Doing research on the Jackson-Stilwell trade, it looked like at the time shortstop was the major needed position. Also across MLB that winter as well. Reds had two young studs and wanted a front line pitcher. Royals won out - Jackson was considered our 4th best at the time. It seems across the board most thought it was even trade when done in the winter of 87. [Reply]
Yeah, armed with hindsight, it's easy to criticize those trades.
It was a different era and teams were much more willing to be aggressive in trades. But the Royals still went 0-3 in trading 3 really big assets and it absolutely murdered them, combined with Jackson's injury and Kaufman's death/resulting team limbo.
The impatience with Jeffries was a real mistake. I remember how he got off to this horrible start his first season with the team, where he was just hitting into awful luck constantly. He had a strong second half but they still flipped him for Felix Jose in the offseason. That did not work out.
The first season I was really old enough to FOLLOW baseball was 91. I remember how excited I was for the additions of Kirk Gibson and the Davises. Yikes.
Gibson was a solid one-year play. The Davises were just a disaster. Egads. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
This is rebuttal #1: Stillwell was a GREAT prospect. And if you can trade a 27 yr old SP for a 23 yr old SS you do it. Jackson was 2 years from FA and there was a lot of concern all the sliders he threw would blow up his arm at any time. Stillwell was a surefire 6 year starter at a premium position (he made that 1988 ASG!)
Rebuttal #2: would you believe Ed Hearn was also a great prospect? Hearn was 6-3 220 and at age 24 in his rookie year, 135AB he hit .265. The Mets actually didn’t want to trade him (why would they?) and they held out unless they got a MLB-ready starter. Which they got.
Hearn blew out his shoulder 9 games in. What can you do? And Stillwell had 4 pretty good years here but lost interest in baseball. He became a fly-fishing guide after retiring
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
Doing research on the Jackson-Stilwell trade, it looked like at the time shortstop was the major needed position. Also across MLB that winter as well. Reds had two young studs and wanted a front line pitcher. Royals won out - Jackson was considered our 4th best at the time. It seems across the board most thought it was even trade when done in the winter of 87.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the trade was indefensible. At the time, you're trading a mid-rotation starter for a young prospect with a HUGE pedigree. Moreover, this was the dead-ball era when defense up the middle was how teams were being built.
I'm simply saying it was a bit of a scouting failure. They had the right idea and with the right team to target. They had the possibility of securing a HoF caliber SS in that deal. And instead went with Stillwell.
Again, getting back to the Cards/Marlins example - the Cardinals did the right thing dealing excess pitching for a corner OFer. They just half-assed it (as is Mozeliak's custom) and took the less risky approach, targeting the guy who cost less to acquire and who had far less ceiling.
It was poor execution of a good plan, IMO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
Yeah, armed with hindsight, it's easy to criticize those trades.
It was a different era and teams were much more willing to be aggressive in trades. But the Royals still went 0-3 in trading 3 really big assets and it absolutely murdered them, combined with Jackson's injury and Kaufman's death/resulting team limbo.
The impatience with Jeffries was a real mistake. I remember how he got off to this horrible start his first season with the team, where he was just hitting into awful luck constantly. He had a strong second half but they still flipped him for Felix Jose in the offseason. That did not work out.
The first season I was really old enough to FOLLOW baseball was 91. I remember how excited I was for the additions of Kirk Gibson and the Davises. Yikes.
Gibson was a solid one-year play. The Davises were just a disaster. Egads.
Yeah - as I went through the histories of those deals, most of it made sense if you put yourself in their shoes at that time.
But the Jeffries thing? Man - I just can't find a justification for that in hindsight or in real time. At 24 years old he didn't have an actively bad year. And over the 2nd half of the season, he was essentially the hitter he would become for the next half-decade or so. For about 90 games there in the middle of the season the dude had 400 PAs w/ a .330 BA, an .850 OPS and all of 16 strikeouts.
That's exactly the player the Royals were hoping they'd get, no? And he demonstrated it for a long stretch in their uniform.
They just completely blew that return. Had they held Jeffries, Sabe's injury history that started almost immediately after he was traded would've ultimately made that a win for them.
The problem wasn't necessarily the Saberhagen trade - it was what they did with the component parts. Imagine trading Lorenzo Cain for Dustin Ackley in 2013 (which would've been defensible at the time, if a little puzzling). History would have people complaining about the Greinke deal when the problem wasn't dealing Greinke - it was pulling the trigger too soon on Cain and dumping him for a poor return. [Reply]
Stillwell was a classic case of a pro athlete who plays a sport because he’s good at it - not because he loves it. Stillwell’s dad played MLB so it ran in the family but fly fishing is his thing.
Jackson/Cone deals at least made **some** sense. BUT JEFF FING CONINE DIDNT!!! Our top hitting prospect in 1991, he got cups of coffee in 91-92. To be fair he didn’t show much. 0HR in 100ab. But he crushed minor leagues. (Think a younger Ryan McBroom and his lack of power, first 100ab)
Consider this: we left Conine unprotected after 1992 and Florida selected him. George Brett and Kevin McReybolds BOTH were FA after 1993, and everyone knew Brett was retiring anyway. That’s both LF and 1B Open! What the f***? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Stillwell was a classic case of a pro athlete who plays a sport because he’s good at it - not because he loves it. Stillwell’s dad played MLB so it ran in the family but fly fishing is his thing.
Jackson/Cone deals at least made **some** sense. BUT JEFF FING CONINE DIDNT!!! Our top hitting prospect in 1991, he got cups of coffee in 91-92. To be fair he didn’t show much. 0HR in 100ab. But he crushed minor leagues. (Think a younger Ryan McBroom and his lack of power, first 100ab)
Consider this: we left Conine unprotected after 1992 and Florida selected him. George Brett and Kevin McReybolds BOTH were FA after 1993, and everyone knew Brett was retiring anyway. That’s both LF and 1B Open! What the f***?
That's around the time I started understanding the rules and roster transaction stuff a bit.
And as a local baseball fan, even I was a bit puzzled about losing Conine. I remember that Eisenreich was kindof a thing at the time and people liked him, but everyone knew he was getting older and it seemed likely that Conine was going to take his sort of 'professional hitter with no real defensive spot for the time being' role before maybe becoming the 1b long-term.
That was just creating a hole to create a hole. A really strange approach for sure. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah - as I went through the histories of those deals, most of it made sense if you put yourself in their shoes at that time.
But the Jeffries thing? Man - I just can't find a justification for that in hindsight or in real time. At 24 years old he didn't have an actively bad year. And over the 2nd half of the season, he was essentially the hitter he would become for the next half-decade or so. For about 90 games there in the middle of the season the dude had 400 PAs w/ a .330 BA, an .850 OPS and all of 16 strikeouts.
That's exactly the player the Royals were hoping they'd get, no? And he demonstrated it for a long stretch in their uniform.
They just completely blew that return. Had they held Jeffries, Sabe's injury history that started almost immediately after he was traded would've ultimately made that a win for them.
The problem wasn't necessarily the Saberhagen trade - it was what they did with the component parts. Imagine trading Lorenzo Cain for Dustin Ackley in 2013 (which would've been defensible at the time, if a little puzzling). History would have people complaining about the Greinke deal when the problem wasn't dealing Greinke - it was pulling the trigger too soon on Cain and dumping him for a poor return.
The Royals seemed to overly care that Jeffries was a bad 3rd baseman that made a bunch of errors. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Stillwell was a classic case of a pro athlete who plays a sport because he’s good at it - not because he loves it. Stillwell’s dad played MLB so it ran in the family but fly fishing is his thing.
Jackson/Cone deals at least made **some** sense. BUT JEFF FING CONINE DIDNT!!! Our top hitting prospect in 1991, he got cups of coffee in 91-92. To be fair he didn’t show much. 0HR in 100ab. But he crushed minor leagues. (Think a younger Ryan McBroom and his lack of power, first 100ab)
Consider this: we left Conine unprotected after 1992 and Florida selected him. George Brett and Kevin McReybolds BOTH were FA after 1993, and everyone knew Brett was retiring anyway. That’s both LF and 1B Open! What the f***?
Well regarding 1st base, we did have Wally Joyner locked up long term. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
My bad. Meant to say LF and DH, where Brett was. Both spots were open after 1993. Criminal leaving Conine out there.
Doesn’t address LF. We signed 3 broken down bums Vince Coleman, Dave Henderson and Hubie Brooks. Woof.
But let’s talk DH. Conine and Hammer both played at Omaha in 1992. Conine was 25 Hammer 24. Conine hit .302 with 20 jacks and Hammer batted .200 with 5hr (after being promoted from AA where he hit well).
No clue why the team would prefer the DH to the OF. And Hammer was limited anyway - We refused to play Hammer vs LH anyway (1100 career AB vs righties, 184 vs lefties). [Reply]
If you have one good pitch and it's a fastball, you'd better hope you never get hurt. Not even once. And if your team offers you a 5-year extension for anything remotely approaching 'market' value - take it. Because if/when you lose 2 mph on that fastball, you're a sitting duck.
99 with impeccable command is a hell of a plan A, but having a Plan B is a pretty big deal. [Reply]
