Oakland / Arizona trade proposal

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 4:51 PM PDT

Baseball Prospectus put out a good article on the Arizona Diamondbacks. The article provides facts that support my idea that a trade between Oakland and Arizona could help both teams.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4515

The highlights of the article are that Arizona will trade one if not two bats this winter. Author Dave Haller makes the argument that the Diamondbacks are rich in outfielders and poor in pitching. The pitching was described as hideous, and the stats support that assessment.

Arizona used 25 pitchers for their 12 pitching spots. Of the 25, only 7 pitchers had an ERA under 4.50 and only 2 of their starters had an ERA under 4.50. 14 pitchers had a WHIP of over 1.50 Their fifth starter (by committee) had a combined win - loss record of 6-14 covering 30 starts. They are faced with free agency of four of the 25 including, unfortunately for them two of their "best", starter Shawn Estes (7-8 4.80 ERA) and RHR Tim Worrell (1-1 2.27 ERA). Their number two starter, Vasquez (11-15 4.42 ERA) can force a trade, a right he gained last winter when he was dealt in the middle of a multi-year contract. THIS TEAM NEEDS PITCHING.

On the offensive side, Arizona just extended 1B Tony Clark for two years with a no trade clause for the first 1 ½ years.

Crowded Outfield: Louis Gonzalez, Chad Tracy, Shawn Green Scott Hairston, Connor Jackson, Carlos Quentin.

Trading Gonzalez and his $10 million dollar salary would be difficult at best, and Shawn Green has a no trade clause. Quentin (.301/.400/.520/920) has done all he can do in AAA and is expected to start in 2006.

Hairston might be moved to 2B (his natural position) moving Counsell from second to SS, after the departure of Royce Clayton via free agency. If they have Gonzalez in LF, Quentin in CF, Green in RF, and with no DH and with 1B played by Clark, it blocks Tracy, and Connor.

Now naturally having Tracy (3B/1B/LF/RF) and Connor on the bench would please any team. However, Tracy (.308/.359/.553/.911) is much more than a bench player and Connor (.354/.467/.553/1020) is just not a versatile enough to be a bench player. In fact his play at 1B is suspect. He seems to be destined for a DH roll. Unfortunately for AZ, the NL does not use the DH.

Ok here is the proposal. First - Joe Kennedy: he will have a salary of $3 million plus via his last yr of arbitration, far too much for a LRP, and that is all he would be for us. Kennedy is really a starter. In fact he was Colorado's opening day starter just last year. It just so happens that AZ is losing their LSP (Estes) to free agency. Second - Juan Cruz: His arbitration figure would be close to a million, which is a lot of money for pitching in AAA when AZ would find him an improvement over most of their starting pitchers. Last - (and here is the zinger, you can't get without giving) Justin Duchscherer: he is an All Star with a 2.21 ERA who can start, go long relief, and close. He also has a bad back that has forced him to miss some time each year for the last few years. Billy loves to trade at the peak of value. This could be Justin's peak.

Arizona gets a Left handed starting pitcher in Kennedy, a potential starter in Cruz, and an inning eating pitcher that can start, go long relief, or close. That should be enough to give up a late blooming Tracy (.324 vs. RHP) who, by the way, would make a perfect platoon complement with Kielty, and a former number one round draft pick in Jackson.

The trade would give us a lineup that could cause lots of damage:
C - Kendall
CF - Kotsay
SS - Crosby
3B - Chavy
LF - Tracy
1B - Johnson
RF - Swisher
DH - Jackson
2B - Ellis

It would also allow Payton to backup at all outfield positions and decrease payroll by about $4 million, which would allow us to sign Dotel to an incentive laden contract to replace some of the innings lost by the departure of Duchscherer. I personally would like to see John Rheinecker cover the rest of the innings lost.

So AN are you with me?

Tweet Comment 82 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

That's a steep price to pay

We'd have to be willing to put up with some instability in the bullpen, but that is one heck of an offensive upgrade.

I doubt that Arizona will be giving up on both Jackson AND Tracy. Instead, I think Arizona might be willing to do this:

Jackson AND Class A prospect AND cash
for
Kennedy AND Cruz

The positionless Jackson is more likely to go than the versatile Tracy. If Wash is still with us, Jackson might be able to become a credible part-timer at first. We'd need to send some money their way to help cover Kennedy's arbitration award. They'd need to send a prospect (not necessarily a high-ceiling one) to equalize the talent a little. We'd also get to keep Duke, but we'd have to plug Flores into the LOOGY role.

Fearing Mecir since 2000.

by salb918 on Oct 7, 2005 5:31 PM PDT reply actions

Agreed

Getting both will be unlikely, unless, say, Zito is part of this trade ... which I'm in no way advocating.

Cruz and Kennedy are vaulable in the sense that they are two starters with POTENTIAL, though neither should net much on their own because of their documented inconsistency. Two of them together offers "innings", which seems to appeal to most teams, although innings ain't worth much unless they are well-pitched, and I'm not sure Kennedy and Cruz can provide that.

That being said, I'd think for those two, plus a low prospect, we could net Tracy. Though, you're right, in order to get Jackson (a TOP prospect) we'd have to give up more, like Duke. I'm not sure that's worth it. The bullpen's a strength right now, but nothing's certain. We don't exactly have a surplus of quality bullpen arms.

by Crosbino on Oct 7, 2005 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Well you didn't think I was ripping off AZ

Yet the trade was described as a steep price to pay. Perhaps if we offered cash as well. I was thinking that AZ would think that they were picking up over $4 million in salary while sheading only 700K.

I don't care if Jackson was a first round pick, he alone is not worth Kennedy and Cruz. while he has done great in AAA his ML stats (small sample size) stink. Both AZ and Oakland realize Jackson is not as proven as Tracy. Sometimes prospects never make the jump past the AAAA level.

If they want to go Cruz for Jackson I would bite. But the key is moving Kennedy with his starter salary. Kennedy for just Tracy might not be enough. Unless you think the A's would include cash to finish the deal.

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions

I disagree

Cruz and Kennedy are worth Jackson

... and it was at that point that I realized that by thinking outside the box, I had simply walked inside a cube...

by Zonis on Oct 7, 2005 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions

amendment

I mean for the cash to be leaving Oakland and going to AZ.

Fearing Mecir since 2000.

by salb918 on Oct 7, 2005 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Ya, I thought thats what you meant.

And I meant "shedding" about $700K in salary. Not "sheading"

Unless they wanted to "shead" some of that money my way.

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Jackson / Tracy

When I read that BPro article yesterday suggesting that Tracy could get traded, it struck me that he could be a Beane target: not a budding superstar, but above average OBP and SLG, and still fairly young and cheap. He was actually one of the most valuable players on the DBacks this year, but he doesn't seem like a player they are building around. His versatility is another plus. The one concern is that his OBP is driven largely by a high batting average, and playing in Oakland often hurts people's average. Still, I think it's worth a shot.

Getting Jackson (or Quentin) is less realistic. Even the stupider teams know that players like this are valuable commodities, and as a result you don't see highly touted prospects on the cusp of making the majors get traded very often. I also think that Barton is close enough to the majors that Beane will probably try to fill the current DH/1B hole with a short-term rental, rather than another prospect.

So I'd forget about the blockbuster trade, and settle for something smaller: Tracy for some pitching, maybe some combination of Kennedy, Cruz, and Garcia. Saarloos could also be trade bait if we're dealing with Arizona. From Oakland's point of view, he is a decent pitcher, but probably likely to regress a bit. On the other hand, his extreme ground-ball tendencies could make him very attractive to Arizona, which plays at a fairly high altitude.

The revolution starts now.

by andeux on Oct 7, 2005 5:33 PM PDT reply actions

What about Barton

It would be a great deal for us but now you've blocked Barton at 1B/DH/LF. I'd be elated if we could just get Conor Jackson, the D-Backs are unlikely to deal both. How about Saarloos/Cruz for Jackson/Nippert. That'd be a hard deal for Zona to turn down and I think Kirk's value is higher than it will ever be.

Also if Kendall is hitting 1 or 2 next year then our offense will still struggle IMO.

by beanefan27 on Oct 7, 2005 5:37 PM PDT reply actions

That is a good point

And that is a "problem" the A's would love to have. I would imagine a successful Jackson would allow Barton to get more time in the minors. Two years of success might lead to a trade of Johnson. If Johnson progresses over the next two years he would bring in quite a catch in an additional trade.

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Jackson or Tracy

Acquiring Jackson or Tracy would be great but getting both would require the A's to give up more than a back of the rotation starter, inconsistent reliever and swing starter/long reliever with injury history. Hoping BB can strike a deal before the Snakes hire a GM. Towers is rumored. He's too smart to deal either without a better return.

by Playball on Oct 7, 2005 6:21 PM PDT reply actions

Good Match with AZ

The A's surplus assets and needs match Arizona's perfectly, so it would be great if something like this happened. I don't think Beane would go for both Jackson and Tracy, however. He will keep either the LF or DH spot open for Barton and go for a stopgap solution for 2006 (like Payton). If the A's could get either Jackson or Tracy without giving up Duke, that would be fabulous.

"Young, cheap and talented is the best way to go through life, son." --Dean Beane

by dylantravis on Oct 7, 2005 6:46 PM PDT reply actions

Thanks, it took a few days to put together.

As far as Barton is concerned, I am not over anxious to bring him up. I would hate to loss him to free agency six years from now, before he was even twenty seven years old. That would be two years before his theoretical peak. He was just 19 two months ago!

I have heard that Beane is high on Jackson. Jackson went to Cal, and we all know how Beane likes California players. But if forced to choose only one player, I would choose Tracy.

Jackson has great AAA numbers but has not shown the ablitiy to hit ML pitching. Tracy not only can hit ML pitching, but his OPS from this year would have lead the A's. He is still young at 26. But he is not perfect, as he is a left handed batter. And he struggled with left handed pitching. (.236/.723 vs. LHP) But doesn't that mesh great with Kielty's stats?

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Barton turned 20 a couple months ago

But I agree that Beane won't rush him. I am sure Beane is high on Jackson, but so is just about everyone else in ML front offices. How much his defensive issues and initial struggles have changed that, I don't know, but I would guess it would take a package starting with someone at least as good as Duke to get it done (the A's would certainly not be bidding alone). Tracy's 2005 season and versatility are very attractive, but his prior track record (not too great in the minors) would raise the question of whether 2005 was a fluke. Jackson, on the other hand, is two years younger and absolutely mashed in the minors. Either would be great. The question is cost.

"Young, cheap and talented is the best way to go through life, son." --Dean Beane

by dylantravis on Oct 7, 2005 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Sorry

forgot to add "But I doubt it."

"Young, cheap and talented is the best way to go through life, son." --Dean Beane

by dylantravis on Oct 7, 2005 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Pipe dream

There's no way Arizona is going to trade the big Conor Jackson for those three A's pitchers, let alone throw Tracy into the deal.

Duke is good, yes, but he's a middle reliever without great stuff. Kennedy is nothing special. And Cruz is a reclamation project at best and a cruel joke at worst.

Conor Jackson on the other hand is the D-Back's TOP prospect above A-ball. It's as if we were to trade Daric Barton for Paul Byrd, Scot Shields, and Chris Bootcheck. Yeah right.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 7, 2005 7:07 PM PDT reply actions

I will repectfully disagree with you.

Conor Jackson got 85 at bats for AZ this year, and he flailed. .200/.303/.306/.609
His glove work was less than sterling as well. Add those stats to the fact that the Diamondbacks extended 1B Tony Clark two years, and you get expendable, ie trade him while he still has value.

As far as:
Paul Byrd 3.74 ERA 1.19 WHIP
Scott Shields 2.75 ERA 1.12 WHIP
Chris Bootcheck 3.38 ERA 1.23 WHIP
Those are good pitchers. Although you must realize that they are all right handed. So such a trade would depend on how long I could control them, and at what salary.

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Scratch Bootcheck

I thought he had a bad year, since he wasn't on the Angels roster to end the season. Replace him with Curtis Pride, and that's more comparable to Juan Cruz. :)

As for Paul Byrd and Scot Shields, I believe they're only under control for a year or two, like Kennedy and Cruz.

As for Conor Jackson, he was rated the #4 prospect in the PCL ranked above guys like Dan Johnson, Casey Kotchman, Carlos Quentin, and Matt Cain. Is he going to be better than them? Jury's out, but right now he's likely to be valued by AZ as being better than them.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 7, 2005 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Sample size

Clark's extension and the outfield logjam may make Jackson expendable, but the price will still be high, because I am sure many GMs will look at Jackson's over 1000 minor league at-bats instead of his 85 in the majors.

"Young, cheap and talented is the best way to go through life, son." --Dean Beane

by dylantravis on Oct 7, 2005 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions

You have hit upon one of the key points

What was AZ thinking when they extended Clark for two years with a no trade clause? With no DH what did they think they were going to do with Jackson for two years? Soak him in AAA until he gets bitter or hurt?

Perhaps, after seeing what Clark can do in a different environment, (.304/.366/.636/1.003) and seeing how many holes ML pitchers were able to find in Jackson's swing, along with his sloth like defensive skills, AZ took action to lock up the winner and cut their losses on the other.

The A's however are patient with rookies and have Washington to make cripples walk and the blind see again. :)

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Still

Just because they feel like they can trade Conor Jackson doesn't mean they're going to trade him for peanuts. I'm sure some other team out there can easily trump a Duke-Kennedy-Cruz package.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 7, 2005 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions

key point

this isn't the a's and dbacks in a vacuum. if it were, maybe the idea would work. but some team would offer more. probalby way more.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 7, 2005 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

The reason I choose A's/Dbacks

Is because of the matchups. A's strength pitching vs AZ strength OF/DH in NL. Take for instance DH. First you eliminate NL. Looking at the AL who really needs a DH. Only the A's and the White Sox lost their DH to free agency.

So I will issue a friendly challenge to you. Provide me with a team that needs a DH, and who do they have available to trade for one. ie Jackson.

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions

DH?

How about Anaheim? And they have premium prospects blocked by expensive players at the big league level. Then there's the Twins, who just cut LeCroy loose. The M's, the Rangers, the O's could also use an upgrade in the form of Conor Jackson. And why are you counting the NL out? Jackson's bat will surely keep him at 1B. Which throws the Red Sox into the mix as well.

Also, sure the A's have pitching strength, but that strength is negated when all you're offering are the likes of Kennedy and Cruz. It's like saying Tony Graffanino and Alex Cora are great trading chips because of the Red Sox' strength in hitting.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 8, 2005 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think

Kennedy/Cruz/Duke would get you Tracy and Jackson. Duke isn't appealing enough to be a center-piece for a trade (middle relievers almost never are) and Kennedy/Cruz are "throw-in level" guys (by "throw-in level" I mean either bad track record, unfulfilled potential, or both).

To get Tracy/Jackson, IMO, you need to part with someone in the Blanton/Ellis center-piece range, or the Meyer/Robnett/Herrera prospect-range. Suddenly, not so appealing for the A's.

Nico

by Nico on Oct 7, 2005 9:52 PM PDT reply actions

I was waiting for someone to raise the price

I was more worried about the increase of salary to AZ. As for as Duchscherer Nico, you havent forgoten that he is more than just a relief pitcher. He is also a proven closer.

I don't think they would be interested in Ellis (they are hig on Hairston), but they would salivate over Blanton. Blanton would be an instant Ace on that staff.

As far as Meyer, I am worried about him and would consider including him in a trade, but not with both Robbett and Herrera. Besides the point was that AZ has a huge need for pitching, and feel that they have the bats to do some damage now.

With the other points raised by yourself and others it sounds like trying to get both Tracy and Jackson would be too difficult. If so, which one would you go after, why, and what would you offer for just the one?

by Hang Man on Oct 7, 2005 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions

I've actually come up with a similar trade

I would also love to have Jackson and/or Tracy. But like you seem to be with Duke, I think the players most likely to regress from '05 form are Andre Ethier and Mark Ellis. So, I think a Ellis, Duke, Zito deal could get it done (as you said they aren't in a need for close to ML OFs like Ethier). That may be a lot of value but I think it would really help us on offense (more of a difference then what we lose in pitching). The question is how to replace them. Mellilo is almost undoubtably not ready at 2b, but Beane has said players can transition to the MLs from AA. Like you, I hope to see rheiniker on the A's next yr (and hopefully meyer, garcia too) so maybe they take over in the bullpen and rotation. But the key here is we lose a lot of money in the deal. We can pursue a FA with the money as well as resigning Witasick and Dotel to help a now Dukeless bullpen. Maybe we can then get rid of Kennedy/Cruz to FL for Josh Willingham as a backup option (it should be able to do it considering Willingham is getting kinda old and has question marks as well as being blocked). As the new 2b, maybe we can get Nomar with the extra money. He will give us much more flexibility in the infield and outfield.

"The difference between Jose Canseco and Kobe Bryant is that Kobe doesn't believe in giving his teammates any shots." -Jay Leno

by vignette17 on Oct 7, 2005 10:41 PM PDT reply actions

Wow, that is a lot to digest

First I believe Ellis will not regress, rather he should improve. Maybe not average wise, but more power. I saw him play in Sacramento, he was impressive then. He only had 434 ABs Given a full season and I would not be suprised if he got 18-20 HRs. And we get him cheap for at least two more years, if he plays like I expect him to his last year of arb could get expensive. However, Mellilo would have to be ready by then.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Nico. If I was too optimistic about getting both Tracy and Jackson, what would it take to get one of them? Which one would you want? Why? And who would it take to get him?

by Hang Man on Oct 8, 2005 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions

I still stand firm

that we should do a Barry Zito+ for Jackson/Quentin/Nippert

... and it was at that point that I realized that by thinking outside the box, I had simply walked inside a cube...

by Zonis on Oct 7, 2005 11:21 PM PDT reply actions

I was waiting for you to chime in on Jackson Zonis

I know Jackson is a favorite of yours, but that is just too much and I want to keep Zito. And as far as Nippert, why would AZ give up inexpensive pitching for expensive pitching? Besides, they don't need an Ace, they are grooming Webb for that. What the need are solid pitchers that have an ERA of less than 5.00!

by Hang Man on Oct 8, 2005 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions

The general idea

that Arizona and Oakland are a good match in terms of their needs and their surpluses, is an excellent observation. As for the details, I agree with many here that the specific offer suggested is way too low. Cruz, Kennedy, and Duchscherer isn't enough to get Jackson alone, much less him and Tracy both.

Trading our undesirable pitchers to Arizona is a good idea, because they're one of the few teams for whom someone like Cruz actually looks attractive. Even so, they're not stupid. Cruz and Kennedy aren't going to be the centerpiece of any big trade. Either they're throw-ins, or they're traded for something more modest.

I like the idea of trading Saarloos to Arizona. I like the observation that his strong tendency toward groundballs makes him more valuable in a high-altitude park like Arizona than he is here. That's the sort of calculus that makes a trade beneficial for both sides. To Arizona, Saarloos looks like a quality starter; to us, he looks like someone we could spare without having to give up any of our real aces.

But though I think dealing Saarloos to Arizona makes sense, I still don't think he gets us Jackson. If we're serious about Jackson (and I think we should be), then I think we have to give up someone like Blanton or Street (or Zito). I'd rather trade Street than Blanton.

I think trading Duchscherer makes sense, too (not necessarily to Arizona). He's still a good pitcher but I think his perceived value vs actual value is at a peak, so it's a good time to move him.

I don't agree that Ellis is going to decline. I'm with Hang Man on this one: I think Ellis gets better before he gets worse. I think we should sign him to an extension. He's a keeper.

by iglew on Oct 8, 2005 1:32 AM PDT reply actions

I agree Saarloos has much more value than Kennedy

But I want to move Kennedy, now. He only has one more yr on arb so he will be a free agent in 2007. He will be paid $3 million plus in 2006. He is a starter and we only need him as a relief pitcher.

I would love to keep Zito. But if we did trade him we should get something between the Hudson and Mulder trades. Less than Mulder because Zito only has one yr on contract, but more than Hudson because he is a Left Handed Starting pitcher, he has won a Cy Young award, and has an injury free record.

Besides, while Atlanta and St Louis had a good team already, one in which one more good pitcher could get them into the playoffs. AZ is more like 6 or 7 good pitchers away from any type of playoffs.

by Hang Man on Oct 8, 2005 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions

HangMan, this is

the whole problem. "Saarloos has more value, but you want to move Kennedy." Too bad that the other teams want the guys who are better instead of the guys you want to move!

To address your replies to me above, on what planet is Duke a "proven closer"??? Because he was 4/5 in one week of closing in his career? I love Duke, and probably think he could close more than most ANers do, but he is NOT a proven closer and won't command proven closer value in return.

I'd go after Tracy more than Jackson if I had to go after one, because the A's have only one main void in their '06 roster, and that is a legitimate hitter who can play OF or DH and help complete their lineup. I'm not saying Tracy's "the guy" to add, or that "the guy" will necessarily come via a trade, but he fits the bill and I don't think the A's currently need to add young-but-not-yet-proven guys like Jackson. They have D. Johnson, Swisher, and Crosby already crowding the lineup with young talent that need to show improvement for the A's to hit enough.

Nico

by Nico on Oct 8, 2005 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Saarloos is looking better and better

He has improved every year:
2002 6.01 ERA H/9 10.55 1.49 WHIP
2003 4.93 ERA H/9 10.03 1.46 WHIP
2004 4.44 ERA H/9 9.99 1.60 WHIP
2005 4.17 ERA H/9 9.58 1.40 WHIP
But the most important stat is HR/9 0.62

If we did trade Saarloos Kennedy could start, justifying his starter salary. And the number of years left of arbitration would be the same for Tracy and Saarloos, each having four years left. But would Saarloss be enough? Maybe not. But would we realy want to pay more? Tracy is, after all, a 3B playing out of position because he is blocked by Glaus and his 4 yr/$45 million contract.

The A's were #1 in BAA in the ML. This is because of the good pitching AND the top rate defense. Tracy would be a decrease in defense, but if used as a DH it wouldn't matter. Additionally, if Chavez were slow to recover from surgery, Tracy could fill in at 3B. (although thats what Ginter is for)

by Hang Man on Oct 8, 2005 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Whether we'd want Tracy

depends on whether he's as good as his '05 stats. Nobody knows for sure. I doubt Saarloos would be enough, because he has some fundamental "5th starter" qualities--doesn't often get into the 7th, rarely dominates a start, more that he can give you 5-6 innings with 2-4 runs very reliably. He'd bump up to a #3-#4 on a bad pitching staff, but that doesn't make him better, it just means you're worse.

I think Saarloos would greatly help a team like NYY or Bos, who can score lots of runs and desperately just need competent starters--in other words, a team that can win with a bunch of #3-#4 starters. He would be a lot less helpful to a team that scores fewer runs, or a team with a lousy bullpen.

Nico

by Nico on Oct 8, 2005 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Thanks for responding Nico

I don't think Tracy's numbers in 2006 would be far off from his 2005 stats. (And I know we can't go another year with Hatty as DH) I would be more concerned about Tracy's fielding. How good of an OF is he? Of course if we used him just as a DH his fielding wouldn't matter.

by Hang Man on Oct 8, 2005 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree with the others

THats two little for both of those players. Conor Jackson will have a steep price. I think Tracy is the one to go for. He's versatile, and he kills righties which is what the A's need. You have the right idea in platooning him with Kielty. I also agree with the ideas that Sarloos would be a good fit. I also also agree that Ellis won't decline as well as Duke being at his peak perceived value.

For Tracy:

Sarloos, Cruz

For Jackson:

Sarloos, Cruz, Jairo

For Tracy AND Jackson:

Sarloos, Cruz, Jairo, Kennedy

"I dont know what I'm yelling about!Loud Noises!" "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Oct 8, 2005 5:25 AM PDT reply actions

This is a very interesting idea.

I wouldn't mind dropping any combination of Saarloos/Cruz/Kennedy for Jackson or Tracy. Because of Kennedy's salary, I'd like to see him out as soon as possible.

However, if we were to put any of them together, we'd have to fill the hole with one or the other, or someone else that we'd sign or call up. Will Meyer be ready by next season? I'd rather Saarloos fill that 5th spot over Kennedy, if it comes to one or the other, but the bat would probably make it worth it.

Thanks for starting this diary, it's very interesting and brings up some things I never even thought about.

by RenoTy on Oct 8, 2005 4:52 PM PDT reply actions

I am glad you liked it!

I know I had fun responding to all of the issues brought up. Except for the heat I took, that I would pass on taking.

As far as filling the open pitching spot, I would love to see John Rheinecker win the spot because I don't think Meyer will be ready.

by Hang Man on Oct 8, 2005 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Going around in circles

Saarloos, Cruz, and Garcia isn't going to pry an elite prospect who'll likely be ranked some 20 prospects over Daric Barton!

Here are the deals that could possibly fetch us Conor Jackson:

Zito

Duchscherer, Barton, and Suzuki

Duchscherer, Kennedy, Ethier, and Melillo

Kennedy, Cruz, Garcia, Ethier, and Herrera

In short, basically the proposed deals that leave AN shocked and outraged are the ones that AZ will consider.

Of course, needless to say, I hope I'm wrong and the D-Backs do go for Cruz, Kennedy, and Ginter for Conor Jackson. :)

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 8, 2005 7:49 PM PDT reply actions

Thats the spirit!

Does that mean that you would prefer the (unproven/high ceiling of) Jackson over (the proven for two seasons/but only four years left of arb) Tracy?

by Hang Man on Oct 8, 2005 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Well

I would say Conor Jackson is about as "proven" as an unproven can be, if that makes any sense. His numbers are just so eye-popping, especially his ridiculous 69/32 BB/K ratio, that I've no doubt in my mind that he's going to be a great hitter in the majors, barring injury of course.

Chad Tracy has some nice numbers the past 2 years, but I don't know anything about his minor league stats. Care to fill us in?

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 8, 2005 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions

I follow you

Great minor league stats for Jackson but poor (small sample size of 85 AB) in the majors.

As far as Tracy's minor league stats. I thought someone said that he was so-so in the minors. I found his stats to be farily solid.

AB 2B HR AVG OBP SLG OPS
2001 A 215 11 4 340 396 447 843
2002 AA 514 39 8 344 396 486 882
2003 AAA 522 31 10 324 372 456 828
2004 AAA 40 4 2 400 490 650 1.140

But compare those with:
2001 A 446 33 5 330 415 455 870
2002 AAA 437 26 10 279 339 416 755
2003 AAA 254 18 11 295 366 504 870
2004 AAA 476 37 19 305 377 515 892
2005 AAA 419 27 17 315 412 516 928

Comparing the last full year in AAA:
2B HR AVG OBP SLG
31 / 27 10 / 17 324 / 315 372 / 412 456 / 516

Based on just the Minor league stats which one would you choose? The second one has slightly more power, first has slightly better avg.

Could it be that we have the second coming of Chad Tracy in our dugout? The second group of numbers belong to Matt Watson! Is 2006 the year that Matt puts it all together? Or is this an example of the PCL being a hitting league?

by Hang Man on Oct 8, 2005 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Looking at the numbers

Tracy doesn't appear to be the same kind of elite young player that Conor has become. His spike in homers in the majors is somewhat odd, perhaps aided by park effects? Yet he would definitely be a welcome addition. However, I don't think Cruz and Kennedy is going to get us Tracy. Maybe Saarloos, Garcia, and Melillo?

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 8, 2005 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Of course

It all depends on how Saarloos is viewed by other teams. I for one would think teams would be interested, yet who knows. Maybe they still prefer Kennedy. And of course, I have no idea whether scouts are still high on Garcia.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 8, 2005 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions

no way

we may be overvaluing Cruz/Kennedy, but you are way undervaluing those two not to mention the whole organization.

No realistic trade would ever have the A's send one of the best pure bats in baseball (who has Conor Jacksons eye, and is 2-3 years ahead of him in the age bell curve), an all star reliever and a good catching prospect. Nobody in their right mind!

Zito for Conor Jackson alone is not great either.

Nobody in their righrt mind would ever send that same All-Star reliever, a young lefty pitcher who has shown past success, a good prospect who will be in the top 100 this year and a power second base prospect who also might make the top 100...... This is just giving up way too much. 3 more years of Duke, then 6 of ethier and mellilo??? No friggin way.

And then again: THat same lefty, a power closing prospect shown success at all levels but the majors (where he has had short stints only), one of the top 50 prospects in baseball, mr 5 tool Herrera, that same Ethier and a pitcher with the stuff but not the brains???? NO way either. THats just giving up too many solid-good pieces.

I agree that Cruz/Kennedy for Jackson is extreme, but you've shown the other side of the extreme as well. I think an appropriate trade for Jackson (if we would have to) would be: Cruz/Kennedy(whichever they choose), Ethier, Jairo

"I dont know what I'm yelling about!Loud Noises!" "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Oct 9, 2005 6:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Ohad

Conor Jackson is a big league-ready, marquee, top 20 prospect. For that reason, Daric Barton for Conor Jackson straight up is not a fair trade. Suzuki + Barton for Conor would be more like it, but you have to offer them some big league talent for them to even pull the trigger. Remember, the D-Backs aren't interested in hoarding prospects. They want big league talent. Duchscherer is legit big league talent, but NOT an All-Star (that qualifier should be reserved only for guys who are obvious selections, not one of the obligatory "team representatives"). Kennedy is fringe talent, the kind you can pick up on the non-tender market (Mark Redman, anybody?). Therefore you have to entice the D-Backs to trade in the first place: Duchscherer is the centerpiece, and Kennedy a throw-in. Then you add Barton and Suzuki to make up for the fact that they're trading their best prospect. In fact, I'm not even sure the D-Backs would do that trade, because they would likely want IMPACT talent in return for Jackson, and that means Zito and upwards.

BTW, as for citing Zito first, I didn't mean Zito for Jackson straight up. Likely we'd be able to get Jackson plus other stuff for Zito.

As for your proposal, Cruz is rubbish in terms of trade value. There are going to be so many non-tenders and waiver-wire claims that have a better potential+performance combo than Juan Cruz. Plus, Arizona has cash. It's not like they're the Royals who can only get hand-me-down players.

Kennedy is an okay chip, but NOT as a centerpiece. With the likes of Mark Redman likely hitting the market, teams can pick up a similarly priced, similarly talented pitchers without having to give up any players in return. So why would they give up alot for Kennedy?? In this case, Arizona is a big money team that expects to contend. Why on earth would they trade their BEST prospect for a package centered on Kennedy, complemented by two prospects that aren't going to crack the top 50?

Remember, quantity does NOT compensate for quality. You could offer 20 longshots for one blue chipper and you'd get turned down every time.

I am not undervaluing Kennedy or Cruz. I just think they are NOT valuable as trading chips. I would be willing to try Kennedy in our rotation, but that does not mean I believe anybody would trade anything worthwhile for him. When trading, you need premium value. Trading bargain bin items is not going to get you anywhere. You know Beane's philosophy: buy low, sell high. Kennedy and Cruz are at an all-time low. There's no sense in trading them now. You should know this, Ohad.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 9, 2005 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Buy Low/Sell High

Yes, we aren't talking about this are we though. We are talking about the value of Conor Jackson.Yes, i agree, Daric Barton for Conor Jackson is not good enough. Theoretically, in terms of value, Suzuki + Barton is enough, but that may not necessarily fit their needs (though i think it does a little bit). THey would obviously like more pitching, and giving them Duke makes the trade a little more plausible on their part, but basicallly pointless on ours. In terms of value, team needs etc that does not make any sense.

Just because i list Kennedy/Cruz first, does not make them a centerpiece. Arizona has like 7 guys for 4 positions, and Jackson and Tracy are the two most likely to go. So, trading Conor Jackson for Ethier, a outfielder ready next year when Green is gone, Garcia, a MLB ready power reliever/closer and Cruz, a high risk high reward type guy should be enough for a prospect who has yet to succeed in the majors. I think thats plenty value for Conor Jackson. Hey, i don't even WANT Jackson...

People definitely want Kennedy. Remember all the deadline fuss for a starter with a 7 era? Well he pitched 4 times better, he is young and he is lefty, and he has shown minor and major league success. You don't think this warrants interest?

And with a million dollar arm like Cruz, their will always be someone willing to try him out, because he has shown what he can do, and he is capable of doing it again.

"I dont know what I'm yelling about!Loud Noises!" "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Oct 9, 2005 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Sigh

What part of the term "reclamation project" do you not understand? Yes Cruz has a "million dollar arm", yes he had shown what he can do, yes he is capable of doing it again, yes there will always be someone willing to try him out, BUT nobody is going to bet on it, because as you said, he is a HIGH RISK. You don't go giving up anything of value for high risk players. You usually get them for peanuts, so that the risk is minimized.

As for Kennedy, do you remember what we traded to get Mark Redman? Billy Murphy plus Mike Neu. Kennedy is in a similar situation: lefty with less-than-overpowering stuff, arbitration eligible. The biggest differences being, Kennedy is in his last year of arbitration (while Redman still had a few more, I believe), and he did not post a 3.59 ERA this year like Redman did that year. In short, Kennedy isn't worth much. He might have been worth something to teams desperate for pitching at the deadline, but in the offseason, teams can sign free agents, scoop up non-tenders, or scour the waiver wire.

As for Ethier, as of now he looks to be a 4th outfielder, due to his lack of power. Unless he shows some power next year, his future is Jeff DaVanon, not Shawn Green.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 10, 2005 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Bill Murphy and Mike Neu

Were both decent prospects, Neu already had a major league 3.67 ERA under his belt. And they were traded for 32 year old Mark Redman with 1 yera left on his contract. Now, Kennedy has one year left on his contract but he's 26-27, going into his peak years not coming out of them.

We could argue about Juan Cruz' value all day. We'll just never agree. He's a high risk, but he has also succeeded before, which doesn't make him as bad. And the fact that he dominated as a starter takes away from his bad effort in the majors. And Mr.Lack of Power bulked up and actually had it this year. He had a 497 slugging and an 878 OPS. plenty good for a starting outfielder i'd say. He'll start the next year at Sac just turned 24, and he is right on track. He'll be in the majors next year as a callup at the least.

Do you know Conor Jackson personally or something?

"I dont know what I'm yelling about!Loud Noises!" "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Oct 10, 2005 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Good post! ...I Pass on Connor the DH!

Mention Connor Jackson and most ANers get a funny drool and begin shoving our top prospects like there is no tomorrow (and there would not be). Here take this one, and this one, Hey! I found another! Take him too!

ANers repeat after me:
...Connor is a DH in the minor leagues
...Connor is a DH in the minor leagues
...Connor is a DH in the minor leagues
...A's don't need another minor league DH
...A's don't need another minor league DH
...A's don't need another minor league DH
...What is Connor's avg/slg after a month of no fast balls and consecutive series vs Yanks? Boston? Angels? Twins? WSox?

Durazo is Major League
*Huff is Major League
*E Perez is Major League (vs lefties)
LeCroy is Major League (vs lefties)
*Dan Johnson & *Swisher are Major League

*4 of these also handle multiple positions instead of just DH.

Durazo is a proven MLB DH
I Wouldn't trade all those prospects for Durazo and he has been there and done that in the Major Leagues.

If healthy, I'm certain Durazo's '06 & '07 stats will be better than Conner's. D would be $2.5 million per and we keep our pospects! Spend the money; let Daric develop; and look forward to 23 seasons of upper potential from Street, Daric, Herrera & Ethier!

Two years from now Connor may mature and make "Major League" sense for the NOW NEEDY A's.

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Oct 9, 2005 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Some comparisions;

vs Righties (3-yr splits)
avg Ob Slg OPS HR Dbl AB
.252 .314 .396 .710 19 25 568 Lecroy
.239 .303 .351 .654 4 9 188 Eduardo Perez
.289 .356 . 517 . 873 64 75 1200 Huff
.315 .368 .514 .882 30 55 788 Tracy
.280 .379 .462 .841 33 50 829 Durazo
.272 .339 .467 .806 13 15 276 Dan Johnson

vs Lefties (3-yr splits)
avg Ob Slg OPS HR Dbl AB
.307 .382 .554 .936 24 13 345 Lecroy
.288 .397 .561 .985 19 15 264 Eduardo Perez
.293 .337 .450 .787 21 25 611 Huff
.224 .282 .352 .634 5 8 196 Tracy
.288 .365 .461 .826 14 20 371 Durazo
.283 .395 .404 .799 2 6 99 Dan Johnson

Lecroy kills lefties, sits vs righties. can DH, PH, cost $0.7 - $1.2, relatively cheap bench addition as a FA signee - 5 yrs (29)
E Perez Kills lefties, sits vs righties. can DH, PH, LF, RF, 1B - $0.9 - 1.5, relatively cheap and can do some fielding, ... but now 36 years old. FA signee- 11 yrs (36)
Huff hits both, can DH, PH, LF, RF, 3B,1B, 5 yrs (28), $6.75 as a FA, not cheap, worth the prospect/pitcher and the salary if BB seriously goes after it in '06
Tracy Hits righties like Durazo & Huff (Good!), sits vs lefties, can DH, PH, LF, RF, 3B,1B,-$0.4 as a trade -1 yr (25)
Durazo is probably better than most realized, truly consistent vs both LHP & RHPs. He may give a hometown discount or may be pissed? If he can't start the season he isn't worth another slow A's start. Sign him only if he can play i n April.

Difficulty to obtain:

Lecroy or Perez = no prob
Huff = a pitcher or pitching prospect & 6.75 million for 1 year. Doable for a gritty giant killer (Loves pressure, loves beating up on the Beasts form the east) Side benefit is trading with DRays helps them to beat Yanks and Boston a little more frequently
Durazo = Price OK, does he want to come back?
Dan Johnson = already here!

The AZ Deal

Chad Tracy = AZ needs pitching SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad! (Pitching splits vs righties! Wow! and thier best pitchers are leaving!). They need starters, relievers, and closers. It is almost like give them a list of availables to start the talks! If Tracy comes then someone(s) goes for the sake of playing time (I don't see him replacing DJ and especially not vs lefties so BB needs non-offers to: Kielty, Hatte, and a new city for Ginter as well. There is every chance that Tracy may be slow to adjust to the AL also.
Pick up Lecroy or Perez for $1 million.
That leaves us at least $4.0 to the good and maybe $7.0 after Kennedy goes. I'm seriously behind getting Huff for the year with the overall savings. A's need a gritty vet amongst the kids. Send a pitcher to Drays for Huff but not too good since he is just a 1 year rental. 1 year of Kennedy or 2 of Cruz is good enough or walk away. 6.75 doesn't leave a lot of haggle room for the Drays unless they take salary back.
Connor Jackson = He is an "excellent DH in the minors" says what you must know. He may be great, but we need to go deep in the playoffs now. If AZ pushes him on us fine. Do it and have him and Barton compete in the minors. He is not worth losing Duke who means too much to the A's playoffs cchances in '06-'07. Get him with spare parts or walk. Zito for Connor? Get real. Zito is the ace on a lot of teams including AZ. Skilled players for skilled players, you underestimate his value. From Drays we'd probably get Huff and one of their impressive outfielders.
Zito would attract an offer between the Mulder & Hudson deals. A proven Edgar Martinez is one thing, an unproven Connor Jackson is not enough. To tell you the truth you are better off rotating position players and bench bats. Hitters that can't play mess up the mgr's lineups constantly.

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Oct 9, 2005 3:05 AM PDT reply actions

What about Ginter?

Now before you cry out "No trade value!" hear me out.

The free agent market is void of 2B talent. This is especially true where power is concerned.

AVG OBP SLG OPS Age
Hernandez, J. 231 277 338 615 37
Martinez, R. 246 218 346 659 31
Vina, F. 226 308 270 578 36
Sanchez, R. 279 326 302 624 38
Grudzielanek, M. 294 334 407 741 36
Perez, T. 233 289 277 566 32
Cairo, M. 251 296 324 620 32
Easley, D 240 312 419 731 36
Relaford, D 224 308 319 627 31
Ginter, K 161 234 263 497 29
Ginter 2004 262 333 479 812 28

The A's picked up Ginter as insurance in case Ellis could not come back from his shoulder injury. Of course Ellis did come back and Ginter played poorly. Now we are on the hook for $1.4 mil in salary for a guy that has a lifetime .243 BA. What attracted us to him was his pop. 23 2B and 19 HR in 2004.

Guess what? Sept. 3rd: AZ placed IF-OF Scott Hairston on the 60-day disabled list with a torn left labrum. Would AZ like some 2B insurance? It has been suggested that slick fielding Craig Counsell will be moved from 2B to SS after Clayton leaves via free agency.

I would love to be able to dump Ginter's $1.4 mil salary. Throw in the pitching that AZ so desperately needs and presto, you have trade discussions.

by Hang Man on Oct 9, 2005 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Good point about Ginter because A's save 1.4 if

he is included.

I'm no pro, far from it, never will be. But any business that is viable is constantly acting if it improves business, and not acting if it won't.

Tracy helps the A's now.
AZ needs to rebuild a MLB pitching staff now.

That is enough to start talks.

I like the way moving Kennedy & Ginter removes non productive payroll

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Oct 9, 2005 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions

AZ insurance for Hairston

feels weird making a short post in the midst of all these behemoths, but I just wanted to point out that they should still have Alex Cintron to be their utility guy...he had 330 AB's in 2005, and was an everyday player in 2004 with 564 AB's. AZ would likely pencil him in as the starter in 2006 until Hairston is ready

Rock over London, Rock on Oakland. Wheaties: It's the Breakfast of Champions.

by Cutthemullet on Oct 11, 2005 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree....

The A's are trying to build on their 88 wins. Adding another prospect for major league talent takes you a step back, not a step forward. That's why, even if you have a chance to trade an Ellis or Duchsherer for a top prospect, you don't. It's why re-signing Durazo is a better move for '06 than trading major league talent for Jackson --- let alone that the A's already have Johnson and Barton in the DH/1B position. At this point, the A's need a RH power hitter. They have room in LF and at DH. They have a few spare parts for moving (Ginter, Kennedy, Melhuse, Scutaro, Cruz, Saarloos) plus one super-trading chip (Zito, who would then need to be replaced in the rotation), or they can go with what they have and/or sign a free agent.

PS I'd NEVER go with Lacroy. If the Twins don't think highly of him, and they desperately need hitting, then I'd trust their opinion.

by richwol on Oct 9, 2005 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I trust that BB will take advantage...

of the Twins' mistake. Now I could see where one of the few teams with more payroll constraints than the A's might not want to pay any amount of money to a fat catcher-turned-part-time-DH who posted an OPS of less than .800 this year. But while there's no way to sugracoat the fact that Matt LeCroy is both fat and a failed catcher, a quick glance at the 2005 splits shows that he also has a talent that is worth more than the million dollars or so the A's would likely have to pay for it: he posted an OPS of over 1.000 against lefties. If that small sample size is justifiably less trustworthy than the opinion of the Twins' esteemed management, well, see A's Eh's post above for his three year record against lefties; his OPS is still very impressive, ~.935. Pay a million for that production in about a third of the games, and that's a steal...if you pay a balanced slugger $15 million/year to post an OPS like that vs lefties and righties, well, you're paying $5 million for what you're paying LeCroy $1 million to do. Now throw a little bit more money at a DH complement and you're got great production for a fraction of the cost. LeCroy is one of the few guys we need this offseason.

Rock over London, Rock on Oakland. Wheaties: It's the Breakfast of Champions.

by Cutthemullet on Oct 11, 2005 1:46 AM PDT up reply actions

Excellent analysis--

And the more you look at the "what you get" versus "what you have to give up," it looks to me as if adding LeCroy would be an excellent move. Significant help at relatively low cost.

Nico

by Nico on Oct 9, 2005 10:09 AM PDT reply actions

Overpaying is NOT what we do

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Oct 9, 2005 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions

This situation reminds me of last yr

the Phillies had 4 very talented players for 2 positions and needed pitching (with just a little more pitching they would be in the playoffs). At one point, I'm sure we could have gotten Utley and Howard for Zito, and possibly more. If the trade had happened, just imagine the infield when Croz went down: Howard, Utley, Ellis, Chavez. That's a hell of a lot better than Hatte, Scoot, Ellis, Chavez. In other words, the trade would have helped our offense tremendously, even if we had to put up with Etherton in the rotation. Arizona's in a similar place this year, they have Tracy, Glaus, Jackson, Clark, Gonzalez/Green, and Quentin for 3b, LF, RF, CF and 1b. They just don't have room, someone has to go, and this desperation lowers the price somewhat, but only somewhat. AZ will probably try to get rid of the unprovens, because they're the easiest to move and well, aren't proven. I hope we can get these players and they perform like Utley, Polanco (who we might have gotten with a healthy Dotel), and Howard. It would really help us even without Z. But, the truth is I don't know what offers AZ is getting or what they are willing to do, so I can only guess what could happen with guesses. I just know that these guys would help our team.

And speaking of the Phillies previous logjams, they still have Thome and Howard with only one spot. If we could get them to pay some of thome's salary, should we make a deal? He could be that 40 HR and .400 OBP guy we need. Thoughts?

"The difference between Jose Canseco and Kobe Bryant is that Kobe doesn't believe in giving his teammates any shots." -Jay Leno

by vignette17 on Oct 9, 2005 12:19 PM PDT reply actions

thome is done

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 9, 2005 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions

As someone who once rooted for the Dodgers...

...and spent many afternoons in awe of Shawn Green, I'd support trading Zito for him straight up.

And I REALLY don't want to see Zito traded. That's how much I think of Shawn Green.

And as for the no-trade clause, he can waive that at will, and I'd suggest he would do so gladly to get off the Boot Hill Diamondbacks roster.

by Ozzz on Oct 9, 2005 7:50 PM PDT reply actions

Green signed an extension

2006 8.0 million
2007 9.5
2008 10.0 mutual option w/2.0 million buyout

Limited no trade clause to only Angels, Dodgers, Padres.

While I will agree that he is a solid player...Too much money, a little old (past peak), he wants to stay in So. Cal. Sorry.

by Hang Man on Oct 9, 2005 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions

shawn green??

for barry zito??

just because juliio franco is facing roger clemens in the playoffs doesn't mean we're back in the previous millennium.

oy vey!

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 10, 2005 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions

just no

trades for old guys (for example thome or green). they aren't in their prime years and in the backloaded parts of their contracts. i don't want another kendall (production doesn't equal dollars by about $9mill)

so much on my mind, i just can't recline -respiration

by ucla kid on Oct 9, 2005 11:14 PM PDT reply actions

exactly

no old guys that are falling apart (thome) or hit 20 home runs a year (green). if we were doing that (not that we should), how about griffey instead if the reds give some $$ in exchange...

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 10, 2005 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions

No Interest in Tracy

I can't see any reason why the A's would want to add another left handed bat.We're lefty heavy already. And Tracy doesn't fit the typical Beane target profile anyway. He's a low OBP guy unless he hits well over .300 (35 walks in '05) and his best position is 3rd base. And most importantly i find it strange that alot of the same folks who go on and on about the whole moneyball "buy low/sell high" adage seem to have forgotten that in this case. Tracy would certainly be a case of buying high. Based on his past track record 2005 looks like either an aberration or a career year.
Jackson makes alot more sense as a trade target.
And while he's been rated a top prospect his value is much less in the national league because of his limited defensive skills. This fact combined with the glut of outfielders/1st basemnen in Arizona lower his value considerably.
Quentin's value is much higher because he's a hitter with similar potential who is also a fine outfielder. Making a trade for Jackson now would be buying low. The guy is going to rake in the big leagues,most likely not with Arizona. They'll almost certainly trade him this offseason (signing Tony Clark was the writing on the wall) and Oakland could definitely plug him in at DH. He's easily an upgrade over the production we got there this past season and could hit hit 25 homers and close to .300 with a high obp. I think other teams will want Kennedy more than Saarloos in a trade package. Kennedy is left handed,throws harder and has pitched as both a starter and reliever. I think a package of Kennedy and Cruz or Garcia would net Jackson and a mid level prospect and i think it would be a good deal both ways.

Every team needs a few guys with big f*ckin' stones who ain't afraid to flash 'em - Huddy

by FabulousG on Oct 9, 2005 11:41 PM PDT reply actions

good points, i must admit

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 10, 2005 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Counterpoints

While I would admit that I would prefer Tracy more if he was right handed, his high BA against RHP is the perfect complement to Kielty's high BA against LHP.

As far as OBP, I think your off base. Tracy's OBP would put him 2nd on the A's behind Ellis. Your highlight of "only" 35 walks discounts his HBP 8 (which would be second on the A's) and IBB 4 (tied for first on the A's) He would have also been second in avg, first in SLG, first in OPS, third in 2B, first in 3B, and tied for first in HR. Beane said the one glaring problem with the 2005 team was a lack of power, a Tracy acquisition greatly improves the teams power.

You assert, "Tracy would certainly be a case of buying high. Based on his past track record 2005 looks like either an aberration or a career year." The numbers do not support your assertion.

Chad Tracy BA OBP SLG OPS AB AGE
Minor League 335 395 468 863 1327 21-24
ML 2004 285 343 407 750 481 25
ML 2005 308 359 553 912 503 26

The league avg in OBP last year was .330, Tracy was well above that. His minor league numbers show that was anything but an aberation. Let us compare him to another player that was traded at his "assumed" peak.

Brian Giles BA OBP SLG OPS AB AGE
Minor League 305 383 447 830 2619 18-25
ML 1996 355 434 612 1046 136 25
ML 1997 268 368 459 827 377 26
ML 1998 269 396 460 856 350 27

At which point Clev. gave up on Giles and traded him to the Pirates. (for none other than Ricardo Rincon) For the next four years Giles went on to hit 309 BA, 426 OBP, 605 SLG, with a 1031 OPS. He had 144 2B and 149 HR. DID THE PIRATES BUY HIGH!

Giles minor league numbers were not as good as Tracy's and his ML numbers trailed in BA, SLG, and OPS.

Now I am not suggesting we can get Tracy for a relief pitcher, but I am suggesting that Tracy's best numbers are still ahead of him, he is only 26.

by Hang Man on Oct 10, 2005 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Kennedy & Cruz I do it...

...Pull from the A's rotation, include Duke or Street, ...I don't do it.

Re; Tracy - I'd rather have Huff & Durazo. Rookies, first year players and On Base Mythology has held this team back long enough. Cronyism hasn't helped either.

Just a thought; If Geren becomes Mgr instead of Washington is it another indication that Hattesque Cronyism is more important to BB than winning?

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Oct 10, 2005 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions

The reason we'd prefer Tracy

Is that he's cheap and he's locked up for 4 more years, whereas Durazo is already a FA and Huff will be one next year. Durazo + Huff will cost you around $10 million next year. Tracy will cost you $500,000, at most.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 10, 2005 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions

I understand and agree for the most part,

....since it is the A's way to go skimpy with the $$$$$$$$

Tracy sounds like a nice acquisition

...but Huff adds swagger.

A's are missing swagger too.

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Oct 10, 2005 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions

i also think you make good points

But Kennedy and Cruz for Jackson and another prospect is a stretch. Kennedy, Cruz, AND garcia for a mid level prospect and Jackson perhaps?

"I dont know what I'm yelling about!Loud Noises!" "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Oct 10, 2005 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Fab G, I'm with you

I think the writing is on the wall for Conor Jackson, with Tony Clark getting a big salary. Jackson has fantastic stats in the minors, but while I never saw him play in the minors, I did see him in the majors when he came up this last year. It may have been a slump, but I thought he looked awful. His bat looked slow and his swing looked long. He might mash, but I think there is a good possibilty that Jackson will be a major flop. With Barton in the pipeline, Dan Johnson being a non-versatile 1B, I don't think he has enough value for the A's. I'd much rather see the A's trade for Quentin, who could play 100 games in the Oakland OF. That said, if the A's could get Jackson for a package of Cruz/Kennedy (not Saarloos, I still think he's too valuable), I think he's worth the significant risk that he will be a major bust.

by iceplant on Oct 10, 2005 11:33 AM PDT reply actions

How is Clark's salary blocking Jackson?

He got a one million dollars a year for two years extension. One million dollars is near what we gave Karros to be our backup. That is nothing for a large market team and it is an extremely easy amount to trade whenever they want to permanently pass the torch over to Jackson. Clark is not blocking the league's best 1B prospect; that is a rediculous assertion. Jackson is as untradeable as Crosby and Harden are to us and would absolutely cost an arm and a leg.

They are also far more likely to try to trade Luis Gonzalez than Tracy. They could trade him for either overpayed or past their welcome pitchers like Odalis Perez, Livan Hernandez, Troy Percival, Mark Redman, etc. They would have to throw in cash to do a few of those deals, but money is not a problem in Arizona. They could then sign another starter in free agency who is far better than Cruz, Kennedy, or Sarloos and be set.

If you all want to try to get a guy that is blocked by a big dollar guy you need to discuss Howard who is blocked by Thome.

by LizardKing51 @ Athletics Nation on Oct 10, 2005 11:58 AM PDT reply actions

By the way

Check out their amazing projected line-up in a couple years:

C Miguel Montero
1B Connor Jackson
2B Steven Drew
3B Troy Glaus
SS Justin Upton
OF Shawn Green
OF Chad Tracy
OF Carlos Quentin

by LizardKing51 @ Athletics Nation on Oct 10, 2005 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Tony Clark

Has a full no trade clause...

"I dont know what I'm yelling about!Loud Noises!" "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Oct 10, 2005 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I thought I made Clark's no trade clause clear

but people are still missing it. That is one of my main points. It begs the question - Is AZ worried about Jackson? I took a look at the AZ blog (Snake Pit) and the Diamondbacks fans were just as confused by the contract to Clark. The other issue that they commented on (in complete agreement) was Jackson's glaringly poor fielding.

Could AZ feel that Jackson will be too much of a liabiity on the field and is therefore destined to be a DH? Or do they think that two more years in AAA will allow him the time to develop a glove? The problem with that is that if he never develops a defense his value will plummet. Trade him now and some team might think that they can pick up a former first round pick that can play defense in addition to swinging a big bat. Wait and you could be stuck with a low trade value, one demensional DH in the NL.

by Hang Man on Oct 10, 2005 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions

No trade doesn't really matter

The NL teams need pinch hitters every night to replace pitchers and they don't have to even field. Signing a guy for one million dollars a year does not mean you have soured on one of the top 3 to 4 pure hitting prospects in the minors. People have suggested that Jackson's value is low because of his major league performance this year. Jackson was in the majors almost the whole 2nd half of the season and he never got 3 starts in a row. He only got 2 starts in a row 3 times all year. Manny Ramirez would probably have weak stats if he was playing that sporadically. I guarantee every GM in the league would die to acquire Jackson's talent and would easily beat "our" proposed package.

Many of the people on this thread suggest that Arizona trade away their potential superstar player and take on $4 million in salary (Cruz/Kennedy) because Jackson is blocked by $1 million in salary?????

Most A's fans don't want and/or expect Cruz and Kennedy back next year. How does that kind of value equate to what many scouts see as the next Todd Helton. Keep in mind that the same scouts see Barton as the next John Olerud. I'm not trying to insult Barton but if they were both on the trading block Jackson would fetch more. Not a ton more since they are both elite, but more nonetheless.

If we want to trade Cruz or Kennedy we can definitely get value for them but it wont be any of the top 50 prospects, much less top 10.

One guy I think might be available who we might be able to grab is Austin Kearns. His salary matches up fairly well with Cruz and Kennedy. We would probably have to add a prospect or maybe even two but he could be worth it. Cruz, Kennedy and either Kohn or Garcia for Kearns might be enough. He will not be as good as Jackson, but he is a much more realistic acquisition in my opinion.

by LizardKing51 @ Athletics Nation on Oct 10, 2005 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions

good post

Tony Clark at a million makes a lot of sense for them--if he comes close to repeating 2005, then he'll stay in the lineup, if not, no big loss, and let the potential superstar play. By the way, anyone think Tony likes the desert--slugged .725 at home in '05

Rock over London, Rock on Oakland. Wheaties: It's the Breakfast of Champions.

by Cutthemullet on Oct 11, 2005 2:06 AM PDT up reply actions

Watson

Why dont we bring Watson up and re sign Payton. There both pretty cheap than that leaves us the abilty to focus on getting a bad ass DH/1b hitter.

by Z on Oct 10, 2005 5:41 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah, why not

go with Watson? Oh right, because he sucks. Sorry, a bit harsh, but some of us think he's a AAAA hitter. In any event, he's not anyone's "holy grail," fo' shizzle.

Nico

by Nico on Oct 10, 2005 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Watson AAAA or Ready to break out?

I was under the impression that Watson has been given a chance at both NY and Oakland without producing much of anything, but he has only 71 total ML AB. All we really know about Watson is his AAA stats. So lets compare Carreer AAA numbers of Watson to the carreer minor league stats of those who have made it in the Major Leagues.

BA OBP SLG OPS

Watson 307 386 470 856
Giles 305 383 447 830
Dunn 304 415 525 940
Hafner 297 361 513 874
Ortiz 311 382 531 913
Bay 301 398 487 885
Ramirez 311 407 595 1002
Giambi 293 403 471 874
Guerrero 349 408 594 1002
Teixira 315 403 586 989
Berkman 308 425 548 973
Koonerko 305 389 535 924
Burrell 309 423 569 992
Sheffield 310 389 531 920
And to keep with the thread I will add
Tracy 335 395 468 863
Jackson 332 432 530 962

Looking at these stats, is would seem that Watson should be able to "hang" with the likes of Giles, Hafner, Bay, and Giambi. And outside of BA, Tracy's stats are nearly identical. What we need now are the stats of promising minor league players who had stats simular with Watson's but bombed in the ML. Anyone know where to find those?

by Hang Man on Oct 11, 2005 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions