brag about.

Vacafan - September 18, 2009 reply

I tend to agree with you on the ring part...

…that’s why you play. But I’m not so sure I’d take so many really crappy seasons to get one every now and then.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

This will be obvious to anyone who knows me,

but I would make the other choice with your magical machine. If the machine could guarantee a winning percentage of ~55% every year for 20 years but at the cost of never winning the World Series, I’d take that.

iglew - September 18, 2009 reply

How the heck did Bradley put us on his shoulders and carry us to the ALCS?

He was good in the regular season, but nowhere near worthy of that comment and he was horrible in the ALDS.

OaktownPower - September 18, 2009 reply

Maybe it's selective memory

and I don’t have the time to go back and look through the stats … what were they, by the way? It just seems to me that he was our best hitter that year. He most certainly was the emotional leader on the team.

Vacafan - September 18, 2009 reply

I just went and looked ...

You’re right Oaktown, Bradley isn’t “worthy of that comment.” Crap, Swish hit 35 bombs that season!! I had completely forgotten that … oh well, I’m a Bradley fan, what can I say? :-)

Vacafan - September 18, 2009 reply

I did the same thing:

Did you know that Milton only played in 96 games, and Ethier played in more?! My whole post was going to be “We never would have had 2006 without Milton…” but that’s wrong!

I put his numbers in, but after the jump:

We remember Milton Bradley for all of his dramatic moments during the season and the playoffs, and it has been widely accepted that he lead the A’s to their postseason berth, but the numbers simply don’t bear that out. Bradley only played in 96 games in 2006, hitting .276 with 14 home runs (one very dramatic one on AN Day), 52 RBIs, an OPS of .818, just ahead of his replacements; Jay Payton .743 and Bobby Kielty .743. In fact, Milton Bradley only once in his whole career played over 130 games in a season, only once hit over 20 home runs, and only once has had over 70 RBIs.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

Congrats on making a 75 point difference in OPS seem small.

rebus - September 18, 2009 reply

She didn't really succeed.

My reaction reading that was: Wow, that’s a huge upgrade from 743 to 818. So no, it didn’t seem small to me at all. In fact, it’s better than I remember Milton being.

iglew - September 18, 2009 reply

My only intention was to point out the backwards phrasing. While skimming, I did a little double take.

rebus - September 18, 2009 reply

Ah, so then I'm agreeing with you.

iglew - September 18, 2009 reply

Yea, I was surprised by the numbers too...

I think we all remember how great he was in the ALCS…..but he was horrible in the ALDS and just good in the regular season.

OaktownPower - September 18, 2009 reply

Much of this Bradley/Ethier/2006 debate...

…presumes that Ethier would have been brought up and produced the same with the A’s that he did with the Dodgers, and that’s not a given.

We got Bradley specifically to insert into the line-up. If we had not gotten Bradely, it’s not inconceivable that Ethier would have remained in the minors for most of the rest of the season and/or been a 4th OF had he been called up, simply because he was young and unproven at the MLB level and the team may not have wanted to risk their post-season berth on a rookie.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

I loved getting Bradley,

However, my only issue with the trade was giving up our best prospect to get a malcontent OF, who the Dodgers couldn’t wait to get rid of. Examining it from that perspective, Billy got taken to the cleaners.. back then, Bradley wasn’t worth a high profile #1 spec.

sf drift king - September 18, 2009 reply

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

designatedforassignment - September 18, 2009 reply

Before the trade

I drafted Either in 1 of my baseball leagues since he had shown that he would be a consistent 300 hitter. The power came later which happens. You must tip your cap to the dodgers for having good scouts to trade a prime player for a prospect. They took a chance and it paid off. Either did not show any 30 homerun capability while in the minors. Its no use for A’s fans to beat themselves up over a Either being traded. Think how the cardnial fans beat themselves up over the Haren trade.

Arcman - September 18, 2009 reply

It Was Dodger Amateur Scouting Director...

…Logan White who advised Ned Colletti to ask the A’s for Ethier when Beane expressed interest in acquiring Bradley. White resides in Phoenix, and he watched a lot of the games played by the Arizona Fall League team that the Dodgers sent players to in fall 2005. That year the Dodgers AFL team just happened to also be the A’s AFL team, so White saw a lot of Ethier and he liked what he saw.

CanuckDodger - September 18, 2009 reply

this incident

was immortalized in a horrible Bill Plaschke column that was immortalized in a hilarious Fire Joe Morgan post: link

colin - September 18, 2009 reply

Plaschke...

…made it sound like the old scout persuaded Colletti to get Ethier because that made for an interesting story, but it was noted elsewhere at the time (I can’t remember where) that it was White’s opinion of Ethier that Colletti took seriously.

CanuckDodger - September 18, 2009 reply

It doesn't help Plaschke's case that he keeps on advocating trading or keeping Ethier in a number of Dodgers columns in the next three years after the trade.

Tripon - September 18, 2009 reply

yeah

I’m sure you’re right. I was just pointing to that article because it’s hilarious — a perfect example of taking a story and shoe-horning it into a narrative that you like (the value of old scouts, in this case).

colin - September 18, 2009 reply

That's my ALL TIME favorite FJM...

Said Ethier: “I thought he was just some crazy old man yelling at me from the stands.”

I don’t blame you, Andre.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

LOL

that was awesome. perfect friday afternoon reading

jlanning17 - September 18, 2009 reply

you just made me miss FJM.

thanks, colin.

Leopold Bloom - September 18, 2009 reply

Did you see the new FJM's on Deadspin!

http://deadspin.com/tag/fjm/

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

It was yesterday only, wasn't it?

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

Oh, I love you.

I’ve hurt myself laughing.

The Twins, meanwhile, have Joe Mauer and fourteen guys who either are Nick Punto or look and play exactly like Nick Punto.

Leopold Bloom - September 18, 2009 reply

it only gets better....

Through Sunday’s games, Mauer leads the AL with a .366 batting average. Jeter is fourth at .332, with 17 homers, 63 RBIs and 192 hits.

This is just dropped in, to the middle of this argument, with no explanation. It’s like writing a long, long essay about how Brazil is the largest country in the world, and then casually mentioning, thirty paragraphs in, that Russia is actually way bigger.

Leopold Bloom - September 18, 2009 reply

I miss those guys SO MUCH!

Seriously, I looked forward to new FJM posts like nothing else.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

Yep.

I cried a little when they went away.

Or peed. One of those.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

Seriously, I learned so much from that site

And laughed all the time. The Joe chats were just comedy gold…so awesome.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

The Joe chats were wonderful.

oh my god, I miss the snark…

Leopold Bloom - September 18, 2009 reply

Here's more:

http://deadspin.com/5360495/what+if-the-what+if

BRONX BOMBSHELL: DEREK JETER SAYS HE USED STEROIDS

Well, what would you do if ESPN interrupted your regularly scheduled programming for that one?

Would it be enough to make you shred your season tickets, douse your baseball cards with charcoal fluid and delete America’s pastime from your Facebook friends list?

I have several questions.

1. After A-Rod, Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Clemens, Giambi, Manny, Ortiz, and like 8200 others, why would one more star player make me shred my season tickets?

2. Charcoal fluid? Do you mean “lighter fluid?” “Charcoal fluid” sounds like something that you spray on something else to make it smell like charcoal. (Which I call: Axe Body Spray.) (Boom! Take that, Axe Body Spray!)

3. The phrase “…delete America’s pastime from your Facebook friends list” is the textbook definition of an adult writing about something “the kids” do when they don’t really understand what that thing is. This isn’t a question so much as an exhortation: please, people who don’t really understand the internet – stop trying to use internet lingo. If you don’t, I will text message your MySpace vlog and lol cats to the bit torrent meme!

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

Agreed. Don't look back, something may be gaining on you...

I have been entertained by your writing for some time, baseballgirl. This is another intriguing bit of speculation and recrimination. It perfectly illustrates, however, why Beane does not do a lot of blogging. If he were to spend all his time speculating about what might have been, or recriminating about who is to blame, he would be running the Pittsburgh Pirates. Beane saw an opportunity to grab a transcendent player, and paid the price demanded. There are no mulligans in Beane’s business.

ptbarnum - September 18, 2009 reply

I cringed when I heard that we had given up Ethier...

for Milton “You-look-up-crazy-in-the-dictionary-and-there-is-a-picture-of-me” Bradley. But warmed quickly to Milton when he not only performed but entertained. 2006 was indeed a magical season. Then things fell apart… As we all know, predicting the future is a difficult game. But Beane and Co. do well at it more often than not.

I didn’t like the trade at the time. Then I liked the trade. And now I get a sickening feeling in my stomach everytime I see an Ethier highlight on Sportscenter. Oh, well…

the_rozeboom - September 18, 2009 reply

I hate trading young players away.

It always bothers me to see us do that, so I was unhappy at the time. But it seemed like Milton won me and a lot of other fans over pretty instantly. We just don’t see athletic, toolsy players that often, and Bradley was a thrill to watch.

A'sian - September 18, 2009 reply

I love trades. (Over FS signings)

Can you trade players away, get new ones in, and still improve your team? It’s like a chess game to me.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

FS signings was meant to be FA signings.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

I guess...

as an A’s fan, I’ve become totally addicted to trading established (declining) players for new ones!

A'sian - September 18, 2009 reply

Declining players? Sure.

Rising players or players at their ‘peak’ simply because their trade value is high? In the right circumstances, but don’t be so hasty.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

i think bradley was also intriguing to Oakland fans

because he was a wild-card. i know i liked the idea of bringing in this volatile dude who couldn’t be tamed anywhere else and then winning a WS with him as a catalyst. it was a fitting move for one of the bay area’s bands of misfits…

jlanning17 - September 18, 2009 reply

it was the tail end of the misfit toy era

Future Ed - September 18, 2009 reply

end of an era

misfit > shiny new
:-(

iglew - September 18, 2009 reply

If you do it with a specific goal in mind, and you do your due diligence, then you should never regret it.

Whether or not it works out is an entirely different matter.

When judging trades and FA signings I believe you have to go by the “at the time” criteria. In this specific case, I believe it was a good trade-off for what the team wanted to accomplish at the time, and there was not a wholly unreasonable expectation for the future in it as well. Just didn’t work out as hoped in the long run.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

I agree with this 100%.

Beane made the best of what he could have at the time. And it hurts to look back on, knowing what we know now, but it wasn’t a bad trade then. Far from it.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

To What Other Areas Of Life Can Such a "Live In The Moment !" Philosphy Be Applied?

…and with what consequences? Having sex with a pretty girl you don’t know all that well without using any protection or birth control? Great idea — “at the time.” Buying a bunch a stuff that is really fun and cool with your credit card even though your credit card debt is already crushing you? Wonderful move — “at the time.”

CanuckDodger - September 18, 2009 reply

Those aren't even in the same ballpark, so to speak

The trade wasn’t irresponsible nor was it impulsive. There were a lot of things to consider, that they did consider at the time. YThat’s like saying you should never date at all, because it might lead to sex and consequences. They made a trade that would have been AWESOME had it been Buck instead of Ethier. They picked wrong. It happens.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

I Was Specifically Addressing...

… the “at the time” criterion Uncle Leo suggested as a way to determine what to do. My implied point was “Do try to use foresight to see what consequences will come from your actions.”

CanuckDodger - September 18, 2009 reply

Ah...I see.

Ignore me. :-)

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

Of course certain scenarios would require differing levels of forethought...

…simply for the severity of potential consequences, but this is a baseball discussion in a baseball forum, and as such… “at the time”… I did not envision STDs or birth control being injected as a comparable subject matter. Probably because they’re not.

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

How about lottery tickets? Are those comparable?

If some guy wins the mega-lottery, does he have to acknowledge that spending his money on the ticket was actually a poor choice by “at the time” criteria?

iglew - September 18, 2009 reply

Was it a full count "at the time"?

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

you do your due diligence.

You reconnoiter the ridges—first place the Pinkertons’ll look. If the claim’s pinched out, you come back here, I give you your money back, no questions asked.

Leopold Bloom - September 18, 2009 reply

It's not one of those trades that will haunt me for years to come

But at some point you do sorta have to acknowledge that, given hindsight, the A’s, Beane’s, and most of our evaluations of Ethier were simply wrong. That happens.

It’s one thing to say hindsight is 20/20, but there were people out there that obviously saw in Ethier what we, as a fanbase (that mostly supported the trade) and an organization (that orchestrated it) failed to see. Failures in talent evaluation will happen, they’ll happen a lot, and unless they’re particularly egregious, there’s not much use in hand-wringing over a generally sound decision-making process.

But that doesn’t mean we need to sugar-coat it, either. The trade, pretty objectively, almost certainly was not worth it. But, like I said, the decision-making process was sound (deal from depth to make a contending team better) and that’s really all you can ask for.

walk off bunt - September 18, 2009 reply

No, no they were not WRONG.

I’m not sure what the expectation in trades is, but it’s generally a SWAP of talent.

Not every trade is Nathan, Bonser, and Liriano for AJ Pierpanhgaoieuhtroiaesky.

Not every trade is Haren, Calero, and Barton for Mark Mulder.

You hvae to GIVE UP talent in order to acquire talent. Generally, and in the Bradley/Ethier case, it was giving up FUTURE talent (Ethier) in order to get talent RIGHT NOW (Bradley).

The thinking was not “Oh, hell, Ethier won’t amount to shit. Let’s trade him for MIlton Bradley so he can lead us to the playoffs!” because generally guys don’t get traded for shitty prospects.

The fact that Ethier was going to be a good player is what made Colletti accept him in return for Bradley and Antonio Perez.

The fact that Travis Buck was also rocketing through the system, and subsequently had a monster rookie season made the trade even more worth it, nevermind the fact that Buck has been essentially blacklisted by the organization for some reason and never given another extended chance to repeat his rookie year’s numbers.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

I wish they had traded Buck...

..considering he’s now a person non grata here anyway.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

They were absolutely wrong.

If anyone in the A’s system legitimately thought Andre Ethier would be a career .294/.364/.495 hitter at this point, peaking at .283/.364/.529 (OPS+ of 132 and 130 last two seasons) and still traded him, then everyone in the front office should be fired.

Especially since Ethier basically equaled Bradley’s production in 2006.

But they, reasonably, I might add, did not think such a thing. But it was a failure of talent evaluation. And, again, that doesn’t mean we need to sugar-coat it in order to feel justified years later. The trade was justified at the time.

walk off bunt - September 18, 2009 reply

Except Ethier can't play CF.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

Bradley played 94 games in right field for the A's in 2006, according to BB-ref

1 at DH. He did play 15 games in center in 2007, though, I guess.

walk off bunt - September 18, 2009 reply

Hrm. I stand corrected.

Regardless of the position, though, Bradley was a well above average defender and Ethier was subpar.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

and if you believe UZR, he's a pretty bad defensive outfielder at the corners.

He’s about 2.5-3.0 WAR with the bat, but he’s giving back over 1WAR with his defense.

He’s a solid player, but he’s not ZOMG AWESOME like everybody thinks he is.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

I really don't think you and I are on the same plane here

I’m not even saying Ethier is ZOMG AWESOME. I’m saying that time, and hindsight, have essentially proven that Ethier was better than most of us gave him credit for. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I’m also saying we don’t need to make ourselves feel better about the trade years down the line because there was nothing wrong with trade in the first place.

I just think the “I’d do it again no matter what” mentality is silly. I think there are pretty clear and obvious reasons not to do it again. But I would’ve done it at the time, and I don’t feel particularly bad about that now.

walk off bunt - September 18, 2009 reply

He's proven to be a 2.5-3.0 WAR hitter

and a -10 defender.

Overall he’s a good player, but he’s really not much better than Ryan Sweeney right now — again, this is only if you believe what Fangraphs UZR tells you. Sweeney has basically been so much better defensively that the offensive gap between the two is nearly made up for.

I’m not arguing that Ethier is NOT a good player. He’s a good player. He’s not a superstar like one would be led to believe after reading about how it was such a gigantic mistake to let go of him.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

See this is what I mean

I’m still not sure what you’re trying to convince me of with Ethier. I have no beef with that assessment.

But I’d still take his career over what Bradley gave us. And I still have no problem with that trade being made.

And I’m still not saying it was a mistake to let go of him. In fact, I’ve said quite the opposite. It was quite reasonable to let go of him given the circumstances.

But the “I’d do it all over again” mentality is still silly. We don’t need to justify a completely justifiable trade to ourselves by saying stuff like “No regrets, I’d do it all over again.”

walk off bunt - September 18, 2009 reply

Right. This whole fanpost is kinda... I dunno,

not pointless, but I just don’t get it.

IF Etheir had flopped and been horrible, would we still be making posts about it and saying HAHAHA I CAN’T BELIVE HOW BAD WE FUCKING RIPPED OFF COLLETTI!!!!!

I doubt it.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

I get it

This is what fanposts are about. She’s second-guessing the decision, and allowing others to do the same. I think it’s legitimate to go back to every free-agent signing or trade and see if it worked or not. Hindsight is something Billy Beane really can’t do without driving himself nuts, but I think AN has every right to do it, and if it’s on peoples’ minds, it’s cool.

I wasn’t overjoyed by the trade because, despite Bradley’s talent, he had two major red flags: Bradley himself, and his injury history. Ethier, on the other hand, was MLB ready at the time. But in the long run it didn’t matter because Ethier was not someone who was going to get the A’s back to the playoffs by himself, and by now, Beane would probably have traded him for prospects.

richwol1 - September 18, 2009 reply

I'm hearing you

I don’t think anyone on either side of the deal saw 30 HR power in Ethier.

grover - September 18, 2009 reply

it is pointed out

(in the comments to that Fire Joe Morgan post I linked above) that Ethier fairly well crushed his PECOTA 90th percentile projections that rookie year. So it’s not surprising that the A’s talent evaluators didn’t see that coming. I’m sure that the Dodgers didn’t see it coming either. Like mikev points out, they probably saw the trade as a relatively even swap of right now talent for future talent. The fact that Ethier put up better number is 2006 than Bradley was either a fluke or due to something beyond anyone’s scouting ability (or the Dodgers front office are wizards).

colin - September 18, 2009 reply

If anyone thought that was Eithier's career path

from his AA numbers they should be fired too. the dodgers rushed him and it paid off. With the A’s kuck, if they keep eithier, he turns into danny putnam

Future Ed - September 18, 2009 reply

Travis Buck

My memory of the trade is uncharacteristically good. I remember at the time that there was a nice feature in Athletics Magazine on Ethier and how he was storming the MLB gates with his minor league stats. Shortly thereafter was the trade, and I remember thinking, “WTF?!? I thought I would see this guy in green and gold this year.” The Chronicle did indeed report some quote from either Forst/Beane on the fact that “One reason we felt we could make this trade was because Travis Buck is a very similar player with a lot of upside” etc etc and that while the price was steep for Bradley (and A. Perez, what a waste of space), it didn’t hinder the organization.

That said, and with Buck toiling away in AAA obscurity, I still like the trade. Bradley became one of my favorite players here because his fire showed. Yeah he was a hot-head, blah blah, but to me he was like the anti-Chavez. No “quietly going about his business”, he would do it loud and proud, with his white fashion sunglasses on in the outfield.

Besides, maybe Ethier wouldnt have Dodger-like numbers with the A’s. Maybe he would have been platooned with Cust! Maybe he would have become disgruntled with the way A’s handled his call up (and down and up and down). Plus who would have hit behind him – Cust again?

I know this is sort of off-topic now, but I’m dying to see how the A’s brass handle Suzuki and Powell. I hope they pull a Hatteberg and move Powell to 1st base, just so the two of them can continue to play together. I really hope neither are traded, but experience tells me not to get my hopes up.

popcornjames - September 18, 2009 reply

cust was an emergency pick up in 2007

partly because bradley was broken

Future Ed - September 18, 2009 reply

I was just about to mention that

With Bradley’s hasty departure, we picked up a lefty bat for a bag of balls who has happened to lead our team in HRs. He might be frustrating for some, but in some ways, you have to think of it as Bradley for Cust. When you think of it like that, it’s not so bad.

Like others, I too, double-taked when I heard about the trade. So much had been made about he’d be OF of the future blah blah blah and then he disappeared. It’s hard too seeing him in LA so much — there’s (legitimate) talk of MVP for him.

cuppingmaster - September 18, 2009 reply

testify

Future Ed - September 18, 2009 reply

This:

But that doesn’t mean we need to sugar-coat it, either. The trade, pretty objectively, almost certainly was not worth it. But, like I said, the decision-making process was sound (deal from depth to make a contending team better) and that’s really all you can ask for.

Agree. It just didn’t work. It happens.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

Just because Ethier

is hitting in LA doesn’t necessarily translate that he would do the same thing in the AL. One of BB’s weakness is that he thinks an NL .300 hitter will do that in the AL, thus the Kendall, Halliday, & Hairston trades. We got .300 hitters who turned into .240 hitters.

Laoren - September 18, 2009 reply

Also a good point.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

About Ethier, I mean.

Kendall was old, Holliday was a d-bag who didn’t try, and Hairston wasn’t that good to start with. I think Ethier still would have been worth it, but who knows.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

Kendall is 3 years older

and hitting .300 in Milwaukee, did he all of sudden get younger? Hairston was hitting .300 when we got him. Halladay is hitting almost .400 since leaving for the NL, I prefer to think the NL is a AAAA league, just imagine how well Hannahan would do there.

Laoren - September 18, 2009 reply

For some reason

I get the feeling Buck would be putting up great numbers in LA right now and we’d be lamenting trading him instead of Eithier. Being an A’s fan has turned me into a cynical mofo

chipper1001 - September 18, 2009 reply

I'm certain of it...

…I wish we knew what the HELL happened to him or what he did!

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

Never liked it myself....

But not because I loved Ethier (I wish I could claim that), but because I am extremely anti-Milton. Living in LA, I saw all his antics while on the Dodgers and had no interest in rooting for him.

Great piece BBG and very timely…the Manny line is especially funny, thanks for the laugh on a Friday AM.

OaktownPower - September 18, 2009 reply

2 mlb players: bradley and perez

for a solid, but not great OF prospect in Ethier at the time
I remember a good amount of fans thinking perez, was going to be a solid pickup maybe even a potential replacement for ellis/crosby etc
They still had guys like swisher, kotsay, payton, kielty, etc under contract during that time too. SO OF depth looked decent at least.
The biggest disappointment in all of this is Buck, at worst they projected him to be a similar player as Ethier. Dont forget Buck being around also went into the decision by later trading Bradley and/or Swisher.
Fast forward to now, that “great” OF depth: Hererra/Putnam/ROobnett have been traded/released in the past yr and Buck has fallen out favor.

Asfan4ever723 - September 18, 2009 reply

I expected Antonio Perez to be a solid pickup.

I missed the boat on that one.

iglew - September 18, 2009 reply

Ethier: 2.8 WAR in 629 PA
Sweeney: 3.3 WAR in 497 PA

Cheezombie - September 18, 2009 reply

Ya I'm not sure Ethier would be that valuable on this year's team. He's not all that much

different than the LF combo of Holliday and Hairston turned out to be. The

WaddellCanseco - September 18, 2009 reply

yeah but

UZR is very high on Sweeney’s defense this year, and it’s likely that this is a high water mark for him in that department. I’m not saying he’s not an above average defender, but just that we shouldn’t necessarily +2 WAR from his glove along going forward.

for 2008,
Ethier: 3.4 WAR in 596 PA
Sweeney: 1.8 WAR in 433 PA
(actually those aren’t far off from each other)

colin - September 18, 2009 reply

The innernettes do not lie!!

Cheezombie - September 18, 2009 reply

WAR for us, yeah, this year

Maybe Ethier’s WAR is 2.8 on the Dodgers, but I bet it’s better on the A’s. But he would be under contractual control for a few more years, too. I can’t honestly think of anyone who would rather have Ryan Sweeney than Andre Ethier in right tonight. The stats may tell us this, but it doesn’t pass the smell test

cuppingmaster - September 18, 2009 reply

the idea that Ryan Sweeney

is 3.3 WAR to Ethier’s 2.8 is suspect, and should cause consternation to those who follow such stats. Especially considering the non-linearity of wins and what the records of the A’s and Dodgers are today.

cuppingmaster - September 18, 2009 reply

I understand that, but to think that he would be a more productive player in Oakland is lunacy.

Cheezombie - September 18, 2009 reply

That's not really the question though

it’s “Who would we rather have?” That’s the question I’m getting at. While his Manny-less stats are average at best, I’d still rather have him than Sweeney.

cuppingmaster - September 18, 2009 reply

I have a similar issue with WAR,

in that UZR is far from perfect, but fielding runs make up half the stat of WAR.

That being said, it’s possible that Ryan Sweeney is better than Ethier, as fielding is half the game. Well, kinda.

travdog6 - September 18, 2009 reply

Uh, I'll take the stats.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

I'm not big on WAR as a concept, or anything that uses an attempt to account for defensive rating

as a quantitative measure. wOBA I can live with, but stuff after that I’m too old school when it comes to stats. Constants of the universe are one thing, but such things don’t exist, IMHO, in baseball.

cuppingmaster - September 18, 2009 reply

Which is fair enough.

But you also cannot outright IGNORE defense, and the defensive gap between Sweeney and Ethier is significant.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

If you remember the intial bradley rumors

Saarloos was mentioned as one of the main players going to the dodgers. Who knows if its true or not, Saarloos was a very valuable back rotation SP at the time. Bradley obviously had his injuries and attitude issues.Not surprised that Beane somehow worked Perez in that deal and that forced them to give up a decent prospect instead.

Asfan4ever723 - September 18, 2009 reply

Here's the thing:

No one knew that Ethier would be the only one of that group of 5 to really work out. Putnam, Robnett and Herrera have been uber-busts, but who was to say that in 2006?

He might have had the highest chance of working out, but, well, the Dodgers obviously wanted SOMETHING back for Bradley.

Ultimately? The A’s can’t win if 60% of their top prospects bust. In periods when that happens (and there will be periods when that happens, it’s the nature of prospecting), the team will not be competitive.

PaulThomas - September 18, 2009 reply

That's the real problem here.

Andre Ethier could have been the second coming of Ted Williams and we’d be fine if just one of Herrera, Robnett, Putnam, or Buck had worked out. (I guess the juries still out on Buck, to be fair, but God knows with that one.)

walk off bunt - September 18, 2009 reply

Well said.

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

Eh, Ethier would have just languished at AAA and on the DL if we kept him.

(Yes, that was tongue planted firmly in cheek.)

UncleLeo - September 18, 2009 reply

Haha, except it's a little too close to home

Seriously…what the HELL happened to Buck!?

baseballgirl - September 18, 2009 reply

I wish I knew.

mikev - September 18, 2009 reply

Same here.

Athletics Nation