Nick Swisher Traded to the White Sox

by Fan Since 1981 on Jan 3, 2008 12:01 PM PST

A's fan favorite Nick Swisher has been traded to the White Sox for three minor leaguers. He signed a contract ($26.75m for 5 years) in May 2007 which at the time appeared to be reasonable enough such that the A's could have kept him (at least from a financial perspective).

Here are some highlights from an AP story dated May 11, 2007 at the time of the deal: Nick Swisher and the Oakland Athletics agreed Friday on a $26.75 million, five-year contract that also includes a one-year club option for 2012. "This lends us some stability with the club as we move forward into the new stadium," A's GM Billy Beane said. "He does things offensively we'd like everybody to do. He takes a lot of walks and hits a lot of home runs." Swisher will earn $700,000 this year, $3.5 million in 2008, $5.3 million in 2009, $6.75 million in 2010 and $9 million in 2011. The club option is worth $10.25 million, with a $1 million buyout.

The trade link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3179423

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

Tweet Comment 34 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Wherever will he get his weed now?

Oh yeah, duh, John Danks.

by Higz on Jan 3, 2008 12:10 PM PST reply actions

Its trades like these...

that make me feel better about losing out on Cabrera. We didn't get MC and Beane is still folding and playing for the future.

Now we have some cheap Howie, Adenhart, and Wood to compete when they get serious again.

by Wytelitning on Jan 3, 2008 12:11 PM PST reply actions

WOW

I would have considered Swisher to be the face of the Fremont franchise - this is a big plus for Chicago and more ammo for Billy Beane's 2009 pennant run.

by Rev Halofan on Jan 3, 2008 12:21 PM PST reply actions

I just hope that the M's don't land Bedard or

Santana. That way...it's smooth sailing to the West Crown.

If I hear the word "red sox"...POW!!! RIGHT IN THE KISSER!!!

by Halofanatic on Jan 3, 2008 12:23 PM PST reply actions

The Mariners aren't terrible

But like you mentioned, if they get Bedard, they'll be tough in a couple series where you face King Felix and Bedard.

The A's will be worthy of a last place finish this year.

The Rangers... well, no pitching what's going on with Sammy Sosa? He's not on their 40 man roster. Anyone know what happened to him or if he's going to sign with anyone?

by matt92130 on Jan 4, 2008 3:13 PM PST up reply actions

Released to free agency

The team cut ties with him back on December 1, when they refused him arbitration. A rumor coming out of the Dominican Republica had his agent in talks with the Royals, but they denied it vociferously.

Hoping Ervin Santana turns it around in Salt Lake. Go, Ervin!

by scareduck on Jan 4, 2008 3:31 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks

Good to know. I figured the Royals would have jumped at a guy like Sammy for two reasons:

He'll fill the seats, and make them money.
With Guillen and Sosa in the OF, that's still two bats that can put one out at anytime. They haven't had players like that in awhile. (Sweeney doesn't count... too many injuries.)

by matt92130 on Jan 6, 2008 2:17 PM PST up reply actions

Bob Hamelin?

Quit yer whinin' and START CHEERING!

by Downing Rules on Jan 7, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions

With or Without

Swisher - I don't think the A's were going to threaten for the AL West. IMO - the AL West crown is already ours to lose. The key is to compete with the BoSux, Det, etc come the playoffs...Yeah, Yeah, I know the crapshoot argument but I'd still feel much better about the chances with another big bat...

Wanted: Any position player with power

by gorams77 on Jan 4, 2008 3:54 PM PST up reply actions

ha

congratulations chicago. just obtained the biggest doushebag in baseball not named padilla

by ihearhowie2.0 on Jan 3, 2008 12:27 PM PST reply actions

Padilla? Try Pierzynski

Oh, wait, they've got HIM, too! Well, thank goodness their manager isn't a big doucheb-- Uh, wait a minute, where was I going with this?

by Brew Angel on Jan 3, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions

This is good for 2008...

...but I don't know how this is going to play out after that. Billy Beane the Moneyball machine has done a pretty good job of pretty much rejuvenating the A's farm system within the span of a month.

It's going to be a rough few years to be an A's fan...but come 2010 or later, look out. Reagins better be smart and make sure we continue to stay competitive.

The Hunt for a Red October ...and please keep telling Clutch to chill!

by cardinalwraith on Jan 3, 2008 12:57 PM PST reply actions

Some good tradin' over there!

Beane's been getting good value for his players. I'm impressed. Nothing like cleaning out other team's farms to keep his strong.

by Monkeyspanked on Jan 3, 2008 1:16 PM PST reply actions

A's are a farm team

they get young talented players, give them MLB time, and then trade them or let them go when they get good.

if i were an A's fan, i'd be pretty pissed.

by yeswecan on Jan 3, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions

History

They've been doing it for years, since the Philly and KC days.

Angels fan since '67

by red floyd on Jan 3, 2008 2:51 PM PST up reply actions

The key for the A's

was the unexpected collapse of Rich Harden's shoulder/hips/pinky/bellybutton/etc. After 2007 it became obvious that the team had too many health questions to be a real contender, so Beane did the right thing and retooled. I really think this team will be making a run for it in 2009 and by 2010 they'll be serious division contenders. In one stroke, they picked up the Chisox' best two pitching prospects (Gonzalez was a top 10 prospect in the minors all by hisself, and De Los Santos was in the top 50) and a decent stick for the OF. Overall I like this deal for the A's.

Hoping Ervin Santana turns it around in Salt Lake. Go, Ervin!

by scareduck on Jan 3, 2008 4:12 PM PST up reply actions

agreed cardinalwraith...

love beane or hate beane with the haren and swisher trade he has been able to reload for a couple years down the road. a very smart move he does that you don't see other gm's do is when he locks up young players to long term deals he doesn't necessarily do this to create more payroll flexibility and stability for the a's he does this to get a boat load of talent in return for payroll friendly, young, proven talent.

by thejd on Jan 3, 2008 1:21 PM PST reply actions

Good point

I just wonder if all of these trades will mean that these young guys will be reluctant to let Beane buy out some of their arbitration years without a no trade clause. Right now the A's are able to sign these guys to discounted deals, but if the guy realizes that he will most likely get traded, he might think twice about signing. Either guys will be less likely to give a discount, they will try and get some kind of no trade clause, or both. They might even be reluctant to sign because who knows what the makeup of the locker room will be next year, or even tomorrow.

I know the A's are taking some risk buy signing these guys early in their careers, but compared to what some other teams have done with young talent, it seems like they are currently getting a good discount.

I know folks have said that the A's have always been like this, but it seems like with the Hudson and Mulder trades, and now the Haren and Swisher deal, things have been moved to an even higher level. These were significant parts of the team that all had at least a full season left on their contracts, all signed for below market value.

No wonder Giambi left because they couldn't agree on a no trade clause.

They might as well trade us some of their adult fans for the promise of our kids allegiance at sometime in the future. It's got to be tough to contunue to be an A's fan year after year, and the next 2 years will be especially difficult.

Maybe the A's get more for these guys by trading them preseason, but the flip side is that the fan base has given up before spring training even starts. Every year with the Angels, I go in with the hope that this is the year we win it all, no matter what the odds might say. Always has been that way, always will. But if I was an A's fan, I'm not sure I could do that this year.

Sucks for them!

by LosAngel on Jan 3, 2008 7:30 PM PST up reply actions

Why would it matter?

These guys aren't signing at below market value because they're giving the A's "a discount." They're signing because they're still in their arbitration years (or in some cases, not even that,) meaning they have limited control over how much money they make and no control whatsoever over what team they play for. The alternative to signing these deals is to make close to the league minimum their first three years in the bigs and go through the arbitration process for one-year deals each of their next three years.

The reason a Nick Swisher signs the $26.5M deal is that even if he gets a career-ending injury the next day, he's still set for life. It provides young players with financial stability and security, and it does this whether the team they came up with keeps them or trades them.

As for why Swisher and Haren were traded when they were still signed for multi-year below-market contracts: because they were signed for multi-year below-market contracts. To teams like the Dbacks with limited payrolls or teams like the White Sox with payrolls that can't be hugely increased, this is what makes those players valuable enough that they turn over decent chunks of their farm system to obtain them. Even A's fans admitted that Oakland needed everything to go right with their 2008 team to win the division. Players who had career years (Haren, Cust,) had to maintain that level of performance, frequently-injured players (Chavez, Crosby, Harden,) had to be both healthy and good. The rumored Bonds signing had to not be interrupted by legal proceedings.

Oakland recognized this just wasn't the likeliest outcome, (or maybe it just occurred to him that 3/5ths of his proposed rotation of Haren, Blanton, Harden, Gaudin and Duchscherer would be coming back from major injuries. 2008 didn't look good, and if he kept that team together, 2009 wasn't a good bet either. And after that things would get really bad.

And Giambi really doesn't seem like a good example of a guy they should have kept at this point.

by Nate on Jan 6, 2008 3:27 AM PST up reply actions

gotta hand it to beane

i mean he knows the A's have virtually no shot next year so you got to give him credit for thinking long term. the A's have added what, 8 or 9 prospects in the last month. he might as well go all in now and trade HStreet and JBlanton for what, 6 more. I hope Reagins doesn't forget to protect the future too.

by tom ass on Jan 3, 2008 1:29 PM PST reply actions

This move was shocking to me.

This move is very confusing, I remember half of moneyball being written about how much Billy Beane loves Swisher. I can't believe he moved him.

by RH15 on Jan 3, 2008 2:30 PM PST reply actions

god it must SUCK

to try and buy an A's jersey. The players are gone before you even get to wear it.

East coast bias

by Carl Johnson on Jan 3, 2008 3:32 PM PST reply actions

Ironically

I just purchased my first piece of apparel with a player's name on it in about 15 years during the last home game. I guess it's just bad luck it said Cabrera on it.

by powerninja on Jan 3, 2008 4:10 PM PST up reply actions

That's why I don't buy jerseys :)

I buy things with the team name and colors on it, but nothing that dates it.

Of course, now I'm a bit reluctant to buy anything with "Oakland" on it if it turns to "Fremont" in a few years.

Such is life as an A's fan. 20 years and I've survived worse... :)

by Kelly on Jan 4, 2008 6:26 AM PST up reply actions

haha serious

atleast were not like that

by krod4ever on Jan 3, 2008 3:37 PM PST reply actions

Yeah

It makes me feel soooo much better to know we'll have Anderson patrolling left ... sheesh.

Hoping Ervin Santana turns it around in Salt Lake. Go, Ervin!

by scareduck on Jan 4, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions

Not really any correlation

Fremont is in full blown implosion. Tarps and all. Having a broke down left fielder patrolling left does not really have any similarities. We'll win 95 they will lose 95

Um.........

by hauldog on Jan 4, 2008 1:36 PM PST up reply actions

Spelling it out

Having to kiss good players goodbye because you can't afford them anymore is a legitimate problem. But so is over-attachment to bad, former franchise players. My point is that Anderson shouldn't be starting, and if the Angels continue to make those kinds of mistakes, we'll see GMJ well into his decline phase starting in CF and hitting .225/.310/.405 (and Hunter in left doing not much better). That's a problem.

Hoping Ervin Santana turns it around in Salt Lake. Go, Ervin!

by scareduck on Jan 4, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions

OVER-ATTACHMENT

I am still mortified over what I saw posted here when we trade Jose Molina in 2007 - I guarantee you that Oakland fans will never wallow in such a marginal player being flipped for a decent pitching prospect.

by Rev Halofan on Jan 4, 2008 2:55 PM PST up reply actions

Balanced out

by a young and productive infield. GA is only signed through 2008. The doomsday predictions continue Scareduck.

As far as Swisher goes. He was insanely affordable through 2012. Who is to say they won't be competing at that point, and find him to be a useful part of the team.

Um.........

by hauldog on Jan 4, 2008 3:34 PM PST up reply actions

Good Point

Why would we want a guy at LF/DH who averaged nearly an RBI a game over the second half of the season while hitting .305? Also, I think it's so funny that some people hammer the Angels for hanging onto their prospects but then come on here and praise Beane for trading guys in their prime for prospects. Huh?

by powerninja on Jan 7, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions