DLD 5/13-Watson heading to Japan

by Doug on May 13, 2006 9:10 AM PDT

No witty intro, just saw this story on the Bee and it took me by surprise.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14255034p-15070448c.html

In short, "He hugged his teammates, shook hands with the coaching staff and walked away from the team . . . Watson is leaving the River Cats to play in Japan. . . Watson played in only 34 big-league games since being selected by the Montreal Expos in the 16th round of the 2002 free-agent draft. But Watson has flourished in the Pacific Coast League since the A's claimed him off waivers before the 2004 season. . . "

Looks as though he got tired of waiting for his break with the A's, I wish him the best of luck (and it looks like the Free Matt Watson committee needs a new target-Jeremy Brown anyone?). Feel free to add to the linkage, discuss how the vagaries of talent and the well-timed hot streak can lead to a career as a fourth OFer, or to gnash your teeth and pull your hair over Duke's trip to the DL.

Tweet Comment 59 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

One gripe . . .

I seriously hate DLDs or diaries that have a link requiring you to register like this one does. Can you at least copy the relevant quotes? I don't feel like registering evry time I want to read a story. This seems to be happening all the time here now.

Sorry if I sound grumpy but the A's just suck right now.

by oaktownmario on May 13, 2006 9:14 AM PDT reply actions

Sorry

It just connected for me automatically, I forgot that sacbee required registration, I'll update it momentarily.

by Doug on May 13, 2006 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Magic website:

www.bugmenot.com

Made to bypass registration

"Jiminy Christmas, he's throwing 101 miles an hour." - Swish on Tigers SP Justin Verlander // My A's pics

by JLaff on May 13, 2006 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Wow.

Mabeus has been released, now Watson heading to Japan. Two guys I expected to see end up on an MLB team somewhere. :-/

I wish him the best of luck in Japan.

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on May 13, 2006 9:20 AM PDT reply actions

Mabeus

I don't think he was released. He was taken off the 40-man roster. Unless some other team claims him on waivers (not very likely), he's still in the organization.

by OaktownTribesman on May 13, 2006 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Accordinmg to YES, Chavez is playing

as DH and batting fourth today. Marco is 3b.

by oaktownmario on May 13, 2006 9:28 AM PDT reply actions

You deserved better from this organization Matt

I hope you find success in Japan and can eventually find your way back to a big league gig stateside.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 13, 2006 9:31 AM PDT reply actions

No link...

Justin Smoak of U-South Carolina is on TV against Tennessee. Just drew a walk. I remember there was a bit of a ruckus when he chose SC over the A's. 12 HRs so far for the Gamecocks.

"Jiminy Christmas, he's throwing 101 miles an hour." - Swish on Tigers SP Justin Verlander // My A's pics

by JLaff on May 13, 2006 9:31 AM PDT reply actions

that was the worst $1 mil we never spent

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 May 13, 2006 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions

agreed

I dont really get it either. I'm pretty sure Swisher got over a million dollar signing bonus.

Bill Stoneman is about to be offered three seasons of a right-handed version of Vladimir Guerrero - Rev Halofan

by pickinmachine on May 13, 2006 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions

but he was a first round pick

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 May 13, 2006 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Wasn't Smoak considered 1st round material?

But his signing demands caused him to fall in the draft. Which doesn't make a whole lotta sense, because most 1st round picks get signing bonuses near the $1 million mark.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 13, 2006 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions

no, i agree

and said so at the time

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 May 13, 2006 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions

I disagree.

You start giving 16th rounders 1st round money, you're pretty soon paying everyone more money, and everyone the following year, and so on.

The A's took a flyer, it didn't pan out, no biggie.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 13, 2006 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions

you can choose

whether or not you want to draft first round talent in the 16th round. when you do, give them the $1 mil.
when you draft 16th round talent in the 16th round, as is usually the case, don't give them $1 mil.

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 May 13, 2006 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes, but...

..if you're giving a 16th rounder 1st round money, the 17th rounder will want more. And the 15th rounder. And the 3rd rounder. And you better believe the 1st rounder will be asking more.

And next year you've got a precedent set - "why won't you pay me $2m? You paid a 16th rounder $1m last year!"

We just don't need to throw that kind of red meat to the agents of the next three draft classes, that's all.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 13, 2006 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions

It happens all the time

Sometimes teams will give a late round pick or a draft-&-follow 1st round money in order to sign them. It doesn't lead to an explosion in bonus money the following season.

Take 2004 for example. The Mariners dropped $2.29 million on their 3rd round pick/93 rd overall. The following year the Orioles gave their 3rd round pick/93rd overall $415 K, which was $20 K less than the Indians spent on the 94th overall pick.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 13, 2006 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Did Billy ever say that the difference was a coupl

hundred thousand. I don't believe he ever intended to play MLB this year. Look at Hochevar, he said he would take so much, then turned down the Dodgers. Smoak's agent wouldn't have let him sign for anything less than 1st round money.

by theblackpearl on May 13, 2006 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Even if he is..

..we only lost a 16th round pick on him.

Or to put it another way, every other team missed out on him too.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 14, 2006 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Irrelevant.

Players don't hold what other teams spend over another team entirely. They hold what THIS team spends over them.

Case in point, in 2004, Landon Powell was chosen with the 1st round pick. He was a senior, so he was always going to sign for whatever they threw at him, but he held off signing for a month because he knew the chintzy cash he was going to get would then be used to bargain the subsequent picks downwards.

Once the next half dozen guys signed their contracts, Powell signed his low offer and everyone was happy.

Now, that doesn't effect what the Mariners or Indians do. But it effects what the A's do mightily. You start giving 16th rounders 1st round money, and you're going to lose a hundred grand on each of your first 5 picks, and at least $25k on your following ten.

And when the next season comes around, you've set the bar higher before you even begin picking.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 14, 2006 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions

That's simply not the way it's been

For give me for using the Dodgers to provide an example.

68th overall, signing bonus $600 K (HS Pitcher)
60th overall, signing bonus $685 K (HS Pitcher)
61st overall, signing bonus $1.1 Million (HS Pitcher)
58th overall, signing bonus $600 K (HS Pitcher)

You can see why I picked the Dodgers to provide this example. They picked the same type of player at (roughly) the same draft slot 4 years running. Factoring inflation they spent less in actual dollars for the 58th overall pick in 2004 then they spent in 2001 on the 68th overall pick.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 14, 2006 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions

What your stats also say...

..is that they almost always pay those players the exact same amount. The one variation was for a 61st overall draftee - not a 16th rounder.

As we don't know the situation behind the 2003 pick - maybe the Dodgers were short in his spot, maybe they figured he was a diamond passed over by other clubs, maybe he held out for most of the season before signing, or a new owner came aboard with more cash than the old owner - you simply can't say there's an anomaly there.

What you CAN say is the Dodgers have shown they pay less for a 58th pick than the A's were prepared to pay for a 16th rounder.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 14, 2006 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions

I've done all I can

I don't have any data readily available beyond the 3rd round, so if this doesn't convince you that your concerns can be set aside then I don't know what will. I could tell you that in 2002 the Cleveland Indians spent $1.1 million on a draft-&-follow 25th round pick, but I could not tell you how much they spent on their 25th rounder in 2003.

I do know that they spent $625 K on their 2nd round pick/63rd overall in '02. They spent $710 K on their 2nd round pick/48th overall in '03. The 63rd overall pick in 2003 went to the Giants, and they spent $572 K to sign a JC 3rd baseman.

There is simply no evidence to support your concern that spending $1 million on a 16th round pick would set a new bar the following year.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 14, 2006 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Other than...

..talking to draftees and hearing the stories of how their agents asked for more, based on what the guys before and after them got.

You're trying to make stats do things they simply can't do. There are too many intangibles at play for you to look up a random draftee at a random team and say "oh, but the next guy got squat." For all you know, that next guy would have got squat minus $50k if not for what happened previously.

I'm telling you that, from what I've been told, from the mouths of those involved, precedent matters.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 14, 2006 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Fine

Show me the proof to back up your claim. Show me where some guy drafted in the late rounds got an extra $50 K because the year before the same team drafted someone at the same slot and paid him a ton of money.

There will always be flucuations in signing bonuses because that is the nature of money. Yet there should be some tangible proof if what you say is true but none of the data I've seen supports your claim.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 14, 2006 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Oh please.

Show me proof the sun rises every day.

I'm telling you what I've been told, first hand. Bottom line, what the guy ahead of you, and the guy behind you, get paid affects your own offer. Period.

And quite frankly, my solemn word ought to be enough on the topic. After all, what reason would I have to lie?

Funnily enough, I do actually have the quote on tape, as it was part of an interview I did for a book I was writing in 2004. But I'm damned if I'm going to dig it out to set straight Random Internet Stranger A on a misconception about how the world of baseball works. Life be too short.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 14, 2006 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions

You want proof

Go outside tomorrow and look up at the sky, Keeping looking at different portions of the horizon until you come across one spot that seems brighter than the rest. If your eyes start to water than there is a good chance you are looking at "the sun".

You said that giving a 16th round pick a million dollar signing bonus would, and I quote, "You start giving 16th rounders 1st round money, and you're going to lose a hundred grand on each of your first 5 picks, and at least $25k on your following ten." The proof to that should be as blinding as the sun you looked at in the sky, and it's not there!

Now, you're right that what the guy ahead of you makes can affect what you get. This was illustrated in the 2004 draft, when the Padres drafted Matt Bush 1st overall and paid him a $3.15 million bonus. The Tiger drafted Justin Verlander 2nd, and even though Verlander was considered the better prospect his bonus was capped by the Bush contract.

But you also said that "And when the next season comes around, you've set the bar higher before you even begin picking." That wasn't the case with the Dodgers, and you'd think that there would be a cascade effect as you looked at the numbers. Every year teams spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on late round draft-&-follows and holdouts so the bar should be inching higher every year. And if teams are spending all this extra cash on late round picks than there should be a noticable increase in the dollars given to players higher on the draft ladder.

Signing Bonus 98th overall pick (1999-2005)

$360 K
$400 K
$400 K
$410 K
$400 K
$395 K
$395 K

I'm not saying that contracts happen in a vacuum. I'm saying that the impact of paying a 16th round pick a million dollar signing bonus is not as significant as you think.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 15, 2006 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Along similar lines, if you want proof...

..stick your head out the window and talk to someone who has actually been drafted in the last ten years.

Like I did.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 15, 2006 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions

And I'm sure that the people

who told you all this had nothing to gain by making you think big money was headed your way.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 15, 2006 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Wha?

MY way? I don't think you get it. I'm not the draftee. They're the draftee. I'm the journalist.

Me write book about draftees. Draftees tell me about life. Life go in book. No money involved.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 15, 2006 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions

The Hurtin' A's

It's funny because it's true. Thanks to Catfish Stew.

Ooh Ahh, Sabres on the warpath

by andeux on May 13, 2006 11:53 AM PDT reply actions

Isn't Esteban

supposed to have Marco's ailment?

by lerei on May 13, 2006 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Suckititis?

I think Esty gave it to Marco.

"That quote sucked." - McFood

by Ozzz on May 13, 2006 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions

my god

this is a family site! I expect that kind of language at Denny's, but not here.

We call it "The Poor Performance Disease" or "Valero Deficiency".

by Apricot on May 13, 2006 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Vroom

I always call it "The Skilledly Impaired". But thats just the Berkeley in me calling out.

English 101: Remedial Kick-Ass
"Cause only one language kicks ass, and that's the one we're teaching!"

by Zonis on May 13, 2006 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Haren's Blog

For those who haven't seen, Dan Haren has updated his blog. He talks about his mom and facing the Giants.

by alamedagirl on May 13, 2006 6:16 PM PDT reply actions

Boy, it sure is a good thing ...

... Beane didn't devalue Watson's trade value by exhausting his options or by giving Watson a chance to embarrass himself in front of opposing scouts at the MLB level! Whew! Dodged a bullet there!

Binturongs are frugiverous. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 13, 2006 6:43 PM PDT reply actions

EiO got it right

The A's lost their 4th OFer by letting him waste away in AAA.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 13, 2006 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions

'zactly

It's hard to believe that Watson would have underperformed Kielty or Payton -- i.e., he would have peovided OF coverage at the level equivalent to or better than Scutaro's IF coverage. And that's even if he was only a AAAA hitter.

Binturongs are frugiverous. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 14, 2006 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions

Why?

I find it quite easy to believe that he wouldn't outperform Kielty or Payton; in fact, I think it's almost certain. Kielty's average performance is more or less the upside of a player like Watson (or Doug Clark, or Scott McClain, or dozens of other AAAA types in every organization), and it's just not worth wasting a couple hundred at-bats on them for the slim chance that they'll do better.

Ooh Ahh, Sabres on the warpath

by andeux on May 14, 2006 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions

The A's have wasted 108 AB

on JayPay's .231/.257/.287.

And they get to pay nearly $5 million for that wastefulness.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 14, 2006 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions

OK, granted

... but as streaky as both Kielty and Payton both are, it's certainly likely that for appreciable stretches, Watson would outperform one or the other.

The idea would be to bring Watson up to fill Bradley's spot (which would have been possible had Kendall not been a moron), or DL Kotsay at any of those long stretches when he was "day-to-day" last year. I'm certainly not saying Watson should have been one of the A's top 3 OFs.

Binturongs are frugiverous. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 14, 2006 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Yup

Beane screwed this one up very badly. He paid $4 million for Payton and $1 million for kielty when the better option was wasting away in Sac. Beane is way off his game as of late and should start getting some heat even from his most loyal supporters.

I wish Watson the best of luck. he performed as well as DJ and Swish in the minors and would have made a great $350K 4th OFer.

by DKNJ on May 14, 2006 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions

since Watson barely got more than a cup

of coffee in Oakland, it's hard to say whether he was a AAAA player or a legitimate MLB 4th outfielder. It's a shame the A's never really found out.

by OaklandSi on May 14, 2006 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions

A link test

HREF="http://www.oaklandathletics.com"

"I'm biased but I don't think there's anyone better than us" -Jason "Bulldog" Kendall

by streetfan on May 14, 2006 12:59 AM PDT reply actions

test :)

<AHREF="www.sfgate.com"</A>

by streetfan on May 14, 2006 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions

comment

you need an space between the "a" and "href" So it would be like.

<a href="put the URL here"> </a>

"74Oakland A's - Best Team Ever" - Homer Simpson

by secret ASian man on May 14, 2006 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions

How dissapointing

As others noted, Watson could have easily been better than Jay Payton or Bobby Kielty. He's a guy who absolutely mashed at AAA for a long time, and it's a shame he'll now have to prove himself in Japan to get another shot. Good luck to you, Matt.

by walk off bunt on May 14, 2006 1:17 PM PDT reply actions

Watson's swing looked slow against big league

pitching, and was fast enough to dominate AAA pitching. A good fastball would frequently retire Watson in the bigs. You didn't need to see 500 plate appearances before realizing he just wasn't going to have the bat speed.

Just another case of AAAA player. There certainly numerous examples of such.

Best of luck to you Watson, hopefully you become a star in Japan.

Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water, the other third is covered by Kotsay.

by carp on May 14, 2006 3:02 PM PDT reply actions

I don't believe that

Guys who mash Triple A pitching can usually handle big league pitching. Watson never had enough plate appearances to test your theory that he had quadruple A bat speed. He may be a Roberto Pettagine type who thrives in Japan and will catch back on a big league club in his mid 30's.

by DKNJ on May 14, 2006 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions

That's not true at all, DKNJ

Esteban German, Jose Ortiz, Charles Thomas...Or if you're an old-timer, Kelvin Moore, Rob Nelson...

by Nico on May 14, 2006 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Interesting that you brought up CT

He's an example of what can happen when you bring up a AAA vet who's hot and you put him in the big league line-up right away. Thomas gave the Braves a huge boost for about four weeks... the A's could have used such a boost the last couple weeks.

Or at the end of last season.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 14, 2006 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Aren't you reaching a bit, though,

when you complain that "Hey, he could have been another Charles Thomas"? Kielty is known major-league lefty-masher, and Payton at least gives you top-notch defense. Watson was, IMO, a AAA-masher; the A's brass obviously agreed, because they knew full well they needed offensive punch and they did not seem all that interested in bringing Watson up.

by Nico on May 14, 2006 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Well, I am saying something nice about CT

Therefore we are talking about a unique situation... it's quite possible I'm reaching. But we'll never really know, will we? Because Watson never got the chance to come up and get in the line-up on a consistent basis.

I'm not willing to say that, absolutely without a doubt, Watson should have been in Oakland instead of Kielty or Payton. However, there have been opportunities to give Watson a legitamite shot and Oakland did not allow him the chance. Just this season the A's played a week or two short handed. Hell, they might have played a couple games with maybe 20 healthy bodies on the roster and it's not like Payton or Thomas have exactly proven themselves worthy of the playing time.

Payton has started 24 games this year. He played CF 4 times in that stretch and I have said time and again that a corner OF spot must MUST be an offense first position. So his fancy defense in LF and RF means virtually nothing to me because his bat has been atrocious. Now maybe Watson doesn't get the job done. But the A's had Kielty and Payton stinking up the place and they did not try to rectify the situation. Games were lost because of this inactivity.

And now a guy who has done nothing but rake in AAA has moved on, leaving an organization that features a weak offense at the big league level. Hell Nico, he deserved a shot just to see if maybe the A's could have saved a couple million.

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on May 14, 2006 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Awww!

Has this already been liked this weekend? I couldn't find it.

It's Mom who drives these guys

"She always gave me lucky gum," A's catcher and Lincoln High graduate Adam Melhuse said. "It was probably just a stick of Wrigley's, but she said it was lucky."

"I never had a bad game or made a bad play," A's outfielder Mark Kotsay said. "Your dad will tell you what you did wrong, but your mom would hug you and tell you how great you were, whether you had four hits or were 0-for."

<hugs>

by Jennifer on May 14, 2006 3:54 PM PDT reply actions

Is this not right? Am I making this up??

by sf drift king on May 15, 2006 2:02 AM PDT reply actions

what a fuckin' shame,

That's all I got to say.

"Bring Matt Watson Back to Oakland in '06"-The Committee is accepting new members. 05/09/06: G-29,AB-114,H-36,HR-4, RBI-26, OBP-.405,SLG-.509, AVG-.316

by bigelephant on May 15, 2006 8:27 AM PDT reply actions