Schuerholz on the Hudson Deal

A wise statement...

...from a smart and successful man.

------ 84.6% of all statistics are made up.

by gallopingael on Dec 29, 2005 1:05 PM PST reply actions

So (he said with much bitterness)

there can be no doubt that Beane failed in the primary goal of making his team better via the Hudson trade.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 1:09 PM PST reply actions

I still think there's

a lot of doubt. In trading Hudson, Beane:

shed $8mil in payroll
shed an annually injured pitcher who was injured, like clockwork, mid-2005
acquired a top-rated pitcher who may hit his stride just as Zito hits free agency

The real guys who made the Hudson trade look bad weren't CThomas and JCruz. They were Durazo and Dotel. Beane made it crystal clear that only by trading Hudson could he afford to keep Durazo and Dotel. Then we wound up with Durazo and without Dotel anyway. Not Beane's fault--the team Billy assembled was good enough to win the division, until injuries interfered with the best laid plans...

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 1:38 PM PST up reply actions

I agree...

It always seemed that to me, the bettering of the team came from more than just the players received from the trade. The reduced payroll gave us the ability to compete how we're competing (and hopefully winning!) this year.

I still think Meyer could become a key part of our rotation in the years to come, and Cruz may still have something to contribute.

by RenoTy on Dec 29, 2005 1:47 PM PST up reply actions

Using John's trade criteria...

did the A's get better by trading Hudson?

No.

Now, I don't remember Beane saying that he had to trade Hudson to keep Durazo and Dotel (no big, I can only vaguely remember Tuesday) but wouldn't he have accomplished the same fiscal goal when he traded Mulder? Of course, I thought the A's should have traded Dotel in ST 05.

As to point #2, even an injured Hudson would have contributed more to the A's 2005 season than any of the three players Beane got in return. As for 2006 and beyond, that entirely depends on the health of Meyer's left shoulder.

As for point #3... this one really pisses me off. If Meyer is destined to replace Zito, then when the fuck is Billy going to replace Hudson? Unless you're promising me a return to Loiaza version 2003 the A's have yet to replace Huddy. Figure it's going to take a minimum of two years for any draft pick Beane gets for Zito to reach the Show, we are now talking the year 2009 before Huddy's replacement show up.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 4:04 PM PST up reply actions

A couple possible answers:

If Haren replaced Mulder (directly) and Meyer will replace Zito, you could say Blanton has replaced Hudson (which requires one to arbitrarily slot people into slots for no apparent reason, always a fun hobby) or that Hudson's place as "an injury prone ace who could win a Cy Young award if he could just stay healthy all year" has been assumed by Rich Harden.
More to the point--in that it actually addresses the point--Haren replaces Mulder, Meyer replaces Hudson (i.e., was supposed to have by now, was delayed a year by injury), and Harden's presence means the A's could still have "3 aces" in 2007 without Zito. If Meyer doesn't reach this level, Blanton might, and if neither does Beane still has a year to produce someone who will. Or extend Zito beyond 2006. Lots of options, and Beane's good with those.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 4:14 PM PST up reply actions

You forget Redman

Haren replaced Mulder (directly).

Blanton replaced Redman (directly).

Harden was already around.

Hudson replaced by... still waiting. And if you've got Meyer taking over for Zito in 2007 the wait will be a long one.

I want Meyer to bounce back and be everything he was supposed to be. I'm not saying Beane doesn't have options, I'm not saying the A's are doomed, I'm saying he wasted one of his best trade chips when he sent Huddy to Atlanta.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 4:37 PM PST up reply actions

I'm still waiting for ...

Mark McGwire to be replaced! An oft injured first baseman that if he could ever stay healthy for a full season maybe he could hit 70 homeruns! Its unfair to pigeon hole someone as a replacement for another especially in the world of trades.

The Last Lieutenant remaining in the "Armas Army"

by str8tarrow on Dec 29, 2005 7:56 PM PST up reply actions

Agreed...

Also, the A's may not have goten better w/o Hudson, but they sure didn't get worse. Oakland finished a lot better last season than I ever thought they would. i loved Mulder and Hudson, but they're gone, and I'm really looking forward to see the next gen of Harden, Haren and Blanton (and Meyer?). I understand Grover's anger, but would the A's really have been better with Huddy last year? We'll never know. What we do know is that the A's were just as good last year as they were the year before when they DIDN'T make the playoffs WITH Huddy and Mulder. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I get excited watching these young players mature, succeed in Oakland and watch it happen all over again. Beats the hell out of the dark days of the mid 90's.

If Barry Zito ends up with the Angels, I will jump off the Bay Bridge in my Banjo man replica cape!

by haren4prez on Dec 29, 2005 11:07 PM PST up reply actions

It's not about

Replacing anyone. At the time Meyer was considered to be one ofthe best left handers in all of the minors behind only Olsen and Kazmir .The A's have a stacked rotation without Huddy or Meyer. A 1-5 of Harden, Zito, Loaiza, Haren, and Blanton is arguably the best in baseball. If Haren "replaced" Mulder, I guess Blanton replaced Huddy. You don't necessarily have to replace the person you trade away with someone else in the same trade. Also, before anyone brings it up, we didn't replace Huddy with Loaiza. There is no way Hudson signs for 3yrs/$21 mil. Try 4yrs/$40 mil, minimum. The Huddy trade brought us a (at the time) blue chip pitching prospect, and millions of dollars in savings for '05 and beyond. That is without itaking Huddy's injury history into account. I'd say the Braves came out winners due to the failure of Meyer, but it did still help the A's in other areas.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 4:16 PM PST up reply actions

I agree 100%, nothin'--

well put. My real bottom line is that Meyer was more highly rated than Haren and Blanton. If Meyer had pitched in Oakland in 2005, and had a season slightly better than Blanton's, or slightly better than Haren's, how would we view the trade? That's what was supposed to happen, and still might. I think Meyer has a major league future, and a bright one at that. Everything in its own time.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 4:21 PM PST up reply actions

Is Beane a genius or not?

Is he one of the best GMs in the game or not? Because if we are grading Beane as one of the best GMs in the game than trading Hudson for Meyer, even if Meyer stays healthy and maxes out on his potential, is a bad trade.

Anyone could have gotten Meyer for Hudson.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 4:41 PM PST up reply actions

See, I don't agree there, grover.

I think only Beane could have gotten Meyer for Hudson, because only Beane had Hudson to trade.

My point being, if any GM would have been able to make that trade, and any GM would have made that trade, then all we know is that Billy Beane is a GM. Should he not make trades that "anybody could make" if they are good trades? Should he have told the Braves, "Sorry, but Baltimore could make that trade, and their GM sucks, so I'd better not"?

Any time you trade an established star for a top prospect, the trade will look bad if the prospect doesn't pan out. So the question is: was Meyer a prospect worthy of the risk? The answer is yes--he was one of the top LHP prospects in all of minor league baseball and he had succeeded as high as AAA. That's what you trade a Hudson for--the next top pitcher, who is younger, cheaper, and not about to be a free agent.

If Meyer maxes out on his potential, I believe it will be a great trade for the A's. Maybe you don't agree, but that's my view.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 4:50 PM PST up reply actions

That's just nonsense

and a poor attempt to dodge the question. Is Billy Beane one of the top GMs in the business?

If he is, than trading Hudson for Meyer does nothing to enhance his reputation. Any GM with a player of Hudson's ability could trade him for a prospect of Meyer's caliber. The only prerequisite would be that the the person in question would have to actually BE a general manager of a baseball team... a qualification that I fully acknowledge Beane possessing.

Any team interested in dealing with Beane was going to give him the arm he was looking for.

The true measure of the trade has to be taken from the other two players that Beane acquired in addition to Meyer, and that is a poor measure indeed. Over the course of his career Beane has traded lesser talent than Hudson for greater gain than Oakland has yet to receive. A great trade for Oakland would have had Meyer realize his potential (which could still happen) and two more productive players on the roster.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 7:34 PM PST up reply actions

No, the measure

of the trade can be whether Beane targeted the right centerpiece (Meyer) in deciding which top-rated pitching prospect to acquire. You say any GM could have gotten a prospect of Meyer's caliber; even if so, there is the art of choosing the right prospect--is it Felix Hernandez or Todd van Poppel? It's just like the draft, only it takes place in a trade.

Occasionally, as in the Johnny Damon (and Mark Ellis) trade, the measure of the trade can be the "other players" and not the centerpiece. More often, it is the centerpiece. I think Meyer's long-term success, or lackthereof, will determine the level of success of the trade. In fact, of that I'm pretty confident.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 9:02 PM PST up reply actions

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Damn, you just put into words what I had been thinking - though not able to express - since this first time I saw this debate take place. But, it's soooo easy to take the opposite view when the long-term scenario hasn't properly played out. Even if it does play out well in the long-term, it still means nothing: there's no way a GM can "get it right" all of the time.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 9:09 PM PST up reply actions

<sigh>

When I first heard that Atlanta was interested in Huddy it took me about 2 minutes (literally) to flip through the pages of BA's Prospect Handbook and figure out which of the Braves 3 top minor league arms Beane would be interested in. I'd have cut that time in half if I could have remembered where I had set my copy to begin with.

The 3 choices were Dan Meyer, Kyle Davies and Jose Capellan. Davies was a HS draft pick with half a season in AA, he was still a year away. Capellan was a mechanical mess destined for the bullpen. Meyer had half a year in AAA and had already made an appearance in the Show. Beane wanted immediate help in exchange for Hudson. It was pretty obvious who Beane was wanting.

I've never said that Beane targetted the wrong pitcher when he picked Meyer! All I've said, and I've said this from Day 1, was that the other two guys were poo.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:19 PM PST up reply actions

OK, grover, but then

follow your own logic to the next step. Let's say Beane has 4 offers on the table (from 4 different teams, including the Braves): One is the centerpiece he wants and two helpings of poo, and the other 3 are centerpieces he doesn't want as much and two helpings of better-than-poo-fringies.

So Beane asks the Braves for the centerpiece he wants and two helpings of better-than-poo-fringies, and Schuerholz replies, "Sorry, but tonight's special is the centerpiece, garnished with two helpings of poo--and there are no substitutions." So Beane is left with the 4 offers outlined in my first paragraph.

Are you saying he should have taken one of the other 3 offers, instead of the best centerpiece and the poo it came with? You can, but I don't think I would.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 10:21 PM PST up reply actions

Going the next step is easy

but you're asking for an awful lot of slack. You're not telling me how good the other options are, so forgive me for throwing a hypothetical at ya to answer.

If the Phillies had offered Beane a package of Ryan Madson, Michael Bourn and Chase Utley (which is less than what they supposedly offered before backing out, I just can't remember exactly what they were said to be offering) for Huddy I would have taken that deal over the Braves' package. Now, I love Madson but I think (or thought prior to his injury) that Meyer has more upside.

Prior to 2005, I would have wanted Meyer over Madson but it wouldn't have pained me to have to settle for Madson. It would be like having to chose between Jennifer Connolly and Selma Hayek, I'd be happy either way until my wife walked in and killed me. Then the question becomes: Is a Bourn/Utely combo enough of an improvment over a Cruz/Thomas combo to settle on Madson instead of Meyer?

For me the answer is yes.

So if the other offers included a significant improvement over the Thomas/Cruz combo while still providing an arm comparable to Meyer than yes, the better deal would have been to take the less flashy centerpiece.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 11:26 PM PST up reply actions

Selective amnesia?

You just spent a whole lot of time, on this very thread mind you, arguing that the flashy center piece [that would be Hudson] is someone that you would make preference for rather than just having a bunch of `capable' lower-cost substitutions who perform equally as well or better in the aggregate.

But, I guess that you really can have it both ways.

By the way, good night. This time, I will be getting the last word....La, la, la, la, I can't hear you, la, la, la, la

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 11:39 PM PST up reply actions

Selective illiteracy?

If you're going to tell lies, you won't be allowed to play again.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 12:15 AM PST up reply actions

I'm the one lying?

If you're not going to have integrity about this, I will quit playing...starting now! <there's that last word thing again>

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2005 6:23 AM PST up reply actions

yet

the Phils backed out (thank God)... I doubt they were really willing to offer Utley (Bourn maybe, but I personally think he'll be an all-star leadoff player...)

by Alon on Dec 29, 2005 11:46 PM PST up reply actions

Originally

there was talk of Howard and Floyd and Polanco etc. Lots of different names floating around at the time, which is why I proposed a more modest scenario.

Remember, this was prior to the 2005 season, so the Phillies preferred Floyd over Madson and were torn between Polanco and Utley.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 12:20 AM PST up reply actions

I.E.

Ed Wade was being a moron

by Alon on Dec 30, 2005 8:47 AM PST up reply actions

A pitcher hiding an injury

and trying to play through it?

Sounds like a Hudson replacement to me.

</oblique-related bitterness>

Personally, I think we needed to get a priest in the deal to perform an exorcism on Harden's side.

That said, I agree that Meyer seems like a talented kid... but given how we got hosed on CT and Cruz-the-psychopath, I'm not as optimistic as I was upon our initial acquisition of him. I really thought he'd be the major player of both deals and while he certainly has all the chances in the world of being that... it's just disheartening to see the setback he suffered last season, not exactly the thing we needed given it was Huddy involved in the deal.

Meyer was more highly rated, but he DOES have the Curse of Being Traded from Atlanta upon him... following him next year will be QUITE interesting, at least.

"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." -Robert S. Wieder

by Kyli on Dec 29, 2005 6:34 PM PST up reply actions

Another way to look at it,

though, is that if CT and JCruz were so ungood, this suggests that Meyer's status (in Beane's and Schuerholz's eyes) was even higher. That has only been, if anything, affirmed, by Schooey's comment a couple months ago that he still thinks Meyer will be an excellent major league pitcher and that the Braves really didn't want to let him go. (Some think that was just diplomatic "happy-talk," but nothing else I've seen--including Beane's willingness to part with Huddy to get primarily Meyer--contradicts this being the Braves' true feeling about Meyer's potential.)

Agreed that a priest is needed for Harden: Rich could use the excorsize.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 6:49 PM PST up reply actions

That's just not true

Thomas was the starting LF for the Braves when they were in the playoffs. Cruz put together an effective 2004 in their bullpen. (I've already discussed the inherent weaknesses of both players, so I won't be going over that again.) To imply that Schuerholz considered these players to be of negative value, thus reducing Meyer's worth, is wrong.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 7:38 PM PST up reply actions

So what you're saying

is that Huddy doesn't have to be replaced. It's OK that Oakland just lets him go away. I think that is foolish.

You have to replace lost talent or you end up like the Royals.

BTW, Blanton was supposed to replace Redman... which he did wonderfully.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 4:47 PM PST up reply actions

What I'm saying

is that Huddy has to be used to get the best young talent available. I gather Beane felt Meyer was the young pitcher he most wanted, of all the young pitchers in systems whose teams were vying for Huddy. I imagine Beane targeted Meyer enough that he was relatively indifferent to Thomas and Cruz--probably tried for better, but when the Braves wouldn't budge had to "take it or leave it" and took it.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 4:54 PM PST up reply actions

If what you say is true

If the trade went down like you've described it, then Beane got taken.

He broke his own rule (as laid out in Moneyball) by focusing on one player as the answer to his problem and made a bad trade.

I don't think the deal went down as you described it, because I hope Beane wasn't foolish enough to fall for such a trap.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 7:41 PM PST up reply actions

What I'm saying is that

in addition to Meyer, Cruz, etc. we got a ton of payroll flexibility that allowed us to acquire other players. Would you pay $10 million per year for an oft-injured Hudson. I certainly wouldn't. The fact that we got something for him before we had to pay his bill makes it a good trade. That is why getting Meyer was the best we could do. Any team that traded for him knew they were going to have to pay up to keep him long term. Its why we were able to fleece St. Louis on the Mulder deal. It's not a matter of giving him away, it's a matter of not having the funds to keep him.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 6:25 PM PST up reply actions

Who did the A's acquire

after they traded Hudson? I know, the Mulder deal came next but it's not like the $$$ freed up from moving Hudson had any effect on getting those players.

Would I have signed Hudson to a new $12 million contract after another injured year? Probably not, but no one is arguing that point.

You imply that Atlanta was the only team interested in Huddy, therefore Meyer was the best that Oakland could hope for and that is not true.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 7:49 PM PST up reply actions

We got

Kendall
$ to cover raises to Chavez, Zito, Dotel, Durazo, etc
Payroll room to exercise Payton's option and acquire players like Bradley and Loaiza (and possibly Thomas)this offseason.
Plus room leftover to acquire a player midseason.

Beane said from the get go that he was building for 2006 and beyond. Contending in 2005 and having a powerouse afterward was his goal and I'd say he's accomplished that. That was the ultimate goal of last offseasons moves. When you look at it that way, we came out allright.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 8:02 PM PST up reply actions

Kendall came before Huddy

And Huddy's 2005 salary had no effect of Beane's ability to acquire Bradley in December. Mulder's $6 million pretty much covers the raises Chavez and Zito got, with enough left over to pay for Payton's half season. Getting Dye's $11 million off the books surely covered the extra cash Durazo and Dotel received, not to mention make up any shortfall in Kendall's salary... the bulk of which was supplied by trading Redman and Rhodes in the first place!

But I don't know why you'd want to argue that trading Hudson, Rhodes and Redman for Kendall was a good idea.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 8:18 PM PST up reply actions

You're looking at this wrong

It's not about his '05 salary. It's about all the moves as a whole. It had plenty to do with us getting Kendall, because we couldn't have kept them both. The fact that the Kendall deal happened first is irrelevant. It was part of one plan. Also his lack of a 2006 salary is exactly what enabled us to acquire players like Bradley and Loaiza. (whose combined salaries will likely equal about what Huddy would have made in '06.) This is without taking into account Kendall's salary in '06 which Redman doesn't cover. (Assuming we declined his option)

So, I wasn't arguing that trading Hudson, Rhodes, and Redman for Kendall was a good idea. I'm saying that trading Huddy and Mulder for Kendall, Calero, Barton, Haren, Meyer, and the ability to acquire Loiaza and Bradley while still keeping Chavez, Zito, Kotsay, etc was a great idea.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 8:26 PM PST up reply actions

Trading Hudson had nothing to do

with acquiring Loaiza and Bradley this offseason. His salary would have been off the book regardless, enabling Beane to sign Loaiza to the same contract.

Mulder alone brought in Haren, Barton and Calero. You shouldn't spread the glow of that success over to the Hudson deal.

Furthermore, Kendall's $11 million contract (plus the $1 million Beane is kicking to Pittsburgh this year) is a lead weight hanging around the A's neck. His play last year did nothing to justify his salary and his NTC ties Beane's hands. I do not see how these can be considered good things.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 8:36 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not going to argue

the merits of Kendall. You're right, he is a lead weight right now, but at the time, he was considered one of the premier catchers in baseball. Even you (and I know you were against the Kendall deal from the start) couldn't have prediticted that steep of a drop off.

I included the Mulder deal in the discussion because he also provided much of the payroll room I was speaking of. My main point was that judging things offseason by offseason is a much more accurate means for determining success than trade by trade.

With regard to Huddy, Billy bascially had three options:

Keep Huddy for one year and let him go for draft picks.

Extend him for upwards of $10 million+ per year.

Trade him for the best package available.

Billy took what was the best package available. (and to argue otherwise is completely unfounded and pure speculation) A prospect of Meyer's caliber is worth more than two draft picks. The A's would be overjoyed if either of those picks became what Meyer was by 2008. Meyer was a blue chipper in 2005. Thus, he chose the correct option because extending Hudson would have handicapped our team this offseason and in years to come. You don't give pitchers with recurring injuries lucrative long term contracts. You said so yourself. If they had kept him, that doens't guarantee a division title in '05. Especially with him hurt half the year.

Another way to look at it is to imagine the same trade this offseason. The closest parallel I can draw is trading Huddy to the Twins for Liriano, Crain, and Ford. Liriano is one of the top lefty prospects in baseball (just like Meyer was). Crain is a pitcher who had great K totals in the minors (just like Cruz) and managed a decent season in the bigs without bringing his K's with him (just like Cruz). Ford is a career 4th outfielder with 1 decent year under his belt (just like Thomas). I'd be willing to bet 80% of this site would do that trade in a second. It adds potential impact talent, depth, and payroll felxibility in one fell swoop. That was Billy's thinking at the time and it worked.

Meyer still has a chance to pan out, but even if he dosen't were in pretty damn good shape. That's what trading Huddy gave us, the flexibility to support our young talent with injury insurance and some veteran help going forward, which we weren't able to do during the era of the Big Three.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 9:03 PM PST up reply actions

You are so right on

with your analysis, IMO, throughout this thread; props to you, nothin'. The fact that Beane could make a trade that lost us an ace and yielded nothing in the short term, and could still fulfill his stated goal of being "very competitive" in 2005 and ready for prime time from 2006-2008, answers grover's question "Is Beane one of the best GMs in baseball?" Um, yeah. You play the odds--some trades will pan out better than anticipated, some worse; in particular, some "maybes" (prospects, guys with better skills than track records) will pan out better, some worse. And the Hudson trade hasn't "not worked out" yet--it just hasn't worked out yet.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 9:11 PM PST up reply actions

I agree

Beane being able to build a strong 2006 roster in spite of blowing the Huddy deal does support his stature as one of the best GMs in baseball.

The Hudson trade does not provide the same support, no matter how well Meyer turns out. At the same time, if Meyer (shudder at the thought) is toast it does not mean Beane is one of the worst GMs around. Meyer was the right choice to take from Atlanta, sometimes poo happens.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:30 PM PST up reply actions

I hate to disagree with Nico

But you are so absolutely wrong.

Beane managed to build the current roster IN SPITE of the Hudson trade. Just imagine how good this team could be if he had managed a Mulder-esque return for Hudson.

Unless Cruz and Thomas can manage miracles, such a return will never happen.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:24 PM PST up reply actions

You totally missed my point

My point was that due to his contract situation and injury history, Billy couldn't have gotten a Mulder-type package for Hudson. He took the best deal available. I have a hard time believing that in the time Billy took weighing all his options, a team offered him something better than Meyer/Cruz/Thomas and he turned it down. The Mulder trade is one of the all time fleecings of the 21st century and asking him to duplicate it is preposterous.

My contention is that we get either Meyer, draft picks, or an albratross contract. I personally would opt for Meyer.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 9:32 PM PST up reply actions

You're right

I'm not being fair comparing the Hudson and Mulder trades. Of course, no one seems to mind when folks lump the deals together to make the Hudson trade more palatable. You're also right that it would only be speculation to assume what else was being offered, although there were plenty of rumors to suggest several strong packages were being offered.

All we can do is look at what actually happened. Nothing good came to Oakland in 2005 via the Hudson trade.

We'll see what 2006 brings.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:48 PM PST up reply actions

Whoa!

Did Hell just freeze-over or something?

You were actually reasonable about this subject during that reply. How refreshing!

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 9:54 PM PST up reply actions

LCJ

Still mad we didn't trade Zito and Chavez for Sean Burroughs, a toothbrush and a brick of the Petco Park building in left field?

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Dec 30, 2005 6:56 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, that's it

I'm 'bout as mad about that as you must be about your 'votes' not counting toward the Best Sports Blog catagory or as mad as you probably were when your buddy Robb was banned from AN.

Say, I didn't realize that a baseball junkie, such as yourself, had such a low regard for the likes of Jake Peavy and Adam Eaton. In your estimation, Ohad, which one is the brick and which one is the toothbrush?

Don't play with fire, young man.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2005 7:18 AM PST up reply actions

was your response supposed to be insulting

or offensive?

I don't play with fire, i just occasionally throw in wood to keep it burning.

Here's how this thread went down: Grover, Nico, Nothinlikethetown and a few others were having a fine discussion. Now, i realize sometimes Grover sounds a little pompous. But Grover always presents himself and his arguments in high quality fashion. And contrary to your beliefs, he's damn smart.

My opinion of this whole discussion is that if Meyer pans out, this is a win win for the A's. But i'm not gonna write my posts with subtle comments to try and set Grover off. I feel as if i'm older than you. At least you acknowledged the fact that you were trying to start a fire.

And i'm the one playing with fire.

P.S. Sorry. You proposed Chavvy and Zito for Peavy, Eaton, Burroughs and Tim Staufer. Not much better. It IS better than the one before that: Chavez for Burroughs, Stauffer and Eaton. The point with this isn't that the trade proposals were bad, it was that you got bad reviews. When Grover outlined everything that was wrong (and not in a rude insulting manner), you said (paraphrasing) "that's BS. If Grover had written this people would be all over him with congrats and stuff".

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Dec 30, 2005 9:01 AM PST up reply actions

Well it's about time you ascended in the level...

...of discourse. I wasn't any too thrilled sinking to your level but I am not above going 'going there' if that's what it takes to defend myself from your hyperboloid statements.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2005 9:33 AM PST up reply actions

Picking on teenagers now?

I understand, you showed last night that you weren't ready for the big leagues.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 10:01 AM PST up reply actions

I've warned you Ohad!

Don't call me little. ;)

I'm rarely a little pompous, usually I go all out.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 9:48 AM PST up reply actions

also

i didn't imply that the Braves were the only interested team. I said that every team trying to acquire Huddy knew that in addition to the talent given up toget him, they would have to throw a sizeable chunk of payroll his way. Given that, Meyer was the best package available from ANY team. Who were the other suitors? At the time I would have rather had Meyer then Bedard or Edwin Jackson (the two rumored trades) and he got Cruz, and Thomas throw-ins. If Billy wanted a pitching prospect in return, it was hard to do better than Meyer.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 8:06 PM PST up reply actions

Did the 2005 version of Loiaza suck?

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 4:22 PM PST up reply actions

Are you saying

Loiaza 2005 was an Ace?

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 4:37 PM PST up reply actions

Here's what I am saying...

...I've already said [wrote] it here:

http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2005/12/3/15259/6223

Which, awkwardly, leads me back to Loaiza and why his signing should be celebrated by AN. Loaiza was 6th on the list (for the entire MLB roster of SPs) in quality starts last season. He had 24 QS of 34 starts - 71%.
How does that match up with the remaining starters on the Athletics roster? Well, let's see (QS/QS%/MLB ranking for QS):
Blanton: 22/67/t-14
Haren: 22/65/t-14
Zito: 21/60/t-23
Harden: 10/53/t-108
Saarloos: 10/37/t-108
Kennedy (2005 full year): 7/29/t-137

Yes, a return to 2003 would be great but what's wrong with his 2005 performance? I'd take that any year.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 5:01 PM PST up reply actions

I'd take his 2005 numbers too

I don't think we're going to see those numbers next year, I expect some drop off with the move away from one of the best pitcher parks in America, but he should be solid. And I'm willing to bet his oblique is in much better shape.

Still, he won't be an Ace.

Which is what Hudson was.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 7:21 PM PST up reply actions

IMO, Hudson was not the Braves' Ace either

And I don't believe that being an ace is even a static thing. Who the fuck even gets to define the ace anyway; you? Based on what I've read in this thread, you do: you get the final say so on all matters that you decide to chime in on, it seems.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 8:12 PM PST up reply actions

all right

There's no need for that. I may not always agree with grover, but he at least backs up what he says and can hold up his end of an argument. Rather than ranting and cursing, tell us WHY Hudson wasn't Atlanta's ace. Who was? (I personally thik it was Smoltz) Give us some stats. I agree that "ace" is a term open to interpretation, but elaborate on it a bit. If you want to win an argument, stick it to him with facts. That tends to shut people up a lot quicker.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 8:17 PM PST up reply actions

Here's the thing

I do not have to support what I write with numbers or elaborations because I choose my wording very carefully with qualifying words like "in my opinion" and "probably". And, on those rare occasions where I do happen to make assertions, those are the occasions where I will elaborate and/or provide numbers. I find it interesting that without the benefits of extra justification and/or number usage, you do happen to see things the way that I do [though I'm in no way claiming that I had anything to do with developing your views on these matters]. Of course, I'm not trying to shut you up either. And, the truth be told, I'm also not trying to shut Grover up - that would be impossible. However, I am trying to get some backing in the flame contest that I'm trying to goad him into...yeah, I'm guilty. If he only realized [assumption on my part] just how abrassive he come across to me at times [and maybe others], he may just shut up on his own...or at least use qualifiers in his opinions so that he's not the board's know-it-all.

Damn, was that just one big incoherent paragraph. Oh, and yes, Smoltz...for now.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 8:43 PM PST up reply actions

I know you're not arguing

that Hudson wasn't a #1 SP when he was in Oakland. Everyone from Billy Beane to Joe Morgan acknowledged Huddy's status.

How do you define an Ace? Take this simple test.

From 200-2004, picking any pitcher from the A's staff... everyone healthy and available... who do you pick to start a one game playoff to get to the postseason? Who do you pick to pitch Game 7 of the WS?

Now, some would say Zito cira 2002 but any other time it would be Hudson. Not that Mulder would have been a bad choice either. Drop Loiaza into that mix and he would always be the 4th choice.

It doesn't matter that Hudson wasn't an Ace in Atlanta. He was labelled an Ace on the 04-05 trade market and EVERY team who dealt with Oakland agreed to that label and price.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 8:29 PM PST up reply actions

Okay, I'll play your game

Loaiza, circa 2003! That's my guy. Remember, you dropped him into the mix, right?

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 8:46 PM PST up reply actions

Fine, you lose

I'll take Huddy in 2003 (Oh the irony)

Loaiza 03: 226.1 IP 196 Hits 17 HR 56/207 BB/K rate 2.90 ERA; 1.11 WHIP; .223 BAA

Hudson 03: 240 IP 197 Hits 15 HR 61/162 BB/K rate 2.70 ERA; 1.08 WHIP; .223 BAA

It would be close, but the numbers say Huddy was the better pitcher. You know when I'm most abrasive?

When I can back it up. Flame contest over.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:09 PM PST up reply actions

Not so fast, Grasshopper

Not all of those numbers that you posted show that Hudson was the better pitcher.

Oh, and check your hand. The pebble isn't there now, is it? You almost got it, though.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 9:26 PM PST up reply actions

Feeble, Joe

Loaiza had more K's. Big Whoop.

Huddy pitched 14 extra innings and only put 6 more guys on base.

Would you rather have the guy with more strike outs or the one with two more 7 inning shutouts?

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:40 PM PST up reply actions

Well,

according to you, the ace is the guy you want starting in a one game playoff or game seven of the World Series, remember?

Hudson was 16-7 in his 34 starts in 2003.
Loaiza was 21-9 in 34 starts that same year.

You'll find your face on the deck if you look around hard enough.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 9:51 PM PST up reply actions

Wins and Losses?

Quit being silly LCJ. That's like saying Storm Davis (19-7) was a better pitcher than Mike Moore (19-11) way back in 1989.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:53 PM PST up reply actions

right answer

wrong reason. In a game seven, I'd rather have the pitcher that strikes batters out due to BABIP fluctuations that can occur over the course of one game. The strikeout pitcher is more of a sure thing when it comes to dominance. Their W-L record is completely out of their hands and you could argue (and I would) that Huddy could have easily won 20 games with those numbers.

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 9:54 PM PST up reply actions

The world will never know

2003 Loaiza vs 2003 Hudson. K's are nice but an out is an out. I'd rather have the guy who's shown the greater ability to get ground balls and keep batters off base.

What we do know is you wouldn't have picked Loaiza in 2000, 2001, 2002 or 2004. Huddy would have been considered all those times.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 10:04 PM PST up reply actions

no disagreements here

I was in no way saying that Loaiza overall is better than Huddy. I was just making a point for the purposes of that particular debate. (and I'm also a sucker for disproving the merits of W-L records.)

"May our feet be swift. May our bats be mighty. And may our balls be...plentiful."

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 29, 2005 10:08 PM PST up reply actions

And Huddy

was still striking out 6 per 9IP, which ain't too shabby.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 12:22 AM PST up reply actions

What about 2005?

And, would Hudson be the ace on Oakland's staff last year: does he get the all important Grover nod in the hypothetical game seven/one game playoff? Does he get it in 2006?

And, since were making stuff up on the fly [actually, I'm the one who's really guilty of that in our back&forth], who gets the nod between Hudson and Loiaza in a hypothetical two-man staff for the year 2005?

I mean, even if we drop in [hypothetically] Blanton, Haren, and Zito in the mix...<abrupt end of thought>

I get to be the one who decides when it's time to say 'night, Grover!

'Night...loser!

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 10:28 PM PST up reply actions

I refuse to define 'ace'...

...because it changes based on who has momentum and who has the fans riding on an emotional high. In reality, hitorical performance, match-ups, and the pitcher's present stuff should be factored. It's not an easy call. But, if I had the ability to make those correct calls with all success that the benefits of hindsight could give, then I wouldn't be sitting on my laptop communicating to you my opinions regarding this question. Instead, I'd be enjoying my off season with plenty of money in the bank: niether of which mirrors my current situation, of course.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 8:56 PM PST up reply actions

In other words...

you fold.

Thank you and good night.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:20 PM PST up reply actions

And he probably wouldn't be the ace

if he was still here either.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 8:14 PM PST up reply actions

You guys should have your own radio show.

That was one helluva debate. Well done, Gents!

If Barry Zito ends up with the Angels, I will jump off the Bay Bridge in my Banjo man replica cape!

by haren4prez on Dec 29, 2005 11:18 PM PST up reply actions

Billy's too smart to ever get fleeced on a deal!

So is John S. So both teams got better, the Braves immediately and the A's will be this year. Billy covered the A's in the event of injury, which killed 2005. I'm so psyched! C'mon Spring!

by A'sfansince1970 on Dec 29, 2005 1:53 PM PST reply actions

The underlying issue is trust

If you get burned on a deal, it's not as likely you'd do business with the person again. The best trades are those that make both teams better - not that you managed to get Rich Harden for a used CD by Al Yankovic from an inebriated GM...

Switching gears a bit, this is the #1 issue I see often with Fantasy sports. Owners tend to offer half-ass deals to the less-focused members of the contest in an attempt to fleece them. Unfortunately this sometimes works, and it renders useless the parity of the league. In the real world, where parity is not required, the Yankees and others can circumvent the "both teams get better" process by snapping up high-priced free agents.

The A's already improved "immediately" from 2004 to 2005, although their win total declined only slightly. I feel much better about the team we'll field at the beginning of 2006 than that of the beginning of both 2004 and 2005 - even without Hudson and Mulder. (Who I'm reliving through Aces - go buy it).

by louismg on Dec 29, 2005 2:15 PM PST reply actions

which is more insulting

Harden for

or just being waived?

I vote for the first.

by Apricot on Dec 29, 2005 3:39 PM PST up reply actions

That's a loaded question.

Sure, maybe Running With Scissors was awful, but what about the eponymous Off the Deep End and Even Worse? </sarcasm>

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 29, 2005 3:47 PM PST up reply actions

i accidentally

read "Running with Scissors" (thought it was a gift from my parents... Turned out to be a book my sister accidentally bought because she thought it was a dif. story)

Scarring experience.

by Alon on Dec 29, 2005 11:58 PM PST up reply actions

Misjudgement and how to avoid it

For all you ANer,s that would like to be able to explain why the A,s operate the way they do when you friends go on Morgan like rants or start talking like Schuerholz I recomend the following
talk by Charles Munger. A man who understands value better than anyone except his partner Warren Buffet.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040214182845/http://www.tilsonfunds.com/mungerpsych.html

by Slushpuppy on Dec 29, 2005 3:21 PM PST reply actions

Sir John Templeton understood/understands

value every bit as well as Buffet. So did Benjamin Graham and David Dodd.

But enough of splitting hairs, here...I'm simply trying to dazzle ya'll with my range of knowledge. It's probably not working.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 4:28 PM PST up reply actions

Must...fire...macha...

...I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 29, 2005 4:29 PM PST up reply actions

value investors

These posts have me wondering if there's a correlation between statistics-minded baseball fans and value investors, looking for bargains. Growth investors are more likely to be the kind of fans who go for flashy big-name players (Google=ARod?).

by vk on Dec 29, 2005 6:22 PM PST up reply actions

mr. buffett (two t's)

didn't understand the value of gatorade five years ago when he blocked coke's $16b takeover of quaker oats. pepsi took it over instead and now pepsico has overtaken coca cola in value...

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 Dec 29, 2005 5:26 PM PST up reply actions

like LCJ

"I'm simply trying to dazzle ya'll with my range of knowledge. It's probably not working."

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 Dec 29, 2005 5:27 PM PST up reply actions

Yahoo says Dotel with Yanks

the great playoff miss of 2004 followed by the good try of 2005.

by ak_A on Dec 29, 2005 4:41 PM PST reply actions

No buddy is a bigger

Huddy fan than me

But you can argue the A's are a better team today by letting him go last year as much as it hurt

but its also just as clear they would have preffered to pick up some differrent players in hindsight in the trade

by eastcoaster on Dec 29, 2005 4:53 PM PST reply actions

Exactly--

Beane usually doesn't get the next laugh, but usually gets the last one. I was pissed when we lost Giambi, but eventually downright grateful. Same with Mulder. I wish we had kept Tejada instead of Chavy, but look what's happening now: Miggy is not moving forward, Crosby's potential is enormous, and Chavy is 27...time will tell. Time will tell on Meyer and Huddy, too, and I boldly predict BB will have the last laugh on that one too.

And I too adored Huddy--I would have opted for him, of all 3 "aces," to stay long term. And I expect to be wrong on that wish.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 4:58 PM PST up reply actions

It's a good wish.

I wish the same thing every day when I wake up to my Big 3 poster on my wall, even though it certainly wouldn't be for the best.

It's hard, though, given the situation... just to wonder what it would have been had the A's kept Hudson and let Durazo go, immediately installing DJ. If those few months of Huddy with Saarloos as a backup for him and Harden during DL stints would have made a difference.

Of course, if Huddy had stayed, EVERYTHING would have been different so it's ridiculous... but still.

"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." -Robert S. Wieder

by Kyli on Dec 29, 2005 6:37 PM PST up reply actions

How?

How are the A's better this year because of trading Huddy last year?

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 7:43 PM PST up reply actions

NIco..."wrong"...never!

the great playoff miss of 2004 followed by the good try of 2005.

by ak_A on Dec 29, 2005 4:59 PM PST reply actions

Of course

I'm never "wrong" but unfortunately I'm often wrong.

by Nico on Dec 29, 2005 5:03 PM PST up reply actions

Unrelated reminder

Inside Baseball: The Winter Version is on at 6pm of 1550AM

Joe Blanton is phat

by gojohn10 on Dec 29, 2005 5:36 PM PST reply actions

The Hudson trade

Beane didn't make the trade to replace Hudson (like the trade he made with the Cardinals to acquire Haren),he made the trade for the future of the team. Who knows ? Meyer or Cruz could have breakout years and Thomas has potential to be an effective player in all aspects of the game. Look what he did in '04. We all know Hudson is awesome and he was the man in 2000 when the A's surprised everyone. I'll rate the tade after the '06 season.

by mike24 on Dec 29, 2005 9:26 PM PST reply actions

No, that's not going to fly here

GROV-ver! Get over here ASAP and debunk this guy...he's a friggen Beane supporter.

[/sarc]

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 9:34 PM PST up reply actions

Beane

You cannot be a real A's fan and not appreciate what Beane has done. Come on ! Its obvious !

by mike24 on Dec 29, 2005 9:38 PM PST up reply actions

Joe

Don't be a sore loser.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:51 PM PST up reply actions

Loser?

You just got done writing that wins & losses were silly. I've got it right here [ http://www.athleticsnation.com/comments/2005/12/29/155130/81/75#75 ].

Do make up your mind Grover.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2005 10:00 PM PST up reply actions

Your weakest attempt yet

'night Joe.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 10:05 PM PST up reply actions

Don't hold your breath

on Thomas.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 9:50 PM PST up reply actions

2005 vs 2004 pitching stats

I've noticed that most of the discussion has been the Hudson for Cruz/Thomas/Meyer trade and the criticism of losing Hudson in the A's 2005 rotation. If you look at the overall team stats of the A's in 2005 vs 2004 you'll see that the entire pitching staff was better without Hudson(and Mulder) than with.

2005:
WHIP K/BB K/9 BAA OPS ERA
1.25 2.13 6.67 .241 .693 3.69

2004:
WHIP K/BB K/9 BAA OPS ERA
1.37 1.90 6.32 .262 .741 4.17

Also the A's ranked the 6th lowest team ERA in MLB 2005 and ranked 10th in 2004. So in the short term you can argue that trading Hudson(and Mulder) made the entire staff better. Maybe the loss of Hudson(and Mulder) started the emergence of the several young pitchers. Some moves have a ripple effect on other aspects, so it's hard to conclude the winner and loser of one particular trade. The problem of the 2005 A's was mostly the inconsistent offense and not the pitching but that's another story. [Sorry I didn't think about the loss of Mulder in the pitching staff and included him after completing my thought. But the fact still remains that the 2005 staff (without Hudson) was better than 2004.]

by rightbackin on Dec 29, 2005 10:35 PM PST reply actions

Wrong conclusion

The stats show that the 2005 staff was better than the 2004 staff. That's not the same as saying the pitching staff was better without Hudson and Mulder.

Forgive me for using ERA to show the differences, but it's an accurate enough figure in this instance.

Zito 04: 4.48 vs Zito 05: 3.86
Mulder 04: 4.43 vs Haren 05: 3.73
Redman 04: 4.71 vs Blanton 05: 3.53
Harden 04: 3.99 vs Harden 05: 2.55
Hudson 04: 3.53 vs Saarloos 05: 4.17

Dotel(4.09)/Rhodes(5.12) vs Dotel(3.52)/Street(1.72)

Duke 04: 3.27 vs Duke 05: 2.21
Bradford 04: 4.42 vs Calero 05: 3.23

Just by looking at the ERAs, swapping Mulder and Hudson for a Haren/Saarloos combo was a push. Duke dropped his ERA over a run, Harden by a run and a half. The A's got a HUGE boost by dumping Rhodes for Street. They shaved another run (over a similiar number of innings) by replacing Bradford with Calero. More improvment came from switching Redman with Blanton and watching Zito cut over half a run from his 2004 ERA.

So you could say that losing Mulder improved the A's pitching, because he was traded for Calero and Haren. But Hudson was replaced by Saarloos, which was a net loss in performance.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 29, 2005 11:04 PM PST up reply actions

wow you're hitting everything we throw

Don't know who I would rather face, grover or Pujols?

by rightbackin on Dec 29, 2005 11:39 PM PST up reply actions

But then

Beane isn't always about improving talent... When he lost Giambi, he found several players to replace his talent.

Just like when he lost Huddy, he had to find a couple guys (Saarloos, Haren, Calero) to replace his production.

He goes for a fine line between keeping what you have going and improving for the future. I think the Huddy/Mulder deals can be considered almost one deal in this way -- he kept what he had going in the Mulder deal, and potentially improved for the future in the Huddy deal.

I'm not thinking it through clearly enough or detailed enough because it's 3:04 AM here, but I think that the idea should be explored or considered

I guess a small part of what I'm saying is that (outside of Barton, who is my favorite A already) the Hudson deal (potentially) improved Oakland's future more than the Mulder deal pitching wise, whereas the Mulder deal offered immediate replacement as well as a phenomenal hitter for the future

Different goals, though clearly the Mulder deal was... Beanelike?

by Alon on Dec 30, 2005 12:06 AM PST up reply actions

You should be in bed

Many have sought to combine the Hudson and Mulder trades into one package, arguing that Beane would not have gotten what he did for Mulder if Hudson hadn't been shipped first.

I think that idea is bullshit.

For one thing, Thomas and Cruz would still be junk and you'd have reduced the haul to Haren/Calero/Barton/Meyer for two guys who were considered Ace quality trade bait. If a 3 month rental of Freddie Garcia can net three guys (including Jeremy Reed) than Mulder and Hudson should be worth more.

For another thing, no one other than Beane and Jocketty know what kind of package was being offered for Mulder prior to Huddy's trade. There could have been very little difference between the original proposal and the final deal.

Now, you can argue that Haren/Calero/Saarloos replaced Hudson and Mulder, although both former A's rebounded themselves (somewhat) in 2005, but you should remember that Beane already had Saarloos in AAA when he made his deals. Who's to say that a Hudson/Mulder/Saarloos combo would not have been more effective than Haren/Saarloos/Calero?

Some questions will never be answered. But I'm compelled to point out a dangerous mistake in your thinking. both the Mulder and Hudson deals were intended to provided immediate AND long term improvement to the club. Neither goal has been met (yet) in the Hudson deal.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 12:43 AM PST up reply actions

Latecomer to the fray

My overview of the Hudson deal is that Beane had about 15, maybe 20 Win Shares to offer to the highest bidder -- that's about what a good to very good Hudson season is worth. And in the end, that's what Hudson produced in 2005 (I don't know where to go to find 2005 WS's, but Hudson won 14 games last year and WS's basically match pitchers' win totals). Beyond 2005 was under Hudson's control as a free agent anyway, so anything beyond last year wasn't Beane's to trade. And the bind that Beane was in for the trade was that few teams would want to trade much for just 1 year of Hudson, meaning that they wanted to discuss an extension off the record with Hudson before the trade went down -- but once, say, Schuerholz finds out that Hudson really likes Atlanta, he might figure that he'll get him in 2006 anyway as a FA, reducing his willingness to trade a lot for Hudson.

My guess is that Beane really didn't like the bind he was in a year ago with Hudson, maybe even regretting some deal he had turned down for Hudson before the 2004 season (Utley?), since the A's surely could have finished 2nd in 2004 without Huddy. Part of the story of the Mulder deal, to me, is that Beane didn't like how little leverage he ended up having with Hudson, and decided to get something for Mulder while he still held 2 years of his contract.

Now, Beane could also have kept Hudson and traded him in June or July, but that's pretty much a double-or-nothing proposition -- you could end up getting John Smoltz, or you could end up getting Blake Stein. I think the biggest mistakes Beane made were in the previous off-season -- signing Rhodes and getting Redman, also Karros -- all of which he did trying to get the "last few pieces" to win the division again. Maybe in retrospect he thinks he dodged a bullet when Boston took Foulke off our hands. Keeping Hudson in 2005 would have been the same sort of Mets-like move to me -- "This one guy will put us over the top! The future is NOW!" -- and I think the way you actually become the Royals isn't to roll craps from time to time when you make a trade, it's to keep overpaying for players, keep getting or keeping "one last guy" to "win it all."

In the end, as great as Hudson was for the A's, we're talking about 1 year of a pitcher who hasn't made 30 starts since 2003. A's fans reacted so strongly, in my view, because of what it meant about the A's' past, not because of what it meant for the team's future.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Dec 30, 2005 6:48 AM PST up reply actions

Sounds fair

The one thing I did not understand was why Beane refused to give other teams a 48 hour window to talk extension with Hudson, especially with a team like Atlanta whom Beane (probably) knew Huddy had feelings for. Extension talks would give Billy more leverage.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 9:53 AM PST up reply actions

mechanical advantage

extensions always increase leverage

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2005 10:07 AM PST up reply actions

Here, grover and I

are in full agreement. Seems to me as if the "48 hour window" would increase leverage big time for the A's. A team that knew they were trading for years, not just year, of Huddy, or Zito, or whomever, might give up twice as much. It has always struck me as a "shoot self in foot" policy.

by Nico on Dec 30, 2005 10:13 AM PST up reply actions

Extension talks

I'm not sure that it would have helped Beane. If Schuerholz finds out that Hudson's big dream is to pitch for the Braves, then he can just wait another year and sign him in exchange for 2 draft picks. No more need for a trade. And if Hudson makes that choice to go elsewhere during those talks, then the option of keeping him goes up in smoke, also reducing Beane's leverage. If, on the other hand, Hudson and Schuerholz don't hit it off, then Atlanta is off the market and other suitors will offer less.

In the end, I think one season is always one season. There's just no way to spin that straw into gold.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Dec 30, 2005 10:38 AM PST up reply actions

Tim Hudson's 2005 Win Shares

He had 14 Win Shares in 2005, less than his average A's season:

2000 15 Win Shares
2001 17
2002 23
2003 23
2004 16

by rsquared on Dec 30, 2005 10:44 AM PST up reply actions

Thanks for the WS numbers, rsquared

Did you find those online?

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Dec 30, 2005 8:20 PM PST up reply actions

go here

www.thehardballtimes.com

They have all the nice sabremetric stats (including Win Shares Above Bench)

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Dec 31, 2005 4:38 AM PST up reply actions

How Is Juan Cruz Junk?

Bah, hit the wrong button.

In his career, Juan Cruz has an average home run rate (about 1 per nine), and strikes out a batter an inning and has a slightly below average K/BB (1.85). To me, this is a slightly above average pitcher

Are you evaluating a 26 year old pitcher on the sample size of 32 innings? Those numbers are almost meaningless. Think of it this way: Cliff Pollitte, who has sucked his entire career, was the second best reliever in baseball, behind only Huston Street.

Which is more likely: A 31 year old suddenly figures it all out, or he got extremly lucky thanks to the small sample size of 67 innings. Due to the fact he showed slight improvements in strikeouts, walks, and home runs, yet knocked two and a half runs off of his ERA, I'm going to go with luck.

You seem to be evaluating Juan Cruz based on the sample size of 32 innings, which is just wrong. In 28 innings in July, Danny Haren had a 6.35 ERA. In 18 innings in May, Blanton had a 13.2 ERA. Does that mean that they suck? No, it's just variance taking hold. Juan Cruz is a decent pitcher, and should be a benifit to the team.

by regfairfield on Dec 30, 2005 8:33 AM PST up reply actions

If you haven't already noticed,

Grover seems to be an instant gratification type. If any one of those three players that Oakland got in return for Hudson become dominate in this game, he'll issue the quick "oh, I guess I was wrong about that" and then contuniue on making his short- and hind-sighted assertions while trying to make his debate opponents feel like they have no clue how evaluate talent and analyze shrewd decisions. I really don't know what the motivation is there...insecurity, maybe?

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2005 8:54 AM PST up reply actions

hang on joe,

i have no need to defend grover, he does a fine job himself, but i will defend his arguement. i vividly recall the atl/oak trade going down and there were many on this site who loved it, and there were others who held the opinion it was a huge blunder by billy. i was (and still am) in the former.

i wholeheartly agree that the mulder and hudson trades SHOULD NOT been seen as one total package but rather judged on their own merits. by doing that we must all agree that the hudson for meyer/cruz/twobuckchuck was a mistake.

grover just "sounds" right all the time re: this trade, because the facts support his arguements.

by bigelephant on Dec 30, 2005 9:05 AM PST up reply actions

Ahh!

You have hinted at one of my closest secrets!

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 9:54 AM PST up reply actions

How Can You Tell?

The Hudson trade was clearly designed to benifit the A's in the future. Your evaulation of the trade consists of:

An season where Meyer got a shoulder injury, which tend to have lingering effects
32 innings of Juan Cruz at the major league level, combined with utter dominance of AAA.
Charles Thomas (I admit that he's not that great).

I quickly called the Mulder trade one of the biggest fleecings of the last five years, Jocketty's obssession with superstars got the best of him when he didn't realize that Mulder wasn't a superstar, but to expect the Hudson trade to pay dividends in 2005 is foolish.

Meyer was clearly the centerpiece of the deal, and he is still developing. If he manages to even break in to the rotation in 2007, due to the strength of the A's rotation, he should be viewed as a success. Combine this with decent middle relief from Cruz, and heck, even a fifth outfielder appearence from Thomas, the deal should be viewed as successful.

The 2005 A's didn't have enough offense to have a reasonable shot at a championship, so Hudson would have gone to waste. If they get a starter, a reliver, and a outfielder out of him, it's a good deal. If Meyer is still languishing in AAA in 2007, then yes, it was a bad trade.

by regfairfield on Dec 30, 2005 10:11 AM PST up reply actions

Benefit the future and the present

Look at what (not who) Beane traded for when he dealt Hudson. He acquired the starting LF and a valuable MR arm from the Braves 2004 playoff roster. You do not acquire those types of players with the hope that they will help your team two years down the road. You get those guys because you expect them to contribute to the ML roster on Opening Day 2005.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 10:40 AM PST up reply actions

Expect and hope

are different things. Maybe Beane expected Thomas to be a gold glove defensive replacement, pinch runner, and all-around excellent 25th-player, and hoped he would hit well enough to platoon with Kielty. Maybe Beane expected Cruz to be a head case who could eventually be included in a package like the one that got him to Oakland, and hoped he had a good enough arm to provide middle relief depth in 2005.

The problem is that while the expectations were reasonable, Thomas didn't even live up to those. But I'm not going to hang Billy Beane on the disappointment of the least important piece of a 4-piece puzzle that included 2 crucial pieces. Beane had every right to expect Thomas to provide GG defense and bench help; and if Meyer helps anchor the A's rotation in 2007, it won't much matter what happened to Charles Thomas.

by Nico on Dec 30, 2005 10:48 AM PST up reply actions

C'mon Nico

Do you really think Beane looked at Thomas and said "You were a starting OFer on a playoff team last year, I want you to come over to my team and be a defensive replacement behind Kielty and Byrnes!"

Why would you trade Tim Hudson for that?

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Jan 1, 2006 11:07 AM PST up reply actions

He wouldn't and he didn't

I think he traded Hudson for Meyer, wanted more than Cruz/Thomas in the package, but wanted Meyer/Cruz/Thomas more than he liked the other options in front of him, pulled the trigger, and expected Thomas to be a far better defensive OFer than Kielty or Byrnes.

by Nico on Jan 1, 2006 12:20 PM PST up reply actions

Thomas is a better defensive OFer

than Byrnes and Kielty, if only he could hit his way out of AAA to prove it.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Jan 1, 2006 9:16 PM PST up reply actions

Definitely--

but what was so bizarre was to watch Thomas muff routine plays in the field while he was in the process of going 0-for-Oakland. It looked like everything had gotten way inside his head, and/or he had switched heads with Alex Sanchez.

by Nico on Jan 1, 2006 10:20 PM PST up reply actions

I've always been interested

in the one-year-wonder reliever phenomenon, or even the random-year-wonder phenomenon of Jose Mesa. Politte's situation isn't that unusual -- nearly every year some reliever lucks out (e.g., Hammond in his last year with the Braves, or possibly Danny Kolb in 2003-4). You've made the key point here: many, many mediocre pitchers have enough stuff to put it all together and dominate for 50 or 60 or even 80 innings. I think it's not always luck -- that is, sometimes it's due to random fluctuations in BABIP or something, but other times a guy just has unusually good command for a while and then reverts to his usual wildness and ineffectiveness. When a reliever does this, he looks like a superstar for a year. When a starter does it, he looks like Cory Lidle.

The thing I'm curious about is whether there's any difference in the frequency of the Politte and Lidle phenomena (average reliever dominates for 50 innings, average starter dominates for 50 innings), and whether either is more likely to be repeated.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Dec 30, 2005 9:13 AM PST up reply actions

The key question:

How many good innings did Katrina and the Waves put up?

by Nico on Dec 30, 2005 10:50 AM PST up reply actions

their performance

was hurt by too many walks during day games.

(too subtle?)

by Apricot on Dec 30, 2005 4:27 PM PST up reply actions

No, just right--

and don't it feel good?

by Nico on Dec 30, 2005 4:57 PM PST up reply actions

You'll Rew that comment

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2005 6:22 PM PST up reply actions

More than Swing-out Sister

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2005 6:57 PM PST up reply actions

Cruz went from ML bullpen

to AAA SP.

Beane has said that the best way to use Cruz is as a SP, and then he went out and signed Loaiza to a FA deal. There is no place for Cruz in the A's 2006 rotation, and with Meyer and Saarloos around there may not be an opening in 2007 either. He has always been a talented yet erratic pitcher, it took maybe the best pitching coach in the game to get a good year out of him, and he's not exactly wet behind the ears anymore.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 9:13 AM PST up reply actions

Haha

Coincidentally (or perhaps as a direct result of the post), I went to bed as soon as I completed laying out the fuzzy idea...

I still think that my idea has some legitimacy based on the fact that when we lost Giambi we didn't replace him; we got Hattebergs and all that fun stuff to equal his production... Beane was in a fix with a one-year-contract-injury-prone-ace. That's a little like tainted love -- I know your tag line talks about angst regarding a friend who has broken up with his porn star girlfriend (and yes I know it's a quote), but would you REALLY want to date a porn star? What with the AIDs and other STDs flying round the porn community? I know that in the OOTP (Out Of The Park Simulation Game) leagues that I participate/have participated in, the acquiring of an ace was delicate... You drool over them, but the faults they have are so apparent (fat contract, can't pitch 200+ innings) that it becomes like looking at a blemished apple

I don't really know where I was going with that whole thought process, still fuzzy from waking up, but I guess my point is that Hudson maybe did not have as much trade value as Mulder, and though if Ryan Howard and Chase Utley were available Beane certainly should have taken them, every GM makes mistakes, and Howard and Utley both had only produced at a minor league level. Utley also had the knock of only hitting righties, Howard was 25 and still in AAA (though finally we got him out of there), and I guess that Beane hesitated because of his desire for Dan Meyer and even Charles Thomas and Juan Cruz over whoever the Phils were offering, since the Phils farm system has a habit of screwing big name players over (see Floyd, Gavin and Hamels, Cole)

All that fun fuzzy stuff said, yes, had Beane pulled the trigger on the Phillies deal the A's would probably be a better team (though no MB or Swish, probably, if Howard plays 1b and DJ DH's... Beane can't have known about all those though so I won't discuss them). As it is, Wade did probably his best move as a GM and, once talks got serious and he found Beane would not let Wade's initial "Look at me! I'm interested in your player!" offer be reduced, backed out of the deal entirely (probably still somewhat terrified of the whole Jeremy Giambi-to-the-Phillies ordeal)

Overall, though, you're very right. This move does not shine above others as one of Beane's best, though his move a few days later might. Not every GM is perfect, though... Think Schuerholz made a brilliant move trading Marte for Renteria?

Interestingly enough, a quick search on Schuerholz reveals that, unlike us, Braves fans were CRYING out for the braves to get... Esteban Loaiza!

Somehow that's ironic

And yes, the above post wasn't exactly coherent and I was mostly typing out what came into my brain, only less coherently... Bash away! Only, don't be mean about it -- it's Hannukah!

Shalom!

by Alon on Dec 30, 2005 9:14 AM PST up reply actions

Alon:

To your ? "...did S make a brilliant move trading Marte for Renteria"? Answer: absolutely. it was the steal of the WM. by almost every account, most 'experts" believe S made off like a bandit and robbed boston.

by bigelephant on Dec 30, 2005 9:51 AM PST up reply actions

The Phillies did not mess up Hamels!

He messed himself up. Every minor league pitcher should be made to watch "Bull Durham" at the start of the season so they will be reminded to NOT PUNCH WITH YOUR PITCHING HAND.

Giambi was replaced by Hatty and two draft picks, one of which (as I recall) was used on Joe Blanton. Instant gratification and long term benefit.

Huddy? Not so much instant and long term is still around the bend.

"You dumped a porn star? Friendship over. FRIENDSHIP OVER!"...Barney

by grover on Dec 30, 2005 10:00 AM PST up reply actions

Good Point

...and you can really tell it's off-season with the length of the arguments today over fine points. It didn't seem to me that either Hudson or Mulder did all that great in 2005, so what's the big deal?

Here's hoping for a better 2006!

by SF4As on Dec 30, 2005 12:39 AM PST up reply actions

Darren Rhavles is a god today!

Stop baseball for a damn second, the world's greatest sport...along with A'sball, is World Cup Skiing. WE WON TODAY! Nor Cal Truckee Darren
is THE WORLD CUP OVERALL LEADER! The Olympics come next. This is a trully one of a kind day for Northern California Ski Racing. Darren. Darren. Darren.

BTW, the post from the Braves GM was gay at best!

How gay!

by baseballbill on Dec 29, 2005 10:50 PM PST reply actions