Wherefore A Bullpen Prospect For Saarloos?

by Nico on Jan 23, 2007 4:35 PM PST in News

What surprises me about the Saarloos trade is not that Kirk was traded, as he was one of several "back-end-starter types" on the current roster and likely already had his "career year". The A's probably felt they couldn't afford enough mirrors to squeeze another solid year out of Saarloos.

What I would not have anticipated was that the A's would acquire another reliever. If you think Oakland has too many "back-end-starter types" in the current mix, look at the cast of characters vying for middle relief attention. When you make your list and actually forget about Witasick (which, by the way, is a nice feeling), you know you're knee deep in repetitive parts.

The A's farm system is not in good shape. Saarloos was not going to net the kinds of prospects that could single-handedly change this fact. But while rolling the dice with some lower-level prospect who could turn out to be a hidden gem, looking at a farm system and 40-man roster that is rich in relievers but not much else, why pick up yet another middle relief guy? That's the part that has me puzzled.

Tweet Comment 54 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

-because he's pretty good

-because he's young
-because he's cheap

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 Jan 23, 2007 4:36 PM PST reply actions

I guess....

for insurance, he is covering is A$$. Shoot, Harden hasn't lasted a full year, so should any of our starters go down (gosh forbid) we are going to need a nice assortment of "back-of-the-rotation" type guys to fill the void. Then we are going to need some "front-of-the-bullpen" guys to fill the void.

I liked the Loos option. He did a great job of filling that roll for us for three years now. Not sure I agree with all of the "smoke and mirrors" comments about Kirk.....he's crafty...that's his MO. He did his job effectively. I only HOPE that we can count on someone to be our Kirk this year......time will tell.

Best of luck Los Kirk....thanks for your service.

"hunting for fresh meat"

by Masaryk on Jan 23, 2007 4:39 PM PST reply actions

Figure Shafer to AAA in 2007

The A's will have a lot of (relatively) young bullpen arms in AAA this year.

Robertson
McBeth
Kohn
Shafer
Casilla (maybe)

Beane may be looking at how valuable established bullpen arms were last year at the trade deadline and he's prepping himself to deal one of Calero, Duke or maybe even Street.

This guy is dead! We'll list him as day-to-day for possible reincarnation.

A's Medical Staff, 2006

by grover on Jan 23, 2007 4:40 PM PST reply actions

in the other thread...

I mentioned and endorsed trading the last of the three critical bullpen members you listed.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Jan 23, 2007 9:39 PM PST up reply actions

check out this guy

he is as the previous poster stated young and has preformed very well at a high level(AA). This guy to me seems simiar to a guy the A's acquired from the White Sox trade Joe Valentine (who incidentally was traded to the reds when we acquired Guillen). Anyway, this guy was on the reds 40 man roster, clearly showing that he was not roster filler, they valued him as well. Overall, with how quickly relievers can fail and/or fail without notice you can never have enough young and cheap ones ready to take over and fill their jobs. Mark this one down in a few years this one could be another duke-type of trade. Time will tell, but at least A's fans no longer have to roll the dice about whether Kirk will throw a shutout for 6 innings or be blow up in the 3rd, now that his the reds problem. However, I still wish Saarloos all the best. Maybe he and Hatteberg can have lunch and he can show him all the best spots in Cincy.

by jasonlbe on Jan 23, 2007 4:42 PM PST reply actions

The only good spot in Cincy:

The sign that says "you are leaving Cincinnati".

"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Jan 23, 2007 9:34 PM PST up reply actions

not if you're headed to Kentucky.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Jan 23, 2007 9:36 PM PST up reply actions

Cincy is so bad...

.. I chose to live in Northern Kentucky and commute when I was stuck there.

Now THAT is bad.

"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Jan 23, 2007 9:38 PM PST up reply actions

lol

well, I'll have to defer to someone who actually lived there; I passed through just long enough to pick up a Kentucky magnet for the fridge.

But really, can't two meals a day of Cincinnati chili make up for everything else the city lacks? I'm sure there's a chili joint with a good view of the "Now Leaving Cincinnati" sign.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Jan 23, 2007 9:42 PM PST up reply actions

I'll take a bllpark smokie, but...

...the chili, for mine, was the same as anyone else's, only with more cheese and (ahem) chocolate.

"Kotsay is 31... Kotsay's back is 127." - Jeepers

by Ozzz on Jan 23, 2007 11:19 PM PST up reply actions

Three years of Shafer at $400 K

And possibly the replacement to Huston Street when Street becomes too expensive.
That is more valuable, in the long-term, than what Saarloos would've given us in '07.

by notsellingjeans on Jan 23, 2007 4:48 PM PST reply actions

Wither?

Do you mean "whither"? Actually, I think you really mean "wherefore."

Oh, baseball? My guess is that Beane sees this as basically a lateral move, trading one marginally useful bullpen arm for another, with the advantage that the new one is cheaper and has options available, so he can be stashed in AAA while the A's have a glut in the bullpen.

If Saarloos were considered a real candidate for someone's rotation, he'd be worth more of course. But apparently that isn't the case, which I believe you pointed out yourself a couple of weeks ago. Given that, a legit bullpen prospect seems like a reasonable return.

In the stands the home crowd scatters For the turnstiles

by andeux on Jan 23, 2007 4:48 PM PST reply actions

WHOOP-WHOOP-WHOOP

Is that the diary police I hear?

The inspection process may require that the handler take off the monkey's diaper as part of the visual inspection @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 23, 2007 4:49 PM PST reply actions

Mooooo

Is that the dairy police I hear?

In the stands the home crowd scatters For the turnstiles

by andeux on Jan 23, 2007 4:55 PM PST up reply actions

LOL--Oops!

For a change, I can excuse myself for the fact that I actually AM on drugs--novacaine for a dental crown, but still. I feel like I've had a stroke, but otherwise I'm fine. Except for the "command of the Olde English language" thing.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 23, 2007 5:09 PM PST up reply actions

I would have preferred a starter or hitter

You are dead on with your assessment of our farm system, Nico. We have a ton of relief prospects, very few starter prospects of any value (many of whom may end up as relievers), a couple of high ceiling/high risk position prospects, a few lower ceiling/low risk position prospects, and a whole lot of sleepers that we hope turn into something. I would have loved for us to pick up a high ceiling/high risk guy in this trade rather than another reliever, but Beane took what he can get. Hopefully, at some point we can trade our bounty of relief to shore up areas of weakness.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jan 23, 2007 5:09 PM PST reply actions

Other GMs Look at Stats Too!

You know, sometimes being affiliated with the "Moneyball" franchise makes a lot of us A's fans believe with a certain foolish sincerity that our GM is the only one who uses stats in personnel decisions.

My guess is that every GM that inquired about Saarloos (or maybe more accurately returned Beane's call about Saarloos) took a look at Kirk's peripheral stats beyond his .500 winning percentage and saw a pitcher who walks more guys than he strikes out, rarely goes deep into games, rarely tops 85mph, and gives up over 1.5 walks and hits per inning.

Sure, Kirk's gritty and crafty and all that, but come on now, every GM has seen Kirk's stats and obviously saw the low-upside Beane saw and did not offer any premier talent in return for it. Simple as that.

by Taj Adib on Jan 23, 2007 5:52 PM PST reply actions

True

And Saarloos is a good fit in the NL, where he can continue to be a No. 5 starter and be effective.
Like Aaron Harang before him, he has more value to an NL team than he would've with us.
It's a good trade for both teams at this point.

by notsellingjeans on Jan 23, 2007 6:05 PM PST up reply actions

Useful bullpen arms are always nice

So maybe this Shafer kid can step up in 2007 in Sac with McBeth etc and allow the A's to trade Calero at the deadline for a bat to get us back into the playoffs.

by Bud Light on Jan 23, 2007 6:05 PM PST reply actions

Bud Light, I'm reprinting

your question here, so hopefully it can get answered, but without needing to take up a new diary:

"With Saarloos being traded todat it got me thinking about the whole options thing.

I know how options work but what players still have options left and be optioned to sac, without having to clear waivers.

Does anyone know for sure since I wouldn't have thought Kielty could have benn send down last year?

Info would be appreciated. "

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 23, 2007 6:48 PM PST up reply actions

Options

Someone more knowledgeable (Grover for sure) will need to follow up on this, I'd only want it to be a bridge until somebody else can post on the issue...

As I understand it, a player has three "option" years in which his controlling team can send him up or down from the minors to the big club at will, as many times as they like.
An example that comes readily to mind is the A's treatment of Eric Byrnes circa 2001-2002.
However, these years don't need to be consecutive. And September callups when the roster expands to 40 don't count as option years.

Looking at Kielty's career here (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/K/Bobby-Kielty.shtml), it appears he had only shuttled between MLB and the minors in two of his professional seasons. Therefore, he could do it last year. (Although, even if he had already used up his option years, I think the team could still ask him to accept the minor league assignment and he could either accept it or decline it).

This rule, of course, has a bearing on MLB rosters and strategy, because a team literally NEEDS pitchers that it can send up and down periodically when the need arises. (ex. Ron Flores last year - he didn't warrant a roster spot all season, but he was needed at times - hence his "option" status became valuable).

Kirk Saarloos is out of options - he used them all in his Houston years. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/S/Kirk-Saarloos.shtml
Therefore he has less roster "flexibility" than this new kid we got in exchange, whom we can shuffle up and down as we please for three seasons.

Gaudin, I think, is also out of options, and that had an impact on us being able to acquire him from Toronto. Toronto didn't believe they could afford to keep him on their big league roster all year in '06, and he was out of options, so they were more willing to trade him to us.
Here's Gaudin's line:
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/Chad-Gaudin.shtml

Note:
(Keep in mind if a guy has only a few appearances in the minors and minors during a particular year on his baseballcube stats, his team still may NOT have used an option year on him that year; rehab assignments don't count, and neither do September callups.)

And again, I NEED Grover/xb/sal/someone to verify all of this because I wouldn't want to present it as fact without backup.

by notsellingjeans on Jan 23, 2007 9:15 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks, but Gaudin was in AAA

Thanks for looking up some players i know the 3 years but does that start when you are placed on the 40 man roster?

I will look up everyone on the A's and put up some numbers. What scares me is someone like Dan Meyer, i am still holding hope for him but he could be out of options by the spring or could have 1 more year.

thanks again

by Bud Light on Jan 23, 2007 9:46 PM PST up reply actions

40-man

A player could be on the 40-man indefinitely. Option years don't start just because a guy is on the 40-man.
Dan Meyer didn't use an option year last year; he never pitched in the bigs last year, or in '05 for that matter.
Dan Meyer has either two or three option years remaining, depending on whether the two games he pitched for the Braves in '04 were in September after rosters expanded or not.
If a guy was on the 40-man roster and never spent a day on the big club that year, he didn't use an "option" year.
Meyer is on the 40-man because he has five years of professional experience and the CBA requires that he be protected or be made available in the Rule V draft.
The A's believe he has pro potential, thereby they continue to protect him on the 40-man roster.
This has no impact, however, on his service time clock or option year status.

If you wanted to do an analysis of A's players and their option year status, I'd just go to baseballcube for each of the guys in question and check how many of their seasons are "split" seasons between a minor league affiliate and a major league team. If they spent time at each in a particular year, it's probably an option year (unless it was a September call-up or a pro guy doing a rehap assignment).

by notsellingjeans on Jan 23, 2007 11:56 PM PST up reply actions

Options

Good Stuff - I'm still a little confused....

First off, Gaudin was traded because there was no more room on the Blue Jay 40-Man Roster. When they added Burnett, Overbay, Molina, BJ Ryan, etc... they needed a roster spot. Billy called them up, and robbed them of Gaudin. Think they'd rather have Gaudin over Ohka?

So, does anyone want to "guess" who has options left (on the 25-Man Roster)? I'd guess Halsey, Street, Blanton, Swisher, and Dan Johnson???

by Colorado Fan on Jan 24, 2007 7:45 AM PST up reply actions

You can add

Harden, Crosby and Ellis to that list.

Re-hab assignments to the minors do not count toward the options clause.

This guy is dead! We'll list him as day-to-day for possible reincarnation.

A's Medical Staff, 2006

by grover on Jan 24, 2007 2:00 PM PST up reply actions

taken from mlb.com on options

This should clear up the questions, but scares me on some players which i will now research.

Once a player is placed on a 40-man roster, he can be optioned to the Minors and back as many times as a team wishes in a year -- including when he's optioned to the Minors out of Spring Training -- and it counts as The one option.

Once you've gone through three option years with a player -- four, in certain cases, such as if a player signed a Major League contract once he's drafted at a certain age -- he's out of options and must then either stick on the 25-man roster/disabled list or be outrighted to the Minors.

However, if you go through a year without optioning a player to the Minors, or if you option him to the Minors for less than 20 days total in a year, it doesn't count as an option year.

The tricky part with situations like that, though, is that once a player has five years of Major League service time under his belt, he can't be optioned to the Minors without his permission.

by Bud Light on Jan 24, 2007 9:12 AM PST up reply actions

Gaudin's like 24

If he was already out of options, the Blue Jays would've been optioning the guy back and forth when he was 20-22 or something...logically, you only do that if someone's a blue-chip prospect, not someone you then turn around and trade for a PTBNL, even if it's to your former employer.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Jan 23, 2007 9:53 PM PST up reply actions

Click the Gaudin link I posted.

He was indeed shuttled up and down during those ages you listed.

by notsellingjeans on Jan 23, 2007 11:46 PM PST up reply actions

So long Sarloos.

Been a nice run Kirk! Good guy too. Now, with this move I bet my Sarloos autographed beer coaster from Fields Irish Pub, just increased in value a few cents. <searches back room for it>

rip 2006, it was nice while it lasted.

by ak_A on Jan 23, 2007 7:46 PM PST reply actions

I'm a big fan.....

of seeking to load up in a particular area, rather than going for balance. It can provide an area of strength, depth, and flexibility.

by BleacherDave on Jan 23, 2007 7:52 PM PST reply actions

You'd like my liquor cabinet

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 23, 2007 8:06 PM PST up reply actions

You mean storage room.

rip 2006, it was nice while it lasted.

by ak_A on Jan 23, 2007 8:36 PM PST up reply actions

Cabinet, storage room,

warehouse, whatever.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 24, 2007 8:02 AM PST up reply actions

Maybe BB's

looking to trade a whole slew of relievers for somebody he really needs. Plenty of time still now to make deals before the regular season starts.

by Salvatore on Jan 23, 2007 8:18 PM PST reply actions

The Horror

I have seen a young closer pitching 3 innings in a playoff game. Pitching and pitching until his slider is as straight as a razor. Finally he gives up a BP fastball walkoff bomb that ends the season.

To not have enough arms in the pen late in the season. It is my vision it is my nightmare.

The horror.. the horror....

2nd favorite team: WHOEVER IS PLAYING THE GIANTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by ConcordFanSince1968 on Jan 23, 2007 8:20 PM PST reply actions

the FIRING of Macha...

should've added a little peace of mind there. Not much, but a little.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Jan 23, 2007 9:47 PM PST up reply actions

it's not the mirrors...

With cigarettes being so heavily "vice-taxed", I'd have to say it's the cost of the smoke that priced Saarloos out of Oakland.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Jan 23, 2007 9:29 PM PST reply actions

Cigarettes nothing

I'm sure Danny Haren had Kirk's back on the smoke end of things.

"Even if you know the deck is stacked in your favor, you still have to have the discipline to trust the math and the cojones to go to the ATM." BB

by green star oakland on Jan 23, 2007 11:33 PM PST up reply actions

Closer Line of Succession

This move makes a lot of sense when looking at the time frame of 2009/2010. The A's have 2-3 more years of using Houston Street at an affordable rate. Beane is preparing for the day when Street is overvalued rather than undervalued. So, one year of AAA grooming for Shafer, 2008/2009 setting up for the A's and then he could be Street's replacement.

Beane also saved $1M in 2007 and moved a player who didn't fit into plans (Saarloos) to good home.

Beane clearly does not want to lock closers into multi year contracts as he does with young starters.

by scarr1 on Jan 24, 2007 10:51 AM PST reply actions

Slow down there

I haven't seen a scouting report from anyone that considers this guy a future major league closer. In fact, BA just said the guy would be a "sixth or seventh inning pitcher" in it's trade analysis. Each of the hundreds of minor league franchises has to have a "closer," but almost none of those guys ever becomes a closer at the major leagues. Could he become a closer? Yes. Will he? Very, very unlikely. Street is a special case, one of the greatest closers in college history who has a makeup and pedigree that is off the charts. Comparing this guy to Street is unfair to Street and our new guy. Let's enjoy him for what he is and let him develop into something useful without projecting him as our next closer.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jan 24, 2007 11:28 AM PST up reply actions

That's what I've been thinking, BlameChannel53

This guy isn't some "closer of the future" type prospect, just another decent pitching prospect. If we were going to roll the dice on another decent prospect, why not in an area where we are thin? That was the premise of this post.

And let me express that I am suitably impressed to see "none of them becomes"--almost no one uses "none" gramatically correctly in this way. Koo Doze!

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 24, 2007 11:31 AM PST up reply actions

Check out the numbers

Shafer's numbers -- One strike per inning, low ERA, low HRs, low walks, a track record closing in the minors. Looks like a closer profile to me (with continued development).

Street is great and has value at his current salary and even two years out. But Beane is always planning one step ahead. We will see what happens.

by scarr1 on Jan 24, 2007 12:01 PM PST up reply actions

Check stats

for every team in the minors and you find a lot stat lines like Shafer's. Shafer has good command of average stuff, and he was somewhat old for his league. There are guys like that in every league in the minors, guys with dominant stats who no scout considers to be special. Sometimes these guys defy the odds, but it is very rare. He's a decent prospect, but we probably have 3 or 4 guys in our farm system that have a better chance of being our closer than Shafer. I'll be cheering for him, but I'm not expecting much.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jan 24, 2007 12:15 PM PST up reply actions

Hmm...One strike per inning

sounds a lot like Armando Benitez on a bad day.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 24, 2007 12:43 PM PST up reply actions

Or Bobby Witt on a good day

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jan 24, 2007 12:47 PM PST up reply actions

Your grammar ideas are highly suspect

"None" is in most instances a plural pronoun that calls for a plural verb form.

In BC53's sentence, the use of "almost" with "none" tips the scales even further toward the use of a plural verb. "Almost none (of those guys)" just means "very few (of those guys)," and it would clearly be "very few of those guys ever become closers."

by mikeA on Jan 24, 2007 12:48 PM PST up reply actions

Sorry, MikeA, but that's not how it works--

"none" stands for "not one". You could argue that the "almost" should not be used in front of "none" (that "almost not one") makes for an awkward sentence), but "none" is a singular, not a plural. The fact that it is so commonly misused that misuse has become normal and/or accepted doesn't change the rule.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 24, 2007 1:11 PM PST up reply actions

"None"

more logically stands for "not any" than "not one." The fact that someone taught you that it stands for "not one" does not make it "correct." Word usage rules are not absolute commandments frozen in time that are unresponsive to changing usage.

In any case, here are some links:
The American Heritage Book of English Usage opines that "none" can be singular or plural.

grammarphobia.com claims that "none" is "more likely to be plural." It (the site) adds, "if you do mean 'not one,' say 'not one.'"

Rule 7 of this grammar tutorial says: "Remember that none is a portion word and becomes singular or plural depending on the noun after of (the object of the preposition). None is plural here because of neighbors."

In the case of BC53's sentence, the noun is "those guys," rendering "none" plural.

by mikeA on Jan 24, 2007 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

There is an exception

to all this. Remember the boxer Michael "second to" Nunn.

by Salvatore on Jan 24, 2007 1:48 PM PST up reply actions

You and him is disagreeing nice.

"I mean, hey, if they're going to bring the A's to Fremont, you might as well bring a Hooters." ~ some guy

by Poppy on Jan 24, 2007 2:53 PM PST up reply actions

None of us

dispute that.

by mikeA on Jan 24, 2007 3:25 PM PST up reply actions

None

Mike A, I agree with you on the general point that "none" can be singular or plural. Nico is just plain wrong to insist that it must always be singular.

But in the specific example, BlameChannel53's sentence which prompted this conversation, I like the singular verb. It's a borderline sentence which could have been OK either way, but singular is how I would have done it.

"...but we're also always open to hearing about other sandwiches if it can make our lunch better." -- Nico, channeling Billy Beane

by iglew on Jan 24, 2007 8:25 PM PST up reply actions

Hey, it's one thing to call me wrong,

but nobody gets away with calling me plain.

<aLL ArE BaNnEd; NoNe iS reINsTaTEd.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 24, 2007 9:10 PM PST up reply actions