Options Beyond Crosby (see poll)

by Gerard on Feb 23, 2006 1:57 PM PST

Now that Nico stuck a needle in my side with his entry "At What Point..." regarding the health of Bobby Crosby, then Monkeyball twisted it (ouch), I've been compelled to ask the question regarding the depth of infield.
This roster has been carefully put together by Beane with the purpose of adding enough depth at all positions to handle any potential injuries to our starters. Most agree that this team has the deepest roster in terms of ability that we've seen in several years.
With the latest information about Crosby's injury, are we collectively comfortable with Marco Scutaro, Antonio Perez and possibly Mark Ellis filling in at SS?

Poll

Is AN comfortable with our backups for Bobby Crosby?

1. Yes , I'm comfortable with Scutaro at SS for both short and long term use.

24 votes

2.Yes, I'm comfortable with Scutaro but only for short term (< 1 week at a time)

31 votes

3. No, Scutaro is not adequate and we should look at Perez, Ginter or Ellis to fulfill short term needs in the infield

32 votes

4. Yes, I'm comfortable b/c Macha's options are so deep he can mix and match accordingly.

34 votes

5. No worries 'Mon, b/c Crosby's voodoo doll was lost shortly after he injured his shoulder and he will stay healthy all year

20 votes

141 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nothing looks good for the long haul

If Crosby is out for a considerable amount of time...again, and our offense can't produce without him (which I find weird since it's not like he's a god at the plate), do we look outside our organization?

Scutaro
Perez
Ellis
Ginter
Bynum
Rouse

I don't know much about Perez, but the rest are all decent 2nd / 3rd basemen lacking the range and arm for a SS. Pennington is too far away.

Lets just all cross our collective fingers and remind Macha not play Crosby in Baltimore.

"Do you ever get down on your knees and thank God you know me and have access to my dementia?" - George Costanza

by Awesomus on Feb 23, 2006 2:58 PM PST reply actions

I like Perez

One of Billy's best moves was getting Perez packaged with Bradley. He has the potential for some high OBP, and couldn't be called a power dropoff from Scutaro.

Losing Croz for any length of time would suck, but I would not be at all surprised if Perez posted a .350+ obp and generally held his own at short.

by Mark H on Feb 23, 2006 4:05 PM PST up reply actions

If Crosby misses 20+ games pre-ASB ...

... I think Zito's gone at the trading deadline.

it was the crazy-people underestimation @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 3:12 PM PST reply actions

That's a Bold Prediction!

I'm not so sure it would be just the health of Crosby that determines Zito's status. Other factors may include Dan Meyer's progress, for example. I will bet now that Zito is gone after this year, and that Rheineker or Meyers may be the next ones to step into Zito's old spot.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Feb 23, 2006 4:43 PM PST up reply actions

lol

Listen I'm not happy about Crosby's shoulder.

And our poor play did coincide with his injuries last year.

But when you have a team eminently capable of winning 100 games, and you lose one starter-- even one as valuable as Crosby-- for 20-30 games, that should the net effect of costing you:

1 win.

So the idea that Zito will be traded is laughable.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Feb 23, 2006 7:33 PM PST up reply actions

Lose Crosby for 20-30 games

And expect the A's to lose one more game than they would have with Crosby in the line-up.

Must be some of that new math.

Why yes. I am a ray of Fucking sunshine.

by grover on Feb 23, 2006 7:37 PM PST up reply actions

no...

think about it.

Let's say slightly over half of a team's wins are created by your lineup-- call it 60% counting both offense and defense.

So that's 60 wins in a 100 win season.

Average wins per 9 man lineup: 6.7. Now Crosby is a bit more valuable, due to his defensive position.

So assume he produces 8 wins-- he's out for 20 games-- that's 1 win.

30 games is about 1.5 win.

But his replacement won't be without any value-- so you can see that 1 win is roughly the impact of a Crosby missing 30 games.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Feb 23, 2006 8:37 PM PST up reply actions

Hang on

The A's went (roughly) 32-48 with Crosby out of the line-up last year. By your figures Crosby could miss every game in 2006 and the A's would drop from 100 wins to 92-95 wins total.

So it's your contention that the A's, 16 games under .500 last year without Crosby, have improved themselves to the point that they could expect AT LEAST a 4 game improvement in the standings even if Crosby missed the enitre season.

You're why other fans make fun of A's fans.

Why yes. I am a ray of Fucking sunshine.

by grover on Feb 23, 2006 8:52 PM PST up reply actions

Well, let's be real here, Grover

When Bobby Crosby was out the first two months last year:

Eric Chavez and Jason kendall were two of the worst 5 offensive performers in baseball-- look it up;

Nick Swisher and Rich Harden also got hurt;

Scott Hatteberg replacing a 900 OPS Eurebiel Durazo was miserable;

Mark Ellis-- who would be the team's best player in the 2nd half-- was only playing part-time.

So maybe they lost a couple wins because they didn't have Crosby; and a couple more each for Chavez' and kendall's ineptitude; and a win or two for Harden being out; a win or two for Hatty instead of Durazo. a win because Ellis wasn't playing every day; a win each for Blanton and Haren's early season struggles--

do you understand now??

Just losing Crosby wasn't the biggest or the only reason why they played lousy for two months;

And to answer your question: if crosby missed every game, and if that injury didn't force other people to play more than they should and help cause another injury or two-- and with Scoot and perezI don't think that would eb the case-- yes, the A's would win 92-95 games.

They didn't have Ellis at all in 2004-- in 2005 he was a better hitter than Crosby and just as valuable defensively-- and they missed the playoffs by one game with an inferior club to this one.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Feb 24, 2006 8:00 AM PST up reply actions

Yes I did witness the 2005 season

Now, would you like me to re-cap some of your more precious moments from last season?

Why yes. I am a ray of Fucking sunshine.

by grover on Feb 24, 2006 11:58 AM PST up reply actions

Hang on you

According to THT, Crosby had 12 win shares in roughly 80 games. 20 games, that's 3 win shares. 3 win shares equals 1 win if i'm not mistaken. So in 20 missed Crosby games, that's 1 less win.

That's one way of looking at it.

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 Feb 24, 2006 8:12 AM PST up reply actions

precisely

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Feb 24, 2006 9:37 AM PST up reply actions

Easier Solution...

If Crosby begins missing significant time, I see a trade of surplus pitching to T.B.for Lugo, who they'd love to get rid of eventually. Would fill the hole, without giving up Zito. Certainly not the greatest idea, but one that has merit.

"I have nothing against the bunt - in it's place. But most of the time that place is in the bottom of a long-forgotten closet." - Earl Weaver

by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 23, 2006 3:29 PM PST reply actions

Hmmm ...

Intriguing suggestion.

BTW, I didn't mean "trade Zito for a shortstop"; I just meant "without Crosby, the team's not likely to be in contention, and therefore might as well trade Z for the biggest '07 chits we can get."

it was the crazy-people underestimation @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 3:49 PM PST up reply actions

I was afraid...

Of somebody making that connection, that is why it is not a reply. I knew what you were getting at, but I don't think it's that drastic. If we lose several guys, perhaps Zito will get dealt, but I don't think losing one guy sinks the team right now (MAYBE Chavez, not sure though). However, and I'd hate to see it happen, if Crosby goes down, I'll start a "Free Lugo" campaign!

"I have nothing against the bunt - in it's place. But most of the time that place is in the bottom of a long-forgotten closet." - Earl Weaver

by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 23, 2006 3:57 PM PST up reply actions

Gotcha

You're probably more right than I am about Crosby -- in any event, I agree that Chavez is definitely the one guy whose loss of 30+ games would be guaranteed to scuttle the season.

And if this guy becomes available for the price of a super-cheap European '80s economy car, I'll start a "Freel-Yugo" campaign!

it was the crazy-people underestimation @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 4:13 PM PST up reply actions

That's because...

"You Freeload"

"I have nothing against the bunt - in it's place. But most of the time that place is in the bottom of a long-forgotten closet." - Earl Weaver

by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 23, 2006 4:16 PM PST up reply actions

You just hit the ...

... "Youppi-Lode"!

it was the crazy-people underestimation @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 4:20 PM PST up reply actions

and you're wrong about that, too

Last time I looked Chavez ain't Ruth or Bonds.

The only real problem is if multiple players miss significant time-- particularly at once-- this team can deal with one player on the shelf for a while.

Pretty early for people to be in panic mode.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Feb 23, 2006 7:35 PM PST up reply actions

I have no problem with being told I'm wrong

But, oaktoon, you really should consider a moratorium on your deployment of "panic" as an epithet for other posters' behavior.

And, in any event, I've spent the entire offseason (and a big chunk of last summer) theorizing that the A's have a roster full of fragile/chronic bodies, with key players likely to miss significant chunks of PT simultaneously. Crosby has until now been the least demonstrably "fragile" of said key components (especially with the additions of Bradley and Thomas); which means that, if he again misses big chunks of PT, the injury cascade is all the more detrimental.

No, Chavez ain't Ruth or Bonds -- but the dropoff from Chavez to his substitutes is even greater than the dropoff from Crosby to Scutaro/Perez. It's not an absolute value, but a relative one, that's the issue in players missing time.

it was the crazy-people underestimation @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 24, 2006 9:44 AM PST up reply actions

the other thing to consider ...

... as I mentioned elsewhere today, is that Beane and the Brain Trust have historically been at their worst when backed into a corner and forced to make an acquisition. I'd be leery of any new SS acquisition.

And, of course, there's the caveat that we (I) may be panicking unnecessarily and Cropsby's shoulder will be fine. And we'll all get ponies.

it was the crazy-people underestimation @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 4:23 PM PST up reply actions

Lugo would be an interesting choice

and Tampa needs pitching. But I don't think Oakland has the type of arms the D'Rays are looking for. Braden and Windsor haven't posted the numbers to make people overlook their lack of stuff. Meyer is damaged goods until proven otherwise. Lansford, Italiano and Mazzaro are too far down to entice a team that needs immediate rotation gratification.

Kennedy's been there, done that and Saarloos' sinker doesn't play well on turf.

Why yes. I am a ray of Fucking sunshine.

by grover on Feb 23, 2006 7:54 PM PST up reply actions

However...

A starting offer of Komine and Casilla (Garcia) or Rheinecker and Casilla wouldn't hurt. I am sure we'd have something somewhere the Rays like arm-wise. Not saying it would even be necessary though, just an option that wasn't thought of.

"I have nothing against the bunt - in it's place. But most of the time that place is in the bottom of a long-forgotten closet." - Earl Weaver

by PosterNutbag44 on Feb 23, 2006 8:06 PM PST up reply actions

Actually

I got to thinking about trade scenario's when I first saw this thread. I just haven't finished my research on who could be available if the A's needed a season long fix at SS.

Why yes. I am a ray of Fucking sunshine.

by grover on Feb 23, 2006 8:14 PM PST up reply actions

easy

ellis moves to short and perez plays 2b.

by sourstuff on Feb 23, 2006 4:12 PM PST reply actions

I also like Perez

but at the same time, it will probably be a wait and see type of situation. In other words, you see if the answer is in your org so play Perez there for a time and if he struggles or hurts the team, then you search outside the organization.

That's typically been the A's approach in this situation. But first and foremost, you need to see if this is a long-term thing with Crosby and then make decisions from there.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 23, 2006 4:32 PM PST reply actions

Oh and what really makes me nervous

is if Crosby does get hurt and Perez performs adequately over there, that means Chavez will be used more than the team would probably like, cranky shoulder and all.

That's where it hurts the team the most. The A's can afford one injury in the infield, just not multiple ones, especially to Chavez and Crosby at the same time.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 23, 2006 4:34 PM PST up reply actions

Ouch, that does hurt.

If Chavez and Crosby are both down and we have Perez and Scoot out there, it will be a case of just hoping for the best.

One thing seems to happen every other year though: The lineup on Opening Day `taint what you thought it would be and the lineup post-trading deadline is really different than what you thought it would be.

Then again, you have the wonderful consistency of the Blanton-Saarloooos bottom of the rotation.

by Mark H on Feb 23, 2006 4:47 PM PST up reply actions

I've said it before, I'll say it again

I think we'll likely see 10+ meaningful games (i.e., non-blowouts pre-clinch/-elimination) where three of [Perez, Scutaro, Ginter, Kielty, Thomas, Bynum, Watson] will be on the field at once.

Any guesses at the over/under for A's wins in those 10+ games?

it was the crazy-people underestimation @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 23, 2006 5:00 PM PST up reply actions

I'll be the first to say it...again

If we would've kept Miggy, then the only bum shoulder we'd be dealing with is Crosby's and that would be at third, a much more replaceable position in baseball.

by RunRickeyRun on Feb 23, 2006 4:50 PM PST up reply actions

Hindsight is 20/20

Plus, it isn't like Chavez has been a piece of crap for us

by Alon on Feb 23, 2006 9:17 PM PST up reply actions

It's not hindsight

when you said it then and you say it now. Plus, Chavvy still doesn't have an MVP trophy.

by RunRickeyRun on Feb 24, 2006 10:26 AM PST up reply actions

Crosby in the lineup

Won't be as important this year with Milton, Payton (wasn't there the first half last year), and Thomas. We really want his defense but Ellis would be OK. I could see the A's contending even if Crosby misses a couple months.

"If you throw at someone's head, it's very dangerous, because in the head is the brain." -- Pudge Rodriguez

by niallmack on Feb 23, 2006 4:50 PM PST reply actions

If he goes down, it won't be like last year...

There is a big drop from Crosby to Marco, no doubt, but I don't think it would hurt the as badly as it did last year. Last year Crosby was leaned on much more heavily for offense than he will be in 2006. Last year he could bat anywhere from 2-5 in the order, but this year he'd probably be down around 6.

Possible lineup without B-Cros...

Ellis
Kotsay
Bradley
Chavey
Big Hurt
D.J.
Swisher/Payton
Kendall
Marco/Perez

With the pitching staff we have this year, that lineup should easily produce enough runs to win a majority of their games. Think about the run support Blanton got last year... with this lineup he would have had probably 6-7 more wins, and add in a few extra wins from the other starters and we're in the playoffs.

If Crosby goes down for a considerable amount of time, and the rest of the team stays relatively heathly (meaning no season ending injuries), I think they can still make the playoffs. Last year, no chance, this year it is possible.

That being said, it significantly hurts the team, Crosby great with the leather and energizes the clubhouse. The A's would be much better WITH him, but I think they could survive. I hope this injury isn't going to be long term problem, add me to the list of those crossing their fingers...

by meadball on Feb 23, 2006 4:51 PM PST reply actions

Freddie Bynum

if Crosby sits out sometime it opens up a roster spot for Bynum who will be put on waivers if he doesn't make the 25-man roster which currently looks full.

That's the only thing good about that injury. I agree this year we can survive with Scutaro or Perez at ss for a a little while.

I hope the A's let him rest his shoulder for the next few weeks or so.

"Who wouldn't look great wearing Green and Gold?"- Ray Fosse

by OakAs33 on Feb 23, 2006 5:01 PM PST reply actions

I Love Catastrophic Thinking

Over the course of today it's been an interesting exercise to consider the ramifications of our injury plagued shortstop. I think that in the worst case scenerio and Crosby just turns out to be a major disappointment, then the A's have options via trade or maybe promotion from within but in either case, this is not ideal in what you are looking for in a contender for the title. In the best case scenario, Macha will use his staff similarly to how LaRussa used to pace his players. We haven't seen this happen over the last two seasons but it doesn't mean it can't happen. If Macha does his part and the A's stay healthy then the WS is in our grasp.
I am comfortable with the team as Beane has set it up. I don't think we could have expected a more productive off-season to fill some of the holes we saw on lat year's roster. Macha's options are tremendous in the case of injury. A few years ago the perception of the A's was the their youth produced a more durable roster. Over the last two seasons, it may have been youth that was responsible for injury. So things even out over time I suppose, but I still say that the collective youth AND experience will serve this team well. Over and out. G

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Feb 23, 2006 7:23 PM PST reply actions

One last thing...

...Roughly 20% in this very unscientific poll are really not comfortable with Scutaro at SS. But for the other 80% I think we can all live pretty comfortable with him and the other options Macha has at his disposal. With that said, Bring it on...

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Feb 23, 2006 7:26 PM PST up reply actions

no problem with scutaro at SS

Scutaro spent a lot of time at short last year, and did an admirable job defensively. Its not like he was making blunder after blunder a la a certain left fielder. True, his range isn't as good as crosby's, but the guy is fairly compitent. There were some high pressure situations last year when I was wishing Scutaro was at short. If Crosby goes down I think we'll feel more offensive hurt than defensive hurt as Scutaro isn't much of a hitter.

by panchopunch on Feb 23, 2006 8:18 PM PST up reply actions

Scutaro at SS

Scutaro at SS sucked. He has no range and his arm is weak. So the two things you need to play SS he was poor at. Marco doesn't even have the Raffy Bournigal advantage of having a fantasticly quick release. I'm sorry but if Scotaro is in the lineup for a significant time the A's are sunk. With Crosby in the lineup the A's middle defense is pretty darn good. With Marco playing there is a hole in the middle. This is deadly to the A's pitching staff. As a backup guy who occasionally plays Scutaro is fine. Having Marco as a regular everyday player means the A's have some serious problems.

by skwid on Feb 24, 2006 8:14 AM PST up reply actions

Tendonitis

As a former player, I have to say that shoulder tendonitis is probably one of the trickier injuries to predict the outcome of. I lost an entire year in baseball from tendonitis that to this day still bothers my shoulder from time to time if I throw too much on consecutive days. I decided because of it to not continue playing at a higher level because the amount of preparation it took to keep my arm in good shape was way more than I wanted to handle.

I have known many players that have had tendonitis for only a few weeks and it has passed with no recurring symptoms, but be warned; this injury is not something to be taken lightly. Obviously Bobby's gonna have a great medical staff working with him; however, it is not unlikely that we have a Gil Meche type problem here. If you're not familiar with his predicament, Gil lost over a year because of shoulder pain that none of the doctors could really figure out. I had a chance to talk to the athletic trainer for the Mariners and he was as puzzled as anyone about it. I think surgery eventually corrected the problem.

Using one's arm for pitching and using it in the field are two different things, but I would expect that if Bobby had the same problem he'd have to watch his throwing much like Eric is doing now. I would expect him to miss as little as 20 games this year or as many as 80, depending on the severity of his shoulder issues. In addition, we could have a situation where he gets surgery in the offseason. The great thing about this is that it's not like we're dealing with a broken bone, which takes weeks to heal and fully recover from. However, the bad thing is, this isn't a good injury to put a timeframe on like say, a broken bone.

So until Bobby comes to the media and says, hey, my shoulder feels great, I can make all the throws I want, I'll be a little worried.

by baseb3383 on Feb 24, 2006 10:45 AM PST reply actions

well said

my brother was a very good cyclist and he ended up losing over a year to hip Tendonitis. The injury always felt like it was "getting better" but it was not. As soon as he pushed it a little things would flair up and he would be back on the shelf. It bothers him to this day. Tendonitis is a tricky injury.

Kendall Haiku by FormerHuntsvilleStar, " Ball in hand, a leap,--- a veteran catcher blocks--- and secures a win"

by Athletics fan and runner on Feb 25, 2006 9:41 AM PST up reply actions