Haren To The Diamondbacks - Nico's Thoughts
by Nico on Dec 14, 2007 6:45 PM PST
in News
336 comments
My takes on the Haren deal:
• The Chad Gaudin “wild card” factor was huge. Harden’s fragility (and notice that his name is conspicuously missing in all health updates) gave the A’s no leeway with the starting rotation, and if Gaudin is an uncertain commodity too 2008 looks like toast. So getting “2009 ready” players is not necessarily a bad move – especially if you can get more, or better, talent by looking a year ahead.
• My concern is that while the A’s have some exciting young talent in Barton, Buck, and Suzuki, the pattern looks like by the time the A’s are good, these “young uns” won’t be young/cheap anymore and will have to go. It’s the “B+ cycle” that keeps you perpetually in “pretty good” mode – except in years like 2007-08 when you aren’t even that.
• It really doesn’t make sense to try to judge this trade now, because it all depends on how well the A’s have scouted. Players generally turn out to be better or worse than projected, and the key is to identify which players are sleepers (like Mark Ellis) and which are talented but over-hyped (like Crosby). Beane accepted the deal because he and his top scouts believe that these top-ranked players are actually as good as they seem and that these “throw-ins” actually have a chance to be hidden gems. Time will tell.
• I’m not suggesting this is the case, but last year Danny Haren had about 10 pitches where something gave (ankle or hip) and he fell off the mound in his follow-through. If this were to turn out to be a budding injury, the deal could wind up looking tremendous for Oakland.
• I have nothing but good things to say about Danny Haren and everything he gave to the A’s. I hope he wins the Cy Young award next season.
0 recs |
336 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I just realized
If Beane makes a few more trades, and in those trades he actually gets some major league-ready talent back, then this will look like a pretty good deal. Then the A's would have some young, possibly good-in-the-future players on the major league level, AND have a well-stocked system again.
That's kind of a big "if", though.
by Philip Christy on Dec 14, 2007 6:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
and then in 3 years when everyone is good
Beane can trade them all again
by 3Chavy3 on Dec 15, 2007 12:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My biggest regret
Of the Danny Haren trade is Connor Robertson. Not that I wanted to keep him per say, I just think its a missed chance to dumb Bobby Crosby. I was really hoping that if Beane did trade Haren, that Crosby would be in the deal. Dammit!! I think Billy dropped the ball, when you look at that aspect of the trade.
by Shippee33 on Dec 14, 2007 6:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
that makes no sense
connor robertson is close to worthless to both the a's and d-backs. crosby makes like $7m a year.
why would the d-backs, who have drew and hudson, take bobby crosby instead of robertson??
by xbhaskarx on Dec 14, 2007 6:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Byrnesie
can teach him to lay off the low-and-outside slider.
by Nick on Dec 14, 2007 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because
They really wanted Haren. The gist of my point really had nothing to do with Connor Robertson. It was that Beane had the upper hand in the negoation, as Arizona needed starting pitching badly to keep up with other moves made in the NL west. I wish Beane would have used this leverage to dump Crosby's bloated contract. If the owners are trying to float the team and collect the profits for the next few years, paying a short stop 8 million per year for sup par productions is not a very wise move.
by Shippee33 on Dec 14, 2007 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but if we forced them to take crosby
we would get less value in return for haren.
by xbhaskarx on Dec 14, 2007 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
crosby
- crosby gets one last chance. you give him the starting SS job and hope he stays healty and doesn't suck, then he may have trade value.
- if he sucks (most likely) you give murphy the job and eat crosby's contract (obviously they can afford to at this point).
by xbhaskarx on Dec 14, 2007 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crosby can't play in the NL
He'd have to bat 8th. He clearly should not bat any higher than 9th in the order.
by hans on Dec 14, 2007 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would that be unnecessary?
I just think its a missed chance to dumb Bobby Crosby.
Surely the last thing we need to do is make Crosby dumb ;-)
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 15, 2007 4:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This trade makes it LESS important to dump Crosby
The fact having to watch Crosby trying to get his mojo back in the batters box may well drive many of us insane is not really part of Beane's thinking, the inconsiderate bastard.
by Faust on Dec 15, 2007 7:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
very well said, all of it
Especially the "inconsiderate bastard" point.
The only consolation is believing that Beane himself can't bear to watch those at-bats, either.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that's what i was trying to say above
by xbhaskarx on Dec 16, 2007 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this is the start of the big rebuild
for the organization, the one that Beane did not do when he traded Mulder and Hudson. He told us that was a reload, and that the 2005 A's would be the weakest team for the next few years.
Considering how far from ready most of the prospects are in this trade (and what I suspect is coming in other trades), the team is not likely to contend in 2008 either.
by OaklandSi on Dec 14, 2007 6:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I meant, not likely to contend in 2009
drinking wine with dinner
by OaklandSi on Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good
at times like this Liquor can be your friend.
by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2007 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it's a nice Shiraz, too
goes great with steak
by OaklandSi on Dec 14, 2007 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I sent my husband to the store for some
orange juice and vodka. Noone can ever tell you that you don't inspire people,OaklandSI. Hehe.
by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2007 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OMG
AN getting drunk together!
(Have fun!)
by OaklandSi on Dec 14, 2007 7:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
feeling no pain
steak and shiraz, and the Warrios-Lakers game on
by OaklandSi on Dec 14, 2007 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
cheap drunk
already I can't spell Warriors!
by OaklandSi on Dec 14, 2007 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
's funny
I thought the Warriors were the team that had conceded that "getting close" wasn't quite good enough and were rebuilding (by trading J-Rich and eating Foyle's mess of a contract).
And yet they look like at least as good of a team as last year.
Meanwhile, the supposedly "competitive" A's and Niners have abruptly had aneurysms and fallen off the radar screen.
I'm glad I decided to blog college hoops...
by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah
I have nothing but good things to say about Danny Haren and everything he gave to the A’s. I hope he wins the Cy Young award next season.
Thank You to Danny. He was great and I wish him well too. I wouldn't really want to see him hurt. I am glad he's in the NL and not traded to an AL team.
and it is true that we would have had trouble replacing Gaudin..especially since we are always so cheap.
by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2007 6:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
can't judge the trade now
another reason to not judge it now is because the a's will almost certainly make other moves:
"We need to put together a club for a long, sustained run. This trade is the first step toward that."
by xbhaskarx on Dec 14, 2007 6:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Bye, Danny.
I have nothing but good things to say about Danny Haren and everything he gave to the A’s. I hope he wins the Cy Young award next season.
Absolutely agree with this. Danny did an excellent job with us, he stepped into the role of #1 starter when Zito left and he did well by us. I'd love to see him rock the NL, it still disappoints me to not see Huddy get a Cy over there -- I'd love Danny to show 'em some tricks and win big.
At least it's possible to hop across the bay and cheer him on against the Giants.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Dec 14, 2007 6:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
from scout.com...
At FutureBacks we have named Carlos Gonzalez the top prospect in the Diamondbacks system and the reason why is simple. Gonzalez has speed like Justin Upton, power like Stephen Drew, an arm like Carlos Quentin, and Gonzalez won't turn 21 until October of this year. At South Bend last year Gonzalez, just 19 at the time, went .307/18/92, and rumors have him putting on as much as 15 lbs of muscle during the offseason. If that weight isn't there yet, it will be sooner than later, at which point Gonzalez will blossom into a .300/30/120 player, with enough speed to steal 20 bases a year and an arm that forces every opponent to play station to station baseball.
by arch on Dec 14, 2007 6:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I am liking
this trade the more I read about it. Especially, if the A's keep stockpiling young(er) talent in return. There is a ton of optimism in this corner.
Thanks for the new post Nico!
Go A's
by mrod on Dec 14, 2007 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Very good post Nico. Usually I hate seeing another story when there are already several diaries about the topic..but yours was great. It sized up the situation very concisely. Good job.
by IM4Oakgal on Dec 14, 2007 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, mrod and IM4Oakgal
I was a bit demoralized from some of the replies to my last two posts, one intended to be thought-provoking, the other intended lighten the mood after so many serious posts on the same topic. Yes, there is a human being behind the keyboard - so again, thanks for the kind words. They were timely.
by Nico on Dec 14, 2007 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No problemo
by mrod on Dec 18, 2007 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Intelligent writing sounds awesome -
I'll try it sometime!
by Nico on Dec 18, 2007 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing to keep in mind
of with Gonzales' numbers are that most of the DBacks prospects' minor league numbers are inflated by their home parks.
When looking at a DBacks prospect's numbers, you need to look at the numbers of all his teammates too.
by rfloh on Dec 14, 2007 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if there's one thing I like to see right now ...
... it's a baseball player rapidly adding 15 pounds of muscle in the offseason.
by monkeyball on Dec 15, 2007 7:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but he wasn't named in the report
so he's innocent, right?
I thought they named everybody who ever did anything wrong, and now everything's going to be all right from now on... lol
(Agreed. I read that and said "uh-oh..." myself. I suppose that may just be a sad statement on what we're conditioned to think in the wake of the past 20 years+ though. Hope so anyway.)
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
even if he's "clean" ...
... which, as you picked up on, was my main point, I think there's still probably a host of negative issues with hitting the weights that hard. As we've all seen with Harden and various other players, ripped doesn't necessarily translate to healthier, more flexible, more resilient, or even more powerful.
Yes, for sure, a corner player needs to "grow into his power," and to do it sooner rather than later, but bulking up fast over the course of 3-4 months ain't the best way to do it.
by monkeyball on Dec 15, 2007 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely agree.
One of the things I marvel at sometimes is that while we've made all these incredible advances in weight training and athletic training and sports medicine over the years... it still seems like our modern-day ballplayers (and this is purely a subjective opinion) are less likely to hold up under the rigors of an entire MLB season and are even more injury-prone than the ballplayers of yesteryear.
One thing in particular I think about is how much care goes into protecting pitchers' arms (a good idea, imho) these days and keeping them on pitch-counts and not overusing them, when in past eras pitchers routinely pitched complete games and made back-to-back-to-back appearances in games, and held up fine.
I think it may be that all the strength and additional physical training designed to make players stronger, faster, etc. leads to less flexibility and endurance because their bodies are taxed so much beyond the daily baseball activities that they simply burn out or can't hold up.
In the old days, it seems ballplayers primarily played ball during the season without doing a ton of other supplementary weight or athletic training then rested or worked other jobs in the offseason and recovered, and came back ready to play baseball and focus on those skills again in the Spring.
I think perhaps a tremendously developed and muscular frame is better for playing ball in small bursts, but perhaps a physique developed more through baseball activities themselves with less supplementary weight training holds up better and performs better over the long haul. Cliches like "it's a marathon not a sprint" come to mind.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and it's just the pervasive influence of PEDs that is leading to constant and earlier breakdowns of some athletes and simultaneously unnaturally extending the effectiveness and dominance of others.
Kind of OT, but it made sense in the context of the total tangent we were on here. :)
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Athletes aren't breaking down earlier
Players these days have longer, healthier careers than they used to. It's just that the level of play has gone up enough that guys who suffer even a minor loss of effectiveness, which in past years wouldn't have knocked them out of the majors, now can't hold a job after injuries.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, well...
since I put in my ruminations
"(and this is purely a subjective opinion)"
to qualify what I was pondering and you responded with an absolute statement, I would be stoked to see your references for that statement.
To be clear, I really mean that- I would like to see some references and data to that effect, because I think it's probably true (seems logical enough) and I'd like it to be true because that would make things simple and straightforward.
Here are some things I did find, or look at, and while interesting they didn't really help that argument but I wouldn't call them conclusive either:
Leaders- Career Plate Appearances
Some fun graphs of various career stats and whatnot
An interesting article on average MLB position player career length
Like I said- I expect, or would actually hope, that advances in sports training and medicine would indeed be improving durability and performance of baseball players and extending careers in general like you indicate.
So if you have somewhere you can point me in terms of references for that sort of thing, it would be really interesting to look at.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to admit
that my statement was not based on research I myself had done.
Some things we can definitely say for sure:
TJS has had a noticeable effect on pitcher longevity. It has improved longevity for some hitters, but to a much lesser extent.
Players today are healthier and stronger than in the past, which is reflected in the fact that they're taller (as is the average person in general) by several inches.
Past that, we start getting into actual original research. I tried "player longevity" and "career length" at THT, but didn't come up with anything.
This seems like kind of a difficult problem, because there's all kinds of data corruption going on. Just as one example, the end of the reserve clause probably shortened the average career, because players started to get expensive once they were in the league for a while and owners were incented to replace them with cheaper subs. But obviously it didn't damage the HEALTH of the average player. On the other hand, increasing salaries could have increased average career length by reducing attrition among players turning to other careers (pretty common until about 1950, I think) voluntarily.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, you hit on a lot of good points there
It seems there too many factors in terms of the average MLB player's career length and it would/will take a long time to find anything specifically related to health when researching.
When you have time, check out that last link in my earlier reply above in case you haven't seen that before- it's a pretty interesting study on average MLB positional player (they exclude pitchers, which is understandable but unfortunate) career length for players whose careers started between the years of 1902 and 1985. They talk about all the different factors that go into determining length of a player's career, and have some fun tables that chart career length averages by "period" too. Seems career length is longer after 1950, and probably IS a bit longer today than previously.
An interesting subject I hope I'll have time to explore further some day. If you find anything interesting on it in the future, by all means post it under a DLD or better yet write a diary on it as I'm pretty sure others would be interested too.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Em,
pitchers did not routinely pitch complete games and hold up fine.
Look at the longevity of guys like Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Moyer, etc.
I don't want to go into a long introduction about the concepts of sports science, but some important concepts:
Not all weight training is created equal. What exercises you do, with what implements, free weights or machines, free weights are great, machines are crap, how much weight, how fast, both of which constitute intensity, and how often, volume, all matters.
Just because an athlete is a vain dumbass and is only interested in T(its) and A(rms) doesn't mean that weigtlifting is bad. It means that the athlete is a vain dumbass.
Gymnasts, at least the male ones, are often tremendously muscular. They are also arguably the most flexible and supple athletes on the planet. No, they don't do yoga. Nor Pilates.
This might seem surprising to some, but olympic weightlifters are VERY flexible and supple athletes. They also have some of the strongest "cores" among athletes. Nope, no yoga. Nor Pilates.
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean look at the longevity of Maddux et al
and compare that with the pitchers of the past.
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, good idea-
I thought that would be great, actually, so I did go take a look and found some really interesting stuff.
Doesn't answer everything, but I'm pretty sure it does justice to statements like "pitchers did not routinely pitch complete games and hold up fine" because actually they did:
Leaders- Career Complete Games Pitched
and they did it more often in the past than they do these days (might not be a bad thing though, imho)
Most Complete Games Pitched Per League Each Season
Leaders- Complete Games Pitched Per Season
In terms of sheer longevity, or as you suggested to "look at the longevity of Maddux et al and compare that with the pitchers of the past," I was trying to find something in terms of that. Didn't have a ton of luck... however, total innings pitched over a career should give us some idea of a pitcher's staying power, so we can look at:
Leaders- Career Innings Pitched
Leaders- Innings Pitched over a Season
And it should be noted, I think, that there's a definite trend in terms of max. number of innings pitched over a season historically. I found this really interesting, because today we think of pitchers who can give their team over 200 innings as "horses" (and I think that's true, actually) but the modern pitcher clearly doesn't go as far as pitchers used to in this regard:
Leaders- Innings Pitched Per Season by League/Year
There are also some fun graphs to track things like complete games per season over the decades available here:
A Graphical History of Baseball
So, I know that doesn't necessarily settle anything but it was fun to look into. Check it out when you have a minute, though I'm guessing you're way ahead of me on this stuff- most people on this site are. :)
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you look at the birthdates
For example, in your Leaders - innings pitcher over a season list, number #104 was the 1st guy who pitched in the 20th century.
Maybe the fact that a HUGE majority of the guys were born during the US Grant admin suggest something?
Your year by year innings pitched list and complete games list does not prove that pitchers held up fine. What happened to most of those guys after throwing large numbers of innings?
Sandy Koufax threw over 300 IP each year from 65-66, great; now how many total IP did he throw over his career? He did not hold up fine. He broke down.
Don Drysdale also threw over 300 IP in his prime. Nonetheless, his IP total of 3432 is less than David Wells, and will soon be overtaken by Mussina, Smoltz.
Same applies to Juan Marichal.
Hoss Radbourn, 19th century guy, threw over 500 IP in his prime. In totoal, 4535 IP is still less than Maddux.
Look at your total innings pitched list. You have 2 pitchers from the modern era in the top 20, who might enter the top 10 soon. What more do you want?
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now wait just a minute...
And while you can go find examples of pitchers back then that broke down, we certainly have our share of pitchers these days who aren't called upon to do anywhere near that amount of work who... break down. Lately it seems to be happening a lot to our beloved Oakland Athletics pitchers, in fact... which doesn't make any of us happy, especially them I would think.
So let's go back to the total innings pitched list for a moment, and let's take a look at the top 10 on that list and, since you seem to think anything that happened before 1900 is not worthy of consideration, we'll stick to pitchers that pitched their entire careers in the 20th Century.
You will note that each and every one of these folks pitched at least 20 years in the big leagues:
- Walter Johnson: 531 Complete Games
- Phil Niekro: 245 Complete Games
- Gaylord Perry: 303 Complete Games
- Don Sutton: 178 Complete Games
- Nolan Ryan: 222 Complete Games
- Warren Spahn: 382 Complete Games
- Steve Carlton: 254 Complete Games
- Pete Alexander: 437 Complete Games
Now, I don't know why you're pointing out to me that Maddux and Clemens (who each have just over 100 CG in their careers to date, in case anybody's keeping score) are perhaps (Maddux will need to pitch almost 400 innings more to get there; Clemens needs over 250 as well) inching their way towards the top 10 for innings pitched all-time, but I have no issue with that fact and I don't see why it changes the point I was specifically making or has any bearing upon it.
Regardless of where we may differ on other issues, and I don't even think we differ much since you've helped me clarify where I was going with the "overdoing it on the weight training" bit and rightly corrected me on some points... I see no way you can tell me with a straight face that pitchers did not routinely, up until the late '70s and even well into the '80s in some instances, pitch complete games and have perfectly long careers, by the yardstick of any era, doing so.
Anyway, none of that was supposed to be the point, but it did lead to some interesting research on my part and some interesting discussion.
Oh, and I realize now that I didn't acknowledge fully some of the points you made regarding elite athletes from various disciplines who do extensive weight and strength training and develop extremely muscular physiques and yet retain tremendous flexibility- those points are good ones, and are well-taken.
I suppose my own focus was on the baseball player in particular in this instance when the discussion first started, and I was basically contemplating aloud the notion that too much effort or focus on building muscle mass, without a balanced approach and consideration of the particular discipline (playing baseball) at hand and the toll that discipline itself takes on the body, might be a problematic thing in the modern baseball era. And that PEDs might be only part of the problem, which might be more philosophical in nature.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 11:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Complete Games
Is there any data on how well those pitchers were pitching in the 8th/9th innings? Was their velocity the same? Maybe it's a cultural thing- nowadays it's more desireable to yank a starter and put in some fresh arms throwing gas to finish a game, whereas in the past it was the cowardly thing to do? Did pitchers pitch deep into game because that's what you did, even if it hurt your team's chances of winning?
Or maybe teams have learned how to get the most of the 25-man roster and not have to rely on riding star pitchers all the way (increased bullpen depth).
In short, cause or effect? It's fun to speculate, but how will we know for sure?
by OaktownTribesman on Dec 17, 2007 1:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And hitting the weights hard
has nothing to do with ripped.
If a dumbass athlete chooses to only works his tits and arms to look good on the beach, that is his fault; that doesn't mean that it is lifting weights that is causing the athlete to be not more flexible or healthier or whatever. It means that the athlete is a vain dumbass.
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, well this I agree with
and for the record I have nothing whatsoever against weight training or any program of stength training or physical conditioning. In fact I have my own program I adhere to, and I'm quite happy with it.
Nowhere in anything I wrote earlier was there intent, actually, to imply or directly state that weight training, or any kind of strength training, was a bad thing or a bad idea.
The point I was getting at was that overdoing it on some aspects of any kind of weight or strength training may have negative effects on the overall performance of an athlete depending on the particular disciplines their sport involves.
Or to put it more along your lines- getting "ripped" for its own sake is a vain and less than intelligent approach to weight training for anybody, but for a professional athlete it could also be potentially harmful.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If one is not a pro
athlete, there is nothing wrong with getting ripped for it's own sake. Vanity is perfectly fine.
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only Time Will Tell
I must admit the idea of not having Haren in the rotation next season makes me nervous. He was the A's best starter afterall.
I have a feeling that Beane may not be done dealing yet. I agree that it is too early to make any predictions on how this plays out.
Good luck to Haren. At least he is going to a National League team I like watching.
by RudiFan on Dec 14, 2007 6:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
New theory
Billy got inside info that Selig's big response to the Mitchell report is going to be random unannounced testing for marijuana, with lifetime bans for the first offense. So he quickly traded Haren on the eve of Danny's planned vacation trip to Amsterdam.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 14, 2007 6:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And I hear that "red light district testing"
kicks in tomorrow morning - yet another reason for the trade.
by Nico on Dec 14, 2007 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The sad thing
Is that with the governments ludicrous position on Marijuana, that statement is not all fantasy. The NFL gave Rickey Williams a One year suspension for testing positive for marijuana. Marijuana may be a lot of things, but I don't think performance enhancing is one of them. I think the NFL's policy is ridiculous, as is the federal governments. Lets hope that major league baseball dosent totally lose its head in this mess that is the fallout of the Mitchell report.
by Shippee33 on Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tobacco and alcohol good,
marijuana EVIL.
Baaaaaaaaaa.
by Nico on Dec 14, 2007 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That about
by Shippee33 on Dec 14, 2007 7:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't say that on AN..
According to informed sources, the preferred option to "it is what it is" ...
Res Ipsa Loquitur
at least, that's what I was told in 2005! ;^)
by One won lost won on Dec 14, 2007 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Res Ipsa Liquor, more like
by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nico is right
lets wait before judging this deal. What if this outfielder turns out to be everything that is advertised. We could have a player to build a team around. The next week will be a big answer to our question is this a full rebuild or partial rebuild. That is if Beane trades Blanton or Street. Street will be traded if the long term deal talks fall through. The team is way under budget so a signing of a free agent is possible. Not much is out there to sign.
by Arcman on Dec 14, 2007 7:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
There's no reason to keep Blanton...
moving Haren guarentees, pending a miracle, that we are punting 2008 and more than likely 2009. There is no reason to pay Blanton the raise in arby since we are in a rebuilding phase. Someone like DiNardo could accomplish the same thing. (Which is filling a spot in a meaningless season). I'd argue the same thing for Huston but I think the idea is to sign him long term and then trade him in July a la Gagne.
by AsWin on Dec 14, 2007 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa. Fearless in the zone, Dude.
by iglew on Dec 14, 2007 7:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Kidding aside...
I'm glad that Danny is going to a team that values him and he won't have to listen to continual rumors. My opinion, BB just saw Danny as a meat market and didn't respect him as a person or player. I have no evidence of that other than my thoughts but that's where I stand on that. Not to mention, and this could be a clever PR move, apparently Danny likes AZ according to the Foxsports article. And if we aren't going anywhere until 2010 then at least BB gave him a shot at a ring. But bottom line, thanks Danny you should have been the player BB respects enough to build around but alas...
by AsWin on Dec 14, 2007 7:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It seems like
The D backs are starting to fill there roster up with all of my faviort Athletics...lol. I guess they were not a bad choice as a second faviort team. A few seasons ago I decided that I should have a NL team to pull for just so I pay more attention to it; and with Arizona being the home of my faviort player, The Big Unit I decided that would be my adopted NL team of choice. I still wish they would not have changed their colors to red though, to its very generic. But next season the D backs are going to have a very solid starting rotation. Very solid....
by Shippee33 on Dec 14, 2007 7:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Plus, they have Webb. He's worth loving.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Dec 14, 2007 7:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still don't like it.
Yes, it's certainly possible that it'll turn out to be a great deal for the A's....if only a bunch of high-ceiling high-risk young players turn out. (which usually happens....right? right?)
I don't like it for 1 simply reason: when you trade a guy with nearly as much "value" as anyone else in baseball, you've got to get a similar player in return -- not Gonzalez (a top 30 prospect?) and a bunch of throw-ins. He needed to bring an impact player.
Haren has more "value" than Santana, because you get 3 years for the price of 1 of Santana. The Twins were looking at players like Philip Hughes and Ellsbury (who I don't like as much as everybody else), two guys easily more highly regarded than Gonzalez.
Billy Beane and his staff know 10x as much about scouting as I do, so maybe they know something I don't, and it'll all work out in a few years. But right now, I'm thinking about 2008, and knowing the A's won't contend, not even for a month. And because the players he's counting on are low-level longshots, it's not like I can say, "but wait until 2009/10, when [player 1, player 2, etc...] are ready. I don't even know who those players are. And like Nico said, the current young players may well be gone by then. I simply can't get behind the 2008 A's for any reason right now, and to me, that makes me really hate the trade a lot.
by rageon on Dec 14, 2007 8:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
this crop is really young
and I expect more trades for prospects...so unfortunately 2009 doesn't look like a contending year either
by OaklandSi on Dec 14, 2007 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would believe the "problem"
with the deal is that it's NOT a "bunch of high-ceiling high-risk young players turn out."
Most of these guys are not high risk prospects. They all reasonably project to be solid major leaguers. That is the "problem". Unless you squint hard, none appear to be high ceiling guys.
Beane could have held out for a Phil Hughes. But if he did, that's all he would have got. Not the large package that he got from the DBacks.
Haren's monetary value has slightly less value to the super rich teams like the Yanks and RS.
by rfloh on Dec 14, 2007 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gonzalez
also projects better than Ellsbury...right?
by CyZito on Dec 15, 2007 7:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe long-run,
certainly not next year.
Ellsbury's problem is that he lacks power. Gonzales has an entirely separate set of issues.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
to be honest
some of these prospects have put up sick numbers, and most are really REALLY young. i'm not happy about the trade (i thought haren was a great starter AND affordable), but i think we actually did alright. or as good as you can do w/ prospects. i also think red sox, yankees, and mets prospects are insanely overrated. again, not all that happy about the trade, but looking closer at these guys, we got a few 20-22 year olds who have put up really impressive numbers in the minors. tons of talent. god-willing, they'll develop well.
by guy incognito on Dec 14, 2007 8:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Still would have rather seen Upton
at the expense of two or three of the lower-level dudes.
It's always nice to know you're getting something which is essentially a sure thing. As is? Who knows... the odds are good that this trade will improve the A's future clubs, but "odds are good" is cold comfort.
by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah that's the one concern
none of these six seem to be a sure thing.
by xbhaskarx on Dec 14, 2007 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think people may be underestimating
Brett Anderson, who looks like he could be special. However, I'd much rather have seen Blanton go for Anderson and whichever of the others we could still get for Blanton, and keep Haren and his incredibly affordable contract to build around. Dealing Haren, with 3 years and only 16 million on his contract, makes it seem as if the A's don't intend to compete for 3 years.
Considering we didn't get a projected CFer OR SS in the deal, it's hard for me to jump up and down for joy. When you deal a top starter in today's market, who is underpaid and under control for three years, you should get your cake and eat it too.
by Nico on Dec 14, 2007 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"the A's don't intend to compete for 3 years"
I'm afraid you just nailed it
by OaklandSi on Dec 14, 2007 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If at all...
Let's be honest, with Danny gone and Joe more than likely to follow... the entire staff could collapse. Especially if Harden and Gaudin are injured. Paired up with a winning clubhouse atmosphere being completely destroyed and the very real possibility of people wanting to leave Oakland for greener pastures.... TEX could have better SP if the so called next generation pitchers never come around. Danny was a rarity in being an ace and staff leader, we don't have anyone to replace him internally and it's very possible that no one turns into that top tier pitcher. So basically you could have a bunch of bitter players counting their money and playing meaningless games and a farm system that could fall short of expectations... joy. Our three or so year rebuild could easily turn into 10+.
by AsWin on Dec 14, 2007 9:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You massively overestimate
the importance of "clubhouse chemistry."
Teams don't go into tailspins because players become depressed. Sorry. It just doesn't happen.
You are, however, correct in that next year's rotation is going to suck even more mare's teat than Nico.
by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 10:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You underestimate
how much mare's teat I suck.
by Nico on Dec 14, 2007 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe haren overachieved
though i don't think so, others think his first half of the season was somewhat a fluke and his second half was more normal - which is still pretty damn good, considering he had the AAA team playing defense for him. if beane thinks haren's gonna give you 200 IP, 3.50-3.70 ERA each year, then it might not be waving the towel for the next 3 years - it might just be haren will never be worth more, because he'll never have a first half of a season like he did last year (most won't, either). either way, i doubt we'll be decent 'til 2009 at the earliest.
by guy incognito on Dec 14, 2007 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it was a matter of...
Suzuki being very inexperienced at the ML level. And if so, then you certainly aren't helping his confidence by taking out not only your best pitcher but one of the AL's best.
by AsWin on Dec 14, 2007 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Anderson is a great prospect, I saw him several times, he has a chance to be special. BA had him as the MidWest league's 3rd best prospect (Cahill was 19th) out of 16 teams.
by jakarta on Dec 14, 2007 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand that
He's got slightly more of a finesse pitcher profile (lower Ks, lower BBs) but otherwise their numbers were basically identical. Those two are going to be joined at the hip for the next couple of years.
Everyone on the site needs to say a quick invocation to their deity of choice that the A's HS pitchers don't suffer any more injuries than they already have. At least the reports on Italiano were positive.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 12:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My main issue with the position players
is that none of them plays a key defensive position. Even without our glut at LF/RF/1B, you'd like to get at least one up-the-middle player who can hit while contributing with the glove and leaving room for a Cust or Barton to get on the field and hit.
And with a CF, SS, 2B, or C you can still have a very good player even if he ends up being less of a hitter than you hoped.
by Nick on Dec 14, 2007 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed - though it's possible
that Beane is set to deal Blanton for a young CFer and/or SS, and hopefully someone who can actually make some effective major league starts in 2008. But yeah, you can't keep loading up on corner players when up the middle players are hardest to find.
by Nico on Dec 14, 2007 9:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do expect
that Blanton will be dealt for one or both. And there's also the mythical Street-Lillibridge option...
by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 10:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't expect, but I do hope.
And hope that perhaps the Street-Lillibridge option isn't so mythical, too...
by still bills kingdom on Dec 15, 2007 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brilliant, tho I'll miss Haren
This is really a great trade for all sides AND all players involved.
The DBacks are way ahead of schedule on their rebuild, so they're going for it while Randy J might have something left to give. As much as I enjoyed and appreciate Haren, long-term this will look like a Beane fleecing. But the DBacks don't care and shouldn't care because they're going for it right now.
Dan Haren gets to compete for a title in the prime of his career. I'll be rooting for him.
Will the A's contend? Maybe not, but they'll still be good. The point is to put together a juggernaut when they open in Fremont. This deal puts them well on the way.
by coolbeanes on Dec 14, 2007 8:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I feel the same way
This trade is going to obviously still for next year but two to four years down the road we are going to come out ahead. It has been a long time since we went through a true rebuild and many of us as fans do not know how to handle it. 93 through 98 (with the rebuild really starting in 97 as in previous years vets were sort of thrown in there hoping to compete) had its fun times. The sky is not falling. These are really good looking prospects.
Then again, I had a dream last night that the A's signed Jeremy Giambi.........
by Athletics fan and runner on Dec 15, 2007 6:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ratto almost readable
and actually makes fun of himself for a change...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...
But as the person who predicted boldly and correctly that the A's would win 65 games in 2005 after trading Hudson and Mark Mulder in the winter of 2004 (they did win 65, and then 23 more after that), I would hesitate to dismiss the Haren deal quite so blithely.
by xbhaskarx on Dec 14, 2007 9:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I've said it before
I'm convinced that Ratto reads AN, and has had his thinking positively influenced as a result.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 14, 2007 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Trading for farmhands
There are lots of depressing aspects of this trade, but Ratto nails the one that bugs me. Beane felt he needed to make this trade to restock the farm system, because our drafts have stunk. But the same scouts who helped to pick our current weak farm system also scouted the Diamondback farmhands we acquired.
I recognize that the draft is a lottery, and as with everything else in baseball, it's rigged in favor of the teams that can pay big bonuses. But it's discouraging to give up the team's most valuable asset for a bunch of low-level prospects.
This may be necessary, and Beane has given us fair warning that this was coming. It may work out well in the end for the team. But I'll let other people get excited.
Bad baseball is bad baseball. It's not fun to watch.
by bear88 on Dec 14, 2007 11:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a big difference though
which is that these guys have a bunch of minor league stats, and as such are a lot closer to known quantities than draftees are. Still not very close, but it's a crapshoot instead of Chuck-a-Luck...
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 12:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bye, playoff contention.
Have a nice vacation.
by jeepers on Dec 14, 2007 9:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
actually it is going to be fun this year
Usually when the A's play I agonize over every loss, or game, now it will be more watching of individual and I assume very young players to see what the future holds.
I assume Kotsay is gone, DJ is gone, and perhaps Blanton. It'll be fun seeing what BB puts together. Don't have to worry about Bonds now, maybe not even Cust.
by china bob on Dec 14, 2007 10:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I was suffering through the A's every loss in 2007, but after it was clear they weren't contending this year, right after the All Star break, the games became more fun. Winning wasn't important, having a good time and being entertained was. It became more about the game of baseball itself, and not about winning.
And I'm glad I can enjoy the A's not winning, cuz that's what the next three years will be like.
by Philip Christy on Dec 14, 2007 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blanton
I think it's safe to say Blanton is gone, as well as Embree, DJ, some bullpen arms (given the A's backlog of them) and Street (If he isn't willing to sacrifice two or three free agency years to Billy Beane).
Kotsay has no value right now, and since Gonzo won't be up until at least August, he could start the season to build trade value and be traded mid-year.
by Threepwood XX on Dec 14, 2007 11:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No it won't
I'm not saying it won't be interesting to see who Beane trades next.
But you wait until May or June and the A's are 14 games under .500 and mired in hopelessness, tedium, and crappy pitching. I've been there, many times in the past. It's not fun.
All of this may be necessary and wise. But rebuilding is a dreary task, and there is no guarantee that it works. This could turn out to be a bigger version of the Hudson trade, for all we know.
I guess it's good not to be too stressed about whether the team wins. But it's unpleasant to know, from the beginning, that the team has no chance.
by bear88 on Dec 14, 2007 11:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it will be a bigger version
Beane did (and intended) a minor rebuild, more of a reload, in winter 2004/05. He traded two of his top three pitchers (one of whom was going into his walk years, neither of whom were that cheap, and at least one of the two with injury concerns) for one definitely MLB ready starter, one perhaps ready starter, one ready late innings reliever, one perhaps ready reliever, one top prospect who was years away, and one AAAA player.
This time he could not get even one major league ready player for Haren (I believe he tried, not only with Arizona but also with Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati). He could not get even one top prospect that the team didn't want to make available in a trade. I suspect teams sense that Beane was going to have to tear down the MLB club to restock the system, even if Beane hadn't completely made up his mind to do so before the Phoenix health conclave.
by OaklandSi on Dec 15, 2007 7:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gonzales and Anderson are the two best
players we got, and they won't be playing for the A's next year...
by mikeA on Dec 15, 2007 12:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What does Chavez have that Haren...
doesn't have the potential to be? Why did the A's keep this guy on 3B and give up a rising star?! I just don't get it. The only way to stay on this team is to play mediocre baseball!
I really hope that Haren keeps quiet and doesn't slander the A's, a la Milton Bradley, for getting shafted and transplanted for prospects.
Bold prediction: D-Backs WS champs 2008
by OaktownRajah on Dec 14, 2007 11:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Haren lacks...
overpricing. Ok, you're right, someday Haren too could be overpriced, but right now with his current pricing Haren is worth a lot, and Chavez is worth a lot less than his fat price tag. Haren's something others would want, and that's the key difference! Beane'll move who he can if that gets the picture rosier for Fremont, the Happy Hunting Grounds Beane is dreaming of. Unfortunately, he can't trade Chavvy 'cause no one wants him.
by BerkeleyDawg on Dec 14, 2007 11:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he's a native californian,
has a great smile, boyish charm, chronic injuries and will never hit 270.
those 5 things go a long way in the BB universe.
by notah8er on Dec 14, 2007 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those chronic injuries
also go a long way in the universe of MLB GMs.
They go a long way in MLB GMs not wanting him.
by rfloh on Dec 14, 2007 11:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You are not going to
get 2 prospects with upsides in Gonzales and Anderson, and 2 solid prospects in Cunningham and Carter with Chavez.
by rfloh on Dec 14, 2007 11:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think a lot of people are looking past...
Eveland a little too much. The kid's had some spotty major league stints, but he was only 23 years old last season and put up fantastic numbers throughout the minors at a fairly young age for many of the levels. I think this could be a big steal of the trade, as his ML numbers were young and short and can be way over-emphasized. Also to note, hes a big fella, they say almost David Wells big. AZ had some problems with him cause they wanted him to lose some weight. Remember, we're not selling jeans here, we want a pitcher, and this one has a career minor league 2.61 ERA, 8.84 K/9, and 2.77 BB/9.
And the last pitcher, Greg Smith is nothing to sneeze at either. Dude held his own last year at age 23 going 5-3 with a 3.36ERA at AA and 4-2 with a 3.78 at AAA. Certainly not going to be our ace of the future, but this guy represents a good chance to be a back end starter.
With these two guys alone, probably the weakest and throw-ins of the group, we have two guys with a shot at making the rotation next year(not saying much with our rotation I know...) but also represent guys that could go #3-5 starters in the future on even a good rotation.
Im telling you, the more I look at some of these guys the more I'm starting to think Billy knew just what he was doing. None of these guys is the glamorous huge pickup, but theres not a weak member of this group. There's always a lot of risk in a move like this(but also, with so many plus prospects as opposed to one super, the risk is much less), but this could give us a couple very high end players(Gonzo and Anderson) a couple riskier guys who could end up anywhere(Cunningham and Carter) and two reliable back end starters. Thats about as much as you can hope to get.
by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2007 12:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair points
You never know about some of the unheralded guys. Often, one of those players turns out to be the most valuable addition, or the guy who makes such a trade worth making.
This may turn out to be a good trade for the A's. Nobody can know at this point.
And it's reasonable to observe that the current team wasn't really a contender, and needed to start over. I just hope some of these guys turn into outstanding players, not just solid major leaguers. After all, we just gave up an outstanding player.
by bear88 on Dec 15, 2007 12:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't just the Dbacks
No, we're not selling jeans here. Nonetheless, these are still athletes. Not dart players or poker players.
But mainly, the main reason I didn't put him in my list was that he is a reliever. Sure, he's young, and he has good minor league numbers, but he appears to be a reliever. Those numbers would be more special if he was a starter.
Smith's numbers are decent, but projecting him as a #3 on a good rotation is IMO optimistic. A #3 on a good rotation is probably about 100-105 ERA+.
"There's always a lot of risk in a move like this(but also, with so many plus prospects as opposed to one super, the risk is much less),"
It's just a different kind of risk. By spreading the risk around, you sacrifice upside.
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 4:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But, but, but ...
you mean to say that poker players aren't athletes? They're on ESPN!
Next you'll tell me the kids in the chess club aren't participating in school sports.
by iglew on Dec 15, 2007 8:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait until the steroids scandal
reaches the poker circuit - dealt three aces naturally, my arse!
by Nico on Dec 15, 2007 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You obviously don't watch poker on TV
Nobody plays anything but "Texas Hold 'em" anymore, so no one is ever dealt more than two cards.
by iglew on Dec 15, 2007 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He sucks at blackjack too
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 15, 2007 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like poker
but the TVization of it has really negatively impacted the game. I like dealer's choice, lots of variants, and games where actual card skill has a significant factor. Now it's all just Hold-em, which is basically all odds calculation and bluffing. It's everything you can do to get people to play a hand of f'ing seven card stud.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct.
by mikeA on Dec 15, 2007 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You are incorrect
Its how I support myself mostly, so thank you ESPN.
by awesomer on Dec 15, 2007 6:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm terrible at poker
I'm good at strategy and game theory sort of things, but I'm completely transparent and thus an easy read.
That said, I personally think Hold-em is a good game. I think there's a reason it has driven the others out, and it's not just TV.
As for TV coverage, I liked the original WPT broadcasts quite a bit (in spite of the mild gooniness of the announcers), but every other coverage I've attempted to watch has been disappointing. I'm not sure what the difference is. It feels like they jump around too much and don't let the game develop. On the WPT shows I felt you could kind of get the personalities of the players and have a sense of their game. I don't get that on ESPN at all. (And the celebrity shows are just vomit.)
by iglew on Dec 16, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I assume plan A is having him start
by mikeA on Dec 15, 2007 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Part of my post got eaten
The "problem" with Gonzales, Cunnigham and Carter, beyond the DBack park effects in minors problem, is that they are all corner players.
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 4:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only one of those names
Has spent the majority of his career in the DBacks system.
by Graham on Dec 15, 2007 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
personally, i'm excited about trachsel
He'll make a great ace. I'm tempted to book the tickets to Japan now to see him match up against the Bosox. a 13 era is pretty good if you pretend there's a dot in the middle.
by notah8er on Dec 14, 2007 11:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Beane's not done
so everybody just sit tight. I agree with whoever earlier said Haren maybe hurt, too. Just don't give up on next year or the year after yet. Blanton and Street go next for MLB ready players. Hang in there, AN!
by A'sfansince1970 on Dec 14, 2007 11:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Uh...
Haren didn't yield MLB-ready players.
This trade, from the guy we gave up to the low-level prospects the team got in return, is a clear signal that the A's are entering we're-going-to-suck-for-two-years territory.
Haren might get hurt, or not perform as well as he did during much of last year, but I don't think Beane traded damaged goods.
by bear88 on Dec 15, 2007 12:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
MLB-ready players?
The Haren trade did not even yield Sacramento-ready players.
Someone in another message resurrected the old "Triple-A's" slag. It might even be optimistic to think that the team wearing the Oakland laundry in 2008 will be as good as a top AAA team.
by socal on Dec 15, 2007 12:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is anyone here..
even looking at the players we recieved? Yes, Brett Anderson is only 19 years old. Yes, he finished last season in high-A.
Otherwise, Gonzo will be in AAA, Eveland has two years of AAA done, and will probably compete for a starting job, Smith finished in AAA and may also compete for a job, Cunningham finished in AA and may start at AAA.
And Carter is also only 20 years old and finished in A.
So that's two guys 2-3 years away, one guy two years away, and three guys probably 1 year away at most. This isn't a total low-level grab, some of these guys will be helping in 2009, and most likely 2008 as well!
by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2007 12:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We're not really disagreeing
Eveland, I assume, will be pitching in Oakland next year. Smith might. That's it. Part of the reason, of course, is that our team is likely to be terrible.
But in your well-documented post above, you characterize Eveland and Smith as the "weakest and throw-ins of the group" while suggesting they might turn out to be decent major league pitchers.
This trade only makes sense if we get a lot more than decent major leaguers. It's important that at least one of these guys turns out to be a star. It will be a few years before we find out if that happens.
by bear88 on Dec 15, 2007 12:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
You never know, it might not work out. But the point I was trying to make was that even the lowest grabs from this trade have a real possibility to present value at the major league level. Six possible major leaguers, and 2 or 3 possible stars is about as much as you can hope from a trade like this.
by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2007 1:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By "possible major leaguers", you mean
pitchers just good enough to be fourth or fifth starters or long relievers on a losing team.
One of these guys, Carter, allegedly has 30-HR potential, but his impressive stats came as a 20 year old playing against 18-year-olds in low-A ball, which means that either he is a very late bloomer or someone who will likely hit the wall before he makes it to the majors.
Looks to me like this trade will be no more fruitful for the A's than the Hudson trade.
by socal on Dec 15, 2007 3:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And that certainly is a possibility.
Anytime you trade a proven major leaguer for prospects there is a chance it doesn't work out. That's no matter who you trade for. I'm clearly a little higher on these guys than you are, but that is what it is.
Now we just wait and see... both for what comes the rest of this offseason and the next 2 years with these guys.
by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2007 3:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is completely ridiculous
Anderson is regarded by pretty much everyone as a top pitching prospect. And low-A ball is generally players who are 20-22. Typically the majority of low-A teams are players in their first or second year out of college. Carter is the age of a college junior.
I'm not saying all of these guys are going to pan out, but it would require a combination of ridonkulously bad luck and ridonkulously bad scouting for none of them to pan out. Just one or the other would not be sufficient.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You forget the death curse hanging over the A's
It wouldn't take bad luck or bad scouting to ruin these guys, the A's witch doctor medical plan could do it with speed and efficiency!
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
speed and inefficiency? I don't think so
More likely, if the trends you identify hold, they'll end up lingering in various stages of inutility on the 40-man roster/DL through most of their pre-FA status, wasting lots of salary, staff man-hours, and opportunity cost.
The A's medical plan is certainly efficacious in its deleterious outcomes, but it's neither speedy nor efficient.
by monkeyball on Dec 15, 2007 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
whoops. got ahead of my argument
subj line should be "speed and efficiency?"
by monkeyball on Dec 15, 2007 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
for the record
I don't really like this deal.
However, I find myself surprised by the disgust which has been expressed here. This is a pretty good prospect haul for any one player.
If you want to argue that it would be better to keep an A's team which should win 83 games and maybe, if everything broke right, maybe get 91 or 92 or so victories, that's fine. I kind of feel that way myself. I like facing spring with blind optimism.
But if you believe that a GM should recognize where a team is in the success cycle and always be looking towards building a championship caliber team, then you can only argue with this move if you feel that you know that the players we received are not going to pan out as well as the A's believe they pan out.
I love the minor leagues, I love it when the A's have good players to follow in the minor leagues. The A's got more talent in this trade than they gave up, and they gave up a lot in Haren.
by jakarta on Dec 15, 2007 12:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Who they got
I'm not the minor league guru, but from what I've read this evening, I'm not all that excited. It seems like we got a bunch of guys, only a couple of whom have a chance at being above-average major league players.
I understand the rationale of knowing when to hold 'em and when to pick a new hand. But it frustrates me that the current situation is being driven by a) Fremont and b) the team's own lousy personnel decisions in recent years.
We got a bunch of players the Diamondbacks could afford to give up. That doesn't mean one or two of them doesn't turn into a good, or maybe a very good, player. But right now, we're looking at a team that isn't going to be much fun to watch for the next couple of years. And why is that? Management didn't do a very good job.
by bear88 on Dec 15, 2007 12:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looking on the bright side of 2008
It could be worse -- thanks to realignment, we no longer have a 7-team AL West, or otherwise we would have to look in the paper every day in the summer of 2008 and see the A's in seventh place, eight games behind the sixth-place Royals.
The A's goal for 2008 will be to win 63 games, i.e., to not lose 100 or more.
For historical reference, our comparisons in 2008 will be the A's teams of 1997 (65-97), 1993 (68-94), and the eminently forgettable run of 1977-1979 (63-98, 59-93, 54-108).
It's a good thing the A's don't need to persuade anyone to approve a brand-new stadium, eh? Because if the 2008 A's record was to have any effect on the ability of the A's to build a new home, then it's pretty safe to say that the A's would be playing in the shadow of Mount Davis for many, many years to come.
by socal on Dec 15, 2007 12:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh, come on
The A's didn't just get 20 games worse by trading Haren.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 12:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A's won 76 in '07, and a handful of W's just left
2008 would have been a season of fewer wins even with Haren.
This team isn't going to score runs next year. A starter like Haren can win some games even when he gets only 3 runs, even more with 4. The starters likely to suit up for the A's in 2008 won't get so many wins out of thin run support.
A drop off of at least 10 games from 2007 seems likely, and that puts you smack in the middle of We're-Hoping-To-Not-Lose-100 Territory.
by socal on Dec 15, 2007 3:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Um
7 of 9 A's starters project to be above-average at their position.
Yeah, that sounds like a lineup that won't score any runs all right.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 10:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, 10 wins
is Barry Bonds in 01 territory. No pitcher will ever, under any circumstances, cost you 10 wins to lose, because he just doesn't play enough games to matter.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Losing a #1 starter can easily cost 10 wins
If the starter is having a very good year, the team might be 20-10 or better in games that he starts, and could be 10-20 or worse in those same games if you replaced him in his 30 starts with a long reliever or a patchwork of journeymen. That is a dropoff of 10-plus wins.
One easy example:
Take the 1972 Phillies. Steve Carlton had a 27-10 record, and won the Cy Young award on a last place team that had an overall record of 59-97. The Phillies were 29-12 in the games Carlton started, and 30-85 (.261 winning percentage) in their other games.
If they had replaced Carlton's 41 starts with a patchwork of long relievers and journeymen and guys from AAA, just by taking their winning percentage in games that Carlton didn't start and projecting the same percentage over his starts, they would have won 11 of those 41 games, instead of the 29 they did win in Carlton's starts -- a dropoff of 18 wins.
by socal on Dec 15, 2007 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ballpark and development deal isn't done yet
there's still quite a ways to go before that happens, and then gets built.
by OaklandSi on Dec 15, 2007 7:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Getting worse to get better
No, the A's didn't get 20 games worse by trading Haren. But there are more trades to come, and the only logical expectation is that these trades will be intended to improve the 2010 team at the expense of the 2008 team.
by bear88 on Dec 15, 2007 1:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Another point
The A's teams of 2000-2004 would not have been nearly as good if the A's teams of 1997-1998 were not so bad. Why not? In the '98 draft the A's took Mark Mulder as the #2 overall pick; in '99 they took Barry Zito as the #9 overall pick. Without those two, the A's rotation for those years might have included prominent performances by such pitchers as Omar Olivares or Erik Hiljus.
Just some food for thought.
by Philip Christy on Dec 15, 2007 1:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Classic reztips
this is a move that will benefit the team when it moves from a crime-infested city which has NEVER supported the A's when rebuilding to a South Bay venue where fans will welcome what, by then, should be an exciting, solid contender.
And I give Wolff credit for permitting BB to make this bold move. 'Cause the pathetically small A's fanbase will NEVER support a team doing what it needs to do to regularly contend in the future. And Wolff et al will likely lose money in '08 and '09.
So here's looking forward to watching the evolution of a far more exciting young team. And a move from a horrific stadium and non-supportive "fans" to a wonderful future in the South Bay...
from the Chronicle blog.
by green star oakland on Dec 15, 2007 1:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I finished finals in the morning,
and then spent the rest of the day flying home to Oakland for Christmas. Found out about it from my roommate at the airport, so I wound up missing what must have been a wild ride here.
That being said, I don't really have any thoughts that probably haven't already been stated. Just that goddamnit. That's really all I got. Goddamnit. Not in a "I'm quitting this team" kinda way or "Billy's an idiot this trade sucks" kinda way. I mean, return looks acceptable, interesting pieces and such. Should make us good in a few years, hopefully. But I liked Dan Haren. Dan Haren was signed cheap for three more years. He could have been a part of the next good A's team.
I guess I just don't understand the pressing need Billy seemed to be feeling to get rid of him. Maybe he thought he had to capitalize on a Dan Haren career year in a pitching-hungry market. I dunno. Goddamnit. Good luck in Arizona, Danny.
by walk off bunt on Dec 15, 2007 1:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If there's 1 thing I disagree with
It's the idea that we shouldn't judge the trade now, that we should wait to see how the players we acquired developed.
Why?
Losing Haren effects the team right now, it hurts the A's, how can we not judge the deal now?
Carlos Gonzalez, the jewel of the deal, needs to get his head on straight or he will fail to live up to his potential. He's 22 so there's time but he probably needs a full season of AAA before he's ready to contribute in Oakland.
And if he does figure it out, what then? He's a right fielder for a team that just signed Nick Swisher through 2012. Do the A's bump Swisher to 1B to create a spot for Gonzalez, that would make Barton the DH. What happens to Cust? Now, if Cust flops in the next year or so that isn't an issue. Or Buck could keep getting hurt, creating an opening that way. But do we really want to think about our players failing miserably or getting hurt?
Brett Anderson turns 20 in February and with a good spring could start the year in AA. More likely he starts in High-A since he didn't exactly dominate during his time there in 2007. He's got a lot of upside (if he gets serious about his conditioning, gets in a bit better shape, he could end up as good as Mulder was) but he looks to be at least 2 years away. A lot can happen to a pitching prospect in 2 years.
Aaron Cunningham turns 22 in April. He'll start the 2008 season in AA. Scouts are mixed on his ability to play CF. If he can't play CF then his bat may not have enough power to play in a corner. At this point he projects to be a poor man Eric Byrnes. He's young enough and has the natural athleticism to be better then that but he doesn't have a projectionable frame that hints to more power in the future. If he can handle CF then he could be another Mark Kotsay type bat. (And I'm referring to when Kotsay could actually hit a bit, not the version we've seen the last two years.)
Greg Smith is a 24 year old finesse lefty. 87-88 MPH fastball, good curve, average change-up. He's struggled with mid-season promotions but has shown the ability to adjust and succeed when he repeats the league the following year. He'll return to AAA in 2008 and could be ready for a big league trial by mid-season. He'll probably look a lot like Dallas Braden did last year when he came up. In fact, I kind of like this comp. Greg Smith is another Dallas Braden.
Chirs Carter turns 21 on Dec. 18th and he had an impressive season in Low-A ball. Big power potential, a decent ability to draw walks and the corresponding K numbers to complete the pakcage. He should tear up High-A and earn a mid-season promotion to AA. After that, at least a half season of AAA in 2009. If everything goes right he could be a year and a half away, realistically we're probably looking at 2010.
The bigger problem is he's a natural DH. He committed 11 errors in 73 games at 1B and he's a long way from being adequate on defense. Sure, he's got two years to practice but even if he manages to not spike himself where do you put him in Oakland?
Gonzalez should be established in RF, Buck will be in LF, Swisher at 1B and Barton's the DH. A lot of problems go away if Swisher (doubtful) or Buck can play CF but until one of them proves capable of the job I hesitate to pencil either in to the role.
Dana Eveland is 24 and hasn't been able to stick in the bigs for the past three years. I'm pretty sure he's out of options but I'm not positive on that. He has the minor league track record and the stuff to be a 3/4 SP as soon as this season but he needs to get his butt in gear. He's another pitcher with conditioning problems, his style and stuff has often been compared to David Wells... so has his physique. I know, I know we're not selling jeans and round is a shape but every scouting report I've seen on Eveland includes a comment that he needs to lose about 20 pounds.
So what did the A's accomplish by making this trade? Did they add a SS or CF prospect to cover the glaring holes in those positions? It doesn't look like it. Did they replace the hole in the rotation they created by trading Haren? Uncertain at best, doubtful is more likely. The A's stockpiled talent at positions they already have covered for the next 5-6 years so where is the real benefit to making this trade?
The one thing the trade accomplishes is it allows Beane to target specific needs when he deals Blanton and Street. He can go after a highly rated SS and/or CF and settle for slightly less then he'd otherwise try to acquire in terms of overall package. He can turn down a 4 player offer from the Yankees if the Mets' 3 player package is more in line with team needs. This trade should boost Blanton's value on the trade market once Kuroda signs... but wouldn't Haren's value have also gone up if Beane had waited until that FA signing?
The timing of this deal strikes me as weird. For one thing, if Kuroda had signed with the Dodgers it only makes sense that Arizona would have felt more pressure to make a deal for Haren. That bit of leverage might have been enough to pry one of the Diamondbacks' untouchables off that list. Furthermore, waiting until mid-January to make a deal would have put Scherzer (AZ's 2nd best pitching prospect) in play as a PTBNL. In fact, most of the D'backs 2007 draft class would have been eligible as potential PTBNLs if the deal goes down 4 weeks from now.
This deal seems rushed and I don't understand why that is. Beane should have been in the driver's seat yet the mid-December move plays more into the Diamondbacks' hands then Oakland's. I really don't like that.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 2:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like what you're saying.
I agree almost completely with you, I like Eveland a little more, and think he could be a sleeper(I've never seen the guy or anything, going purely off reports and numbers) but otherwise I don't disagree with a thing you wrote. I like that Beane can now look for specific pieces he wants and not worry about the overall health of the minors.
The one thing I would add, is that Beane grabbed a lot of talent in this trade. We saw just a few weeks(?) ago that Carter was enough to move for Quentin. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of these guys eventually moved to fill in some more current needs in the not so far future.
by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2007 3:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You conclusion
Is something I entirely agree with. It DOES seem very, very unnecessarily rushed.
The only rationale I can think of is that Beane saw a bunch of good pitchers on the market, saw the kind of money average guys are getting paid by the market, and concluded that now was the time to strike, and better to get a return on Haren before Santana or Bedard goes for pennies on the dollar and ruins his chance to capitalize on Haren.
I don't think I would endorse any of that, but that's the only logic I'm finding in all of this.
And another thing: everybody who can go, better go. I don't want to see the Mark Ellis' (though I do love Mark Ellis) and Eric Chavez's and Bobby Crosby's and Alan Embree's hanging around next year so we can win 70 games instead of 65 if there's value to be had from them, because those types, of all people, will not be the ones to propel the next great A's team.
If there's value to be had from any of the veterans, even if it's a B- prospect with 4th starter upside, that deal had better be made, because the commitment to 2010-11 and beyond has been made, in a big way. This had better be the first in a string of many deals over the course of the rest of the winter.
by walk off bunt on Dec 15, 2007 3:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eric Chavez is signed through 2010
with a club option for 2011.
I do agree that a bunch of guys need to go, and I'm reluctantly including Ellis in that mix (gah, no one gives him the respect he deserves-- there's no way the A's get more than 50 cents on the dollar for him... still, sometimes when your house is burning down, you have to sell it to Crassus) but Chavez is both injured and signed long-term, so there's no real reason he needs to be a part of that.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on Ellis
He doesn't get enough respect at all. But yeah, I think you get my overlying point on why he'd be included in the firesale.
And I can see the point on Chavez. Better to let him build value back up and then deal him or just keep him in the long run if it turns out he can regain form.
by walk off bunt on Dec 15, 2007 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay...
Im up studying all night for a final tomorrow, and this just came to me. I haven't put a lot of thought into it, so I'm not entirely sure of the possibility of it, but what do you guys think of Blanton and Gonzo for Kemp, Kershaw, and some sort of mid-level prospect. Not sure of how even it is, but it seems like a good place to start.
The A's get the CF guy they need, and a stud pitching prospect to go with Cahill and Anderson to hopefully cement the rotation in a couple years. The Dodgers dont really need the CF now with Andruw, and get the pitcher they need to compete with the DBacks. They now have Kemp, Pierre, and Ethier at 2 OF spots, so theyll be looking to get rid of one. I don't think anyone will take Pierre off their hands(and with Colleti who knows if he even wants him gone) so Kemp missing is no problem. And then they have Gonzo ready to come in and put up some big numbers next year when even Colleti can't stand Pierre anymore.
So, let me know what you think, its not perfect, but I think something interesting could be made of it. Especially if we could also somehow work a Hu or a Laroche into the deal. Maybe now I'm just dreaming...
by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2007 4:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kemp missing is "no problem"
only if the Dodgers see all 3 as equal. Yes, this is Colletti, but based on his statements, I seriously doubt he sees them as equal and Kemp as expendable.
Let's try to estimate how much Cupcakes is "worth" as an FA.
Last 3 years, BPro had him at 12, (-12), 13 pitching runs above average. So let's say he is 10-15 runs above average per year over the next 3 seasons, about 1-1.5 wins above average per year.
Using Tango's salary scale, that is worth about $35M-$43M as a FA.
He has 3 arb years left on his contract. Let's use Tango's scale of 40% of FA value for his first year, 60% of FA value for his 2nd year, 80% of FA value for 3rd year: ~$4.6M-$5.73M in his 1st year, $7M-$8.6M 2nd year, $9.3M-$11.46M 3rd year; total of $20.9M-$25.79M.
So, the Dodgers save about $14.1M-$17.21M from his "market value" if they get Cupcakes.
Is hat $17M savings worth Kershaw AND the difference between Kemp and Gonzales for the Dodgers?
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 6:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely agree.
We would have to give up way more. Or get less, which might not make it worth it.
I've always wondered though, these dollar valuations sometimes strike me as odd. Sure, they may be saving $14-17m, but over what? There aren't a lot of league average free agents available for that price, or any price in this market. In a perfect world where you can grab league average players to fill your roster with, at prices that match, it makes a lot of sense. For teams who think they can compete and earn the revenue of a playoff trip, it might be worth it to overspend(in money or talent) a little, since these guys arent just falling off of trees.
Again, the more I look at it the more lopsided for us it looks, and it would take a lot of work to get this to work. Just thinking out loud.
by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2007 6:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Err, I posted over what
And my reasoning.
As an FA, Blanton is "worth" $35-$43M for 3 years. Add an extra $5M or so if you want for his youth. That seems consistent with what the likes of Lilly, Suppan, and Meche got and what Carlos Silva is asking.
As an arby player, Blanton "should" get about $20M-$25M
So a savings of about $14M-$17M (+ $5M if you want).
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 6:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I said that badly.
You're saying he's worth $35m-$43m. That I totally go along with you, that in this market that is what a win to a win and half over average is worth.
My point is, for a team like the Dodgers, who are on the edge(or at least feel like they are) of making the playoffs, do the numbers remain the same? Doesn't the value of an extra win increase with these circumstances? The diffrence of 2 wins from 89-91 is much larger than from 78-80 for a team, in terms of revenue and everything else. Again, for a cusp team, I think not only does the value change, but it can be harder to find, as many position are already filled with above-average players. This limited number of areas they can improve, along with limited numbers of available above average players at that position, can make it harder to improve.
So the question comes down to, not just how valuable is any win, but how valuable are these wins, and how much are they willing to spend for them? Again, in theory, they should be more willing to spend than a sub-par team, because their marginal benefit is so much greater(or for that matter, a team already almost garaunteed to MAKE the playoffs).
In conclusion, this is not an argument in favor of my trade, as I think, despite this, you've shown that the value doesn;t nearly match up. But just in general, I've always found it interesting when looking at the "value" of a win.
by SuperBean on Dec 15, 2007 6:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah,
I agree somewhat. If Cupcakes was a 20 runs above average pitcher at least, in other words, a star, I would agree entirely.
But Cupcakes is (somehwat) replaceable through FA. It would cost money, yes. Example, Carlos Silva last 4 years: 12, 10, (-32), 6. Kyle Lohse: (-13), 2, 1, (-1).
You mention the difference in marginal wins value for the Dodgers. Losing Kemp and having to deal with a full season of Pierre in LF would be so disastrous that whatever gains they get from Cupcakes would probably reduce the marginal value of wins to them.
Also, your point about values changing also applies to players like Kemp and Kershaw for the future. Kershaw is a high ceiling prospect, Kemp is already in MLB.
by rfloh on Dec 15, 2007 7:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except Kemp isn't a CF
And Colletti loves Kershaw.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
If you always judge a trade right away, then all teams that trade vets for prospects will be classified as losers. You have to give these players a chance to establish themselves. The only reason to judge the trade now is if Beane's intention was to compte in '08, which obviously isn't the case.
What Beane accomplished in this trade was to add depth to the farm system. No, he didn't address the needs in CF or SS, but he added some pitchers, which the A's need. If he had kept Haren, who did we have beyond Haren and Blanton? Gaudin, who may need surgery? Duke, coming off injury? DiNardo, who probably overacheived last year? Braden/Meyer/Komine/Widsor, none of whom have pitched effectively in the majors?
As for Gonzo, you say th it creates a situation where we need Buck to get hurt or Cust to fail. Why? If Buck/Swisher/Cust/Barton/Gonzo all hit well, we trade someone. Since when is it a bad thing to have a lot of good players? Since when is it possible to be too good? Also, since when is it a lock that players will perform at or above their expectations? There is no harm in stocking up at positions of strength when you can't get players at your positions of weakness.
I think we all have certain hopes when we see a player of Haren's stature dealt away. We'd like to see Beane land the next A-Rod, Griffey Jr., and maybe even a Ryan while he's at it. But we have to recognize that we don't know the trade market as well as he does. It's likely that this was the best deal available. It's easy to say he should have waited, but what if the D'backs forced his hand? What if they were working on another deal elsewhere? What if they simply decided that this was all they would offer for Haren, and if they couldn't get him at this price they'd live without him? We just don't know what was said in these negotiations, and we don't know what other teams offered for Haren, or were willing to make avaiable.
Basically, as much as I like Haren and as much as I hate watching the team lose, I think Beane got more than fair value in this trade with the caveat that young players don't always pan out.
by ozzman99 on Dec 15, 2007 7:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Short term, the A's did lose
Anyone thinking otherwise is lying to themselves. Haren would have had a positive impact for the A's in 2008. Of the bunch we just acquired, maybe Eveland can do the same. And even if he does it is extremely unlikely that he'd have anywhere near the same impact that Haren would have.
Let me see if I understand your plan. We hope and wait for these guys to get good and then we trade some other good players to fill the holes in the line-up that existed before we traded for this batch of prospects. I prefer to keep things simple, if you trade a high value asset like Dan Haren you acquire players that can fill the holes you have.
As for "we've added pitchers" I think the Greg Smith to Dallas Braden comp is apt. Thing is, we already had Dallas Braden! Both Smith and Braden priject as back end of the rotation SP, nothing more. And that's if they have the stuff to remain in the starting rotation. It's very possible that either could end up in the bullpen. Eveland projects a little higher, maybe mid-rotation but he's done nothing to establish himself in the big leagues for going on two years now.
Furthermore, if you really like Eveland, the A's probably could have acquired him in a non-Haren centric deal.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
O RLY?
What did the A's have that the D-backs needed, other than Haren? They already said they weren't interested in Blanton.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Could have been a simple prospect swap
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is your alternative?
Demand Upton or someone like him? Great. If they say no, then what? Keep Haren? He's an excellent player, no doubt about it, but since it appears taht the injury situation on this team is pretty grim, do you really see the A's being competitive next year? I guess that's the real question. Do you think the A's will be healthy next year? Because if they are, IF Harden and Crosby and Kotsay and Buck and Gaudin and Duke all stay healthy and play at or very near their peak, this team has a shot at reaching the playoffs. I just don't think that is very likely. Therefore, it makes more sense to build depth in the minors. At this point, it really doesn't matter much how much production we get from CF or SS in '08. Why not collect the best players you can, and worry about filling specific holes when you're actually a contender?
And yes, I am saying that we hope our prospects develop into good players (name one team that doesn't hope it's prospects pan out), and then trade a surplus at one position to fill holes at another. It's not a radical new concept. I believe teams have done just that once or twice in history.
I guess we're looking at this trade very differently. You assume that Beane could have had anything he wanted from any team for Haren, and suddenly made a deal without putting any thought at all into it. You also assume that had the A's kept Haren, they would have been contenders. I assume that the A's would not have had enough lucky breaks to be competitive in '08, and that Beane explored every trade possibility and decided that this was the best he could do. I assume that Beane knows the trade market a little better than me, since he has actually spoken to other GM's.
by ozzman99 on Dec 15, 2007 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very important
Don't assume to know what I'm thinking, we all know what happens when a person "assumes".
Is there any doubt that the A's are the losers in the short term?
No.
Did the A's receive a wealth of talent in return?
Yes.
Does that talent directly improve the weaknesses that currently exist within the organization?
No.
Would Beane have improved his bargaining position if the Dodgers had gotten stronger by signing Kuroda prior to a deal being made with Arizona?
Yes.
Would Beane have seen a bigger pool of talent to draw upon if he had waited another month before making a deal with Arizona?
Yes.
Was Arizona the only team that Beane could have dealt with in an attempt to trade Haren?
No.
Are we clear?
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kuroda's intentions of signing with LA
were clear well before the trigger was pulled on this deal, and shouldn't have substantially impacted it in any event. He's not projected to be a top starter.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When the Haren deal happened
Kuroda was still in play, with Seattle and LA being the favorites.
1 less pitcher on the market, plus him signing with Arizona's rival, would have had an impact on the D'back's thinking. Enough to land Upton? Probably not. But it would have been another step in that direction.
Combine that with waiting another month to make a deal should have at least resulted in Beane getting better arms then Smith and Eveland.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now Gaudin's having surgery
which would have reduced Oakland's leverage.
There's really no way to predict this stuff. What they could get for him was what they got for him. There's no way to formulaically say that they could have gotten more or less at a later date.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 10:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know...
It really does seem like Beane could have done better. Just a week ago or so ago we were talking about Hughes +.
by IM4Oakgal on Dec 15, 2007 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He opted for quantity rather than quality
in some sense, at least.
(Not that I'm saying the players in this trade suck. Just that they're not slam-dunk can't miss prospects.)
There's no way the Yankees could have matched this trade in terms of depth.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Haren was already in play
Gaudin's recovery time is supposedly 8-12 weeks, that brings him back in March. Give him 6 weeks to prep and he's pitching by May at the latest.
If Gaudin's injury did anything it weakened Beane's resolve, not his bargaining position. Gaudin's status could have just as easily lessened Beane's desire to trade one of his healthy arms. He was still offering Dan Haren, a very good SP and the best value to be found on the market. There were at least a half dozen teams interested in him. Only an injury to Haren could have diminished his value.
There's a very common formula that explains this: Supply and Demand.
Kuroda was a pitcher the D'backs wanted. When he didn't sign with him that meant there was 1 less pitcher that they were interested in available to them. As an added kick in the gut, he signed with their division rival. Those two factors make their demand for Haren increase... that could lead to a pro-Oakland change in the negotiations.
Now, the only reason I can think of for Beane to pull the trigger at this time would be if he was afraid of losing a market for Blanton. The Mariners and the Mets have stepped up their attempts to get in after Santana and if Beane has designs on certain players from one of those rosters then that could explain why he pulled the trigger on Haren.
Blanton is now the best RH SP on the market. Maybe Beane needed that extra push to make the deal he wants for Blanton.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 10:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Guys can't have surgery in secret
If Gaudin's injury did anything it weakened Beane's resolve, not his bargaining position. Gaudin's status could have just as easily lessened Beane's desire to trade one of his healthy arms.
Gaudin's injury reduced Beane's resolve to hold on to Haren. But NEWS of Gaudin's injury would have lessened interest in Haren, because it would be (correctly) viewed as yet another strike against the team's ability to compete in 2008. Other teams aren't stupid; they knew everything we did about the injury summit and its role in determining whether the A's were going to go for it or not. If news that the A's were banged up had leaked out, it would have weakened Beane's "I can go either way" stance by making a rebuild appear inevitable. So he pulled the trigger after learning of Gaudin's injury but before the news became public.
As for the second sentence: it didn't, right? The D-Backs didn't really care (not to mention, couldn't know) what Beane's desires were-- either he'd accept their offer, or he wouldn't. I didn't get the sense that there was a lot of urgency in Arizona.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Putting Haren on the block
did more to question the A's ability to compete in 2008 then Gaudin's injury. Following your logic, the D'backs could have changed their offer from 5 prospects to 2 AAA scrubs because Chad Gaudin got hurt, as if Gaudin's hip was the real key to the value behind Haren.
That's just absurd.
I've got no interest in arguing against the absurd.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 11:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course that's absurd
The A's wouldn't have accepted that in any scenario. The difference was like a Greg Smith either way. Even rebuilding teams don't have to act like idiots. Remember, there are other teams going after Haren as well.
by PaulThomas on Dec 16, 2007 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're reminding me about the other teams?
Yeah, we're done here.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What makes you think
that the D'backs wanted Haren at any cost? There comes a point where a team will say no to a trade offer. Do you think that Beane failed to reach that point? With his history, do you really think he backed off and just took what was on the table? Does that sound like him at all?
by ozzman99 on Dec 16, 2007 7:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the Hudson trade
he wanted Marcus Giles as well as Meyer or Kyle Davies plus a reliever. the Braves initially agreed, then (when Cox intervened with the GM) decided Giles was the dealbreaker and called it off. Then later Beane contacted the Braves and said he'd consider dropping Giles from the trade. That's when the deal went through. There was ample coverage of the sequence.
In the Haren trade there were reports that Beane was insisting on Scherzer, but the Diamondbacks were resisting including him or the other "untouchables' (listed publicly as Upton and Drew -- those three were not only off the table for the A's but for any other trades). As you might recall the Tigers called Maybin and Miller "untouchable" in their brief dealings with Beane about Haren, yet dealt them both in what they considered to be a better deal.
It doesn't require any special insider knowledge, just remembering historical sequences and a good guess based on logic, to conclude that Beane blinked. There's nothing wrong with that. He needed to stock the system, and he realized the team he had was probably not going to contend in 2008.
by OaklandSi on Dec 16, 2007 9:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At any cost?
No, of course not. Nor did I suggest the D'backs were willing to sell their 1st born children Billy Beane.
I absolutely believe Beane did not get all that he could have in the deal. He wanted Scherzer, he asked for Scherzer, but MLB rules would prohibit Arizona from trading Scherzer until June 1st. Do you think Beane didn't know that? Do you honestly believe that Beane was unaware of the rules surrounding minor league players? He seemed perfectly aware of the rules when he dealt Bonderman to Detroit because originally Bonderman was a PTBNL in the deal. Why? Because the A's couldn't officially trade him until he had been in the organization for 1 year.
Are you suggesting Beane is going senile or is suffering amnesia?
The only way Billy Beane could have acquired Scherzer was to wait to complete the deal until January.
What month is this?
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
6 months from today= June 16th
by PaulThomas on Dec 16, 2007 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was cheating a little
I had another pitcher in mind (as well as Scherzer) when I used January as the trade month.
This package, save Robertson/Eveland, was the deal put forth by the D'backs in November. Josh Byrnes (AZ's GM) even said in a radio interview that he was able to keep Scherzer off the list because of the 1 year rule.
Beane could have fought for Scherzer but it would have taken time, time he appearently didn't feel like he had.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
"Do you think Beane didn't know that? Do you honestly believe that Beane was unaware of the rules surrounding minor league players?"
Did I ever say anything about this at all? Or even anything close? What are you even talking about? You're certainly not responding to anything posted above.
by ozzman99 on Dec 16, 2007 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You haven't experienced sarcasm much, have you?
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not sarcasm
It's nonsense. It relates in no way to anything anyone said. Are you even reading these posts, or arguing with the voices in your head?
by ozzman99 on Dec 17, 2007 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Aparently you have inside info
You know for a fact that Arizona was willing to wait? You know for a fact that they were willing to offer more if Kuroda signs with the Dodgers? You know for a fact that other teams were willing to offer more than Beane got in this trade? Unless you can prove that your answer to all of these questions is yes, you are making assumptions.
Are we clear?
by ozzman99 on Dec 16, 2007 7:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Offer more? Too vague of a request.
If by more you mean there was someone willing to part with 7 prospects then no, probably not. If by more you mean prospects that would more ably fill the A's holes then yes, there were. Now we could debate for an awfully long time over the value of one prospect vs. another, but I assure you that (almost) all the offers Beane was getting involved high quality prospects.
Cleveland was willing to part with Laffey and Miller, 2 SP prospects who could be pitching in the Show as early as April. They did not wish to part with Cabrera, which is why that deal fell through. They had plenty of talent in their minor league farm system for a deal to be reached if Beane had choosen that route.
The Mets were willing to include the OFer of Beane's choice plus pitching that had spent 2007 in AA or above.
Cincy... well, Cincy was never a good fit in my opinion. Cincy is why I qualified the above with "almost".
As for Arizona not being willing to wait another month... LOL! Arizona has three reliable arms in their rotation, damn right they'd have been interested in Haren come January.
Why do I think they'd part with more if Beane had waited a few more weeks? The Dodgers just got stronger by adding a pitcher the D'backs wanted. Colorado is shopping Fuentes and wants pitching in return. Let's think about this, shall we? Arizona wants to get back into the playoffs. Two of their division rivals strengthen themselvs during the offseason, including the team that swept them out of the 2007 playoffs.
Arizona has the farm depth to make a deal without impacting their big league roster. Is Scherzer or Enright really worth missing out on Dan Haren and a better chance in 2008? Probably not.
Hell yeah we're clear.
Have a nice day.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What it comes down to, grover,
is that in your judgment Arizona would have parted with as much or more in January, and in Beane's judgment they would/likely would not have (and could have pulled the deal off the table entirely). I have to go with Beane because he has more inside knowledge, and experience, though you clearly have the better fur.
by Nico on Dec 16, 2007 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In Billy We Trust makes me sick
Even though there is absolutely no evidence to support the arguement that Arizona would have backed away from the deal if negotiations had stretched into January.
There is no evidence to support the idea that the D'backs would have lost interest in Haren over the next few weeks. In fact, everything we do know suggests the exact opposite.
But Billy made the deal therefore it must be a dandy and it must have been the best move on the board. What yummy Kool-Aid.
Tim Hudson
Jason Kendall
And I'll bring my own beverage.
Thanks for noticing the fur, I'm trying a new conditioner.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know,
typically when there's absolutely no evidence either way, people are hesitant to draw conclusions about what absolutely WILL or WON'T happen.
Apparently this is not a problem for you, however.
by PaulThomas on Dec 16, 2007 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Precedent, old chap
I'm working with some fairly basic concepts here. If your rivals are getting stronger it only makes sense that you should want to improve yourself as well, especially if you have a glaring weakness.
Which Arizona did.
Then supply and demand. Supply goes down, demand increases. Econ 101.
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, these concepts should point to one conclusion... that Beane's position would only grow stronger over the next few weeks.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily ...
by devo on Dec 16, 2007 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We were still talking pre-Haren
Arizona should certainly fill contented.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're absolutely right
Billy Beane has been there for every conversation and trade offer regarding Beane. You have not. Therefore, you undoubtedly know better than him what was possible and available. Also, 2 trades Beane has made didn't work out taht well, out of the dozens he's made. He must be the worst GM ever! We should get you that job immediately, before Beane does something ridiculous, like build a winning team. I'm sure you'd be great at it.
Please.
by ozzman99 on Dec 16, 2007 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
<yawn>
The old "you weren't there" defense. Typically used by those who have nothing else to fall back on. As much as I haven't enjoyed this chat, "you weren't there, neener neener neener" is where I draw the line.
Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 8:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I actually think the Hudson trade was fine
It was Hudson for "someone major league ready who is projected as highly as Haren," and a couple 40-man roster fillers for kicks and grins. Good trade; unfortunate injury.
by Nico on Dec 16, 2007 9:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know me
I always disagreed with that stance.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know, but since you like to assess trades
I still wonder: Given that Hudson had one year left on his contract, and given his injury history and salary, if we had that Hudson (Dec 2004 Hudson) now, would you trade him straight up for that Haren (Dec 2004 Haren)? I would.
You want Beane to hold out for the "desired top prospect" (Upton Jr., or Schcherzerer, etc.) rather than settling for a deal where the top guy is pulled. Beane did just that in the Hudson deal - he targeted Meyer, allowed other pieces to add and subtract, but wouldn't budge on Meyer, and got him. And if Meyer had turned out to be as good as Haren - as projected - the deal would look kick-ass right now: especially because we could have traded Haren last week for a big haul of young prospects - and still had him in the 2008-10 rotation.
by Nico on Dec 17, 2007 8:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll say now what I said then
All things considered, Dan Meyer was the best choice Beane could have made in that situation. What happend to Meyer could be chalked up to bad luck or medical incompetence, pick your poison. I've even come to grudgingly accept that Cruz, as the 3rd piece in the deal, was a worthwhile risk to take.
Charles Thomas was a mistake from the moment his name was mentioned and I called his flop the day of the deal. Beane traded Hudson for a SP prospect and a young, cheap everyday player. He got neither. He lost out on his SP because of an injury and he missed on his position player because the guy sucked.
Even if Meyer had hit as projected, the absolute failure by Thomas crippled the "kick-assedness" of the deal. It would be like buying one of those TV's that has built in DVD and VHS players, only the you can't play DVDs or VHS tapes because the players are broke. You basically paid twice as much for the same TV without the accessories.
At no point is paying twice as much as you should have a good deal, I don't care how clear the picture on the TV is.
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
All of your unsubtatiated rumors and personal opinions and hopes are far more useful in assessing this trade than anything so boring as "truth" or "facts." You're not real bright, are you?
by ozzman99 on Dec 17, 2007 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL!
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've always thought your fur had a matte finish
by monkeyball on Dec 17, 2007 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
FYI, grover, "you're not real bright, are you?"
is, IMO, a "slam dunk CGV" and I'm reporting it. Why? Because apparently you and Paul Thomas are "too cool to report CGVs". Which is why in future I'll go ahead and report any from either of you two - because I am now "Nico, Super Nerd!!! Holding accountable a community that won't use its resources to do it themselves!"
by Nico on Dec 17, 2007 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My opinion on CGV's hasn't changed
I will only report those that are so outrageously offensive that someone needs to step up and do something. "You're not so bright" doesn't reach that level for me. In fact, I'm not even insulted by the baiting. I think I'll send an e-mail to the CGV folks and ask that ozzman get a pass because I did not find his comment offensive. I'm the supposed victim here and I say there was no crime.
Not, by the letter of the law what ozzman said was a violation. AN has never strictly enforced the CGV rules. If that has changed, I want to see a front page story from Blez saying as much and every single front page writer better chime in as well. Anything less then that and I will not change my stance on reporting CGVs.
If you want to be the Super Nerd then go ahead. But you better not just report PT and me and ozzman. You better hit everybody who makes a CGV worthy comment in every thread you write and/or respond in. Otherwise it would be nothing more then a vendetta on your part against select individuals.
Now, I don't think that's your intention Nico. I don't think you want to spend your time on AN reporting every CGV violation you see.
Don't bother reporting ozzman on this one.
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 5:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're missing a key point here -
When people stop talking within the community boundaries - which are huge, by the way - it doesn't just affect the two people involved. It affects everyone in the "room". It's my business, or jeepers' business, or IM4Oakgal's business, etc., if two other people on the blog can't speak to each other in an acceptably civilized way - which on AN basically only restricts you to avoiding personal insults or attacks (and political commentary).
And frankly, it's not my, or anyone's, job to make sure to report CGVs in some equal, or fair way. Any CGV is fair game for anyone to report as they see fit. And honestly, I wish AN members - those attacked and those just reading - would get off of their macho and/or passive asses and start reporting personal attacks again like people used to (last year). It would not make AN any sort of "restricted dialog" venue because it would only restrict personal insults and attacks. That is, it would just make AN a better place to hang out.
by Nico on Dec 17, 2007 6:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I'd like a date with Mira Sorvino
I don't care if we're both married.
My opinion on CGVs hasn't changed since before I got a strike for my comment towards you. It will not change unless TPTB make it a major issue on AN. I laughed at ozzman's comment, Nico. If you don't like his brand of humor then do what you think you must. I've already sent my note to the CGV Committee asking for ozzman to get a pass.
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
But I wasn't really trying to be funny. It was a personal insult and totally uncalled for. I was already upset today over something else, which is no excuse at all, and I took it out here. I know you weren't insulted by it, but I apologize anyway. Clearly, I am the one who isn't too bright.
by ozzman99 on Dec 17, 2007 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Apology accepted
We all have our bad days.
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 9:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mine are the ones ending in "y"
:-(
by Nico on Dec 17, 2007 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Evidence?
You want to site sources? You make a lot of claims, but how do you know any of them are true? There are millions of rumors floating around out there, and virutally all of them are false. You might want to stop reading bobsbaseballrumors.com, or just making stuff up. Urban recently discussed how easily rumors start, I guess some of us are more gullible than others when we read them.
As for whether or not Scherzer or Enright is worth missing out on Haren, it all depends on what AZ thinks of those players, doesn't it? I mean if they think Scherzer is a future HOF'er and will move relatively quickly through the minors, of course they'd keep him. Is that so hard to understand?
Look Grover, my problem with you is not what you believe. People disagree all the time, and it doesn't have to get ugly. But you keep trying to pass of your opinions and rumors as facts, and obviously feel quite threatened by anyone who has the audacity to voice a viewpoint that differs from your own. If you think Beane should have waited to trade Haren, that's fine. You may or may not be right. If you wish he got better prospects in this trade, that's fine too. But do you think that he panicked and took this deal without negotiating for something better? I don't mean this facetiously. Honestly, in your opinion, did Beane panic and make this deal? Also, in your opinion, did Beane acquire the players that he most wanted, or did he settle for players he didn't particularly like? The reason I ask these questions is because from what I know and what I think, Beane doesn't seem like the type to panic. If he makes a rash decision, it seems like he does it out of anger, not fear or worry. And I don't see anything to make him angry right now. Also, I don't see any reason Beane would settle for a deal that excluded the players he most wanted if he believed (like you) that he could get a better offer later. His numerous deadline deals show that he is perfectly content to wait until he can obtain max value in a trade. Also, by letting players leave via FA rather than trade them at the deadline, he has shown other GM's that he won't make a deal just for the sake of making a deal. Given the beliefs I have just stated, and that it seems like fewer and fewer teams are willing to part with top prospects, regardless of how deep their farm systems are, I personally think that Beane did well in this trade and I personally don't believe that he could have done better by waiting.
by ozzman99 on Dec 17, 2007 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I could turn all this on your head
But I'm not going to. I suggest you let it go.
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No you couldn't grover, because
(IMO) he's right and you're wrong. You're saying (above) that whether Charles Thomas was decent or garbage had an appreciable impact on how good the Hudson trade was. Some guys are throw-ins - neither team really wants them, you roll the dice (Cruz) or fill the 40-man roster at a weak position (CF), and what really matters is whether Hudson stays healthy and dominant (which he DIDN'T and then he has done again) and whether Meyer stays healthy and becomes an Andy Pettitte like stud (um...he didn't).
Meanwhile, Beane took this Haren deal in December because he believed that it was the best "deal he could count on ever getting and wasn't willing to risk losing." Right or wrong, the reasoning is sound: Sometimes you wait around and get more, sometimes you wait around and lose a good thing and eventually have to settle for less. I'm not in the "In Billy We Trust" camp - but I am in the "Billy knows more than we do" camp. Because he does.
by Nico on Dec 17, 2007 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Say pretty please and I'll do it.
I will destroy ozzman's arguement piece by piece.
Does Beane know more then me? Sure he does, he has much better access to information then I do. Does that mean he's infallible? Of course not.
Furthermore, Charles Thomas came straight from Atlanta's starting line-up. He was supposed to go straight into Oakland's line-up and we know how that turned out. Beane originally asked for Marcus Giles in the Hudson deal, he wanted a young, starting caliber position player. When Bobby Cox asked to hold on to Giles Beane ended up choosing Thomas. Charles Thomas was also a young, starting caliber position player... supposedly.
Charles Thomas was not meant to be a fill-in or a throw-in. He was supposed to come from Atlanta and do in Oakland what he did for the Braves... start.
You're damn straight Charles Thomas impacts the how good the Hudson trade was for Oakland. You seem to forget that any team interested in Hudson had to be ready to part with a SP prospect close to pitching in the Show or Beane wouldn't even listen to their offer. Meyer was the ante to get into the game for Hudson. With that in mind, you could argue that Meyer was less important to the quality of the Hudson deal then Thomas was.
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
umm
For the record, I never discussed Charles Thomas, Dan Meyer, or the Hudson trade.
by ozzman99 on Dec 17, 2007 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know
I think Nico's trying to pick up your arguement or something like that. FYI, I sent an e-mail to the CGV folks asking them not to give you a strike for your comment above. I don't know how much good it will do, hopefully you'll get nothing more then a warning. If you get a strike please let me know.
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you, Grover
You're a bigger man than I.
Which probably isn't saying much.
by ozzman99 on Dec 17, 2007 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You kidding me?
I love being tall!
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I hate being short
I'm always the last to know when its raining.
by ozzman99 on Dec 17, 2007 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Up side to being downsized
Much less chance of getting struck by lightning.
by grover on Dec 17, 2007 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your answers to
questions 1, 2, 3, and 6.
As for 4 and 5, I don't think those things can be judged with much confidence because it relies on knowledge that is kept secret from us. You've made your own assessment of the situation, and I respect that, but I'm not convinced that waiting on Kuroda would have improved Beane's position.
by iglew on Dec 16, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I had to go back and count which was which
#5... waiting until mid-January would have brought AZ's 2007 draft class into play. They would still have to spend the 1st half of the year in AZ's farm system (and yes, there is some risk in that but no more then if they were pitching in Oakland's system) but they could be named as PTBNLs and delivered in mid-July.
#4 seems pretty straight forward. If the Dodgers and Rockies keep improving themselves then the D'backs have more need to make a move to improve.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, it's a long ways up to your post
that I'm responding to.
On #5. Sure, those new guys come in, but who goes out in the same time? Arizona was making deals. Maybe if we hold out on Haren they trade Gonzalez and/or Anderson to someone else, thus decreasing the pool of prospects available to us. For that matter, maybe they trade Upton or Young, decreasing our ability to push for one of them and "settle for someone else".
The same logic applies to other teams. We both know Arizona isn't the only suitor for Haren. Billy's position is strengthened by knowing what prospects are potentially on offer from other teams. If those prospects get shuffled around in other trades, they're no longer possible currency pushing for Haren. Josh Byrnes is no dummy. He knows what other prospects Billy wants from the Dodgers, Red Sox, Indians, etc. If some of them get taken off the table, they cease to be competing offers, and that strengthens Arizona's hand.
On #4. I don't know exactly what level of inevitability the Kuroda signing had at the time of the trade, but it's a wash regardless. If it were truly certain that the Dodgers were going to sign him, then it's a done deal in terms of pressure on Arizona to get Haren, so it makes no difference whether we wait till the deal is actually announced.
If it's not quite certain, then the same uncertainty applies to both parties. If Byrnes is, say, 95% sure that the Dodgers are going to get Kuroda that puts a certain amount of pressure on him to get Haren. Beane knows this, and he can use that 95% pressure to his advantage now, or he can wait it out to get that extra 5%. But if he waits then he's also running the risk that the Dodgers deal falls through and Kuroda signs somewhere else, at which point he has lost ground instead.
Unless you assume that Beane knows more than Byrnes does, you can't calculate waiting as an advantage for him. The real difference is going to be what other factors might push Beane's bargaining position up or down by waiting a week. That's a complicated question, and I don't think we have nearly enough information to say with any confidence.
by iglew on Dec 16, 2007 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Problem in your arguement
On #5. Sure, those new guys come in, but who goes out in the same time? Arizona was making deals. Maybe if we hold out on Haren they trade Gonzalez and/or Anderson to someone else, thus decreasing the pool of prospects available to us. For that matter, maybe they trade Upton or Young, decreasing our ability to push for one of them and "settle for someone else".
They hadn't even sniffed at Santana, they had little if any interest in Bedard, their line-up is set and we saw how Byrnes feels about closers when he dealt Valverde. Who was left on the market that would have cost the D'backs Gonzalez and Anderson?
Kuroda was going to go to LA or Seattle. If he goes to LA the pressure is obvious. If he goes to Seattle then LA could still be in play for Haren or Blanton. As long as Kuroda does not sign with Arizona Beane risks little ground by waiting.
Like I said, the only thing that seems to make sense is the possibility that Beane was seeing the market soften for one of his other trade chips (my guess is Blanton) and pulled the trigger on this deal so he could work on something else.
by grover on Dec 16, 2007 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
half half with grover
I don't have the same problem with the corner outfielder surplus thing. Cunningham might be able to play CF, Gonzalez might too, Denorfia might come back strong this year, Buck and Swish can to some extent play those positions especially with fast guys at the corners. Not to mention Corey Brown, Desme, Herrera, Mitchell all have shots too. I obviously would have loved Upton, but I don't think we were going to get him for Haren AND Blanton. I think I'll take Carlos Gonzalez over Chris Young, though I acknowledge that many love Young. I also think Parra will be a good hitter, but I am glad that we didn't go for him.
I am on record for saying that I love Anderson. During the CAl League playoffs, we (Visalia) were wanting Anderson to pitch every time (even though he was just coming back from a car accident and was being eased back/showcased?).
SS? I would always love a SS prospect. But I also think that a great fielding SS who can hit a little is probably fine (Petit). I like Josh Horton a lot too. If you can really acquire a great SS prospect, great! But I do not believe as much as many others here that SS is the fatal flaw in our team building blueprint. You can be a great team with a Walt Weiss.
I also like Eveland more than some, and think that the A's experience with Blanton helps in knowing what to emphasize with giant pitchers.
This was a very good haul of talent.
Now I still have issues with the trade. The timing thing in particular seems odd to me as well. I wonder if there were any chance at getting Scherzer, the rumor was no, but I still figure that if you don't get Drew, Young, Upton, then maybe you can raid the rest of the cupboard.
by jakarta on Dec 15, 2007 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Herrera is junk
Brown, Desme and Mitchell are all at least two years away. Now it's possible that Beane could be counting on one of those 3 to be his CF in 2010 but I don't see why he wouldn't want to add a more advanced prospect if given the chance.
I not saying the haul was devoid of talent. And if you were going to trade with the Diamondbacks some of these names needed to be included.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 9:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just saying that the CF thing
isn't as important to me. I think that if you get multiple athletic, fast, good hitting corner OFs, then your worst case scenario is that that you have someone filling in CF who is a little below average, while still having good Offense from the position and average OF defense overall.
There are plenty of reasons for ME to be skeptical of this trade, but the lack of one obvious CF is not one of them. YMMV
by jakarta on Dec 15, 2007 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
gotcha
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK... fair enough... copy
I acknowledge your point. I think you make a reasonable arguement. Si, si pedro.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
gCOTO
by monkeyball on Dec 15, 2007 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Chicken or egg ?
Was Gaudin's surgery announced now because the deal has been made, or did the imminence of an announcement that would weaken Billy's hand drive the apparent haste of the deal ?
by green star oakland on Dec 15, 2007 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
YOUR ALL INSANE!!!!
DUDES!!! WE ARE WINNING THE WS NEXT YEAR!! NO DOUBT!!
We just signed DiNardo and Calero back. NEED I SAY MORE!!! WS HERE WE COME!!
by 0akFoSho on Dec 15, 2007 2:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
"You're" - a contraction of "you are"
IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED, PEOPLE!!!!
That is all.
by Nico on Dec 15, 2007 7:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
These are the days
when you envy Yankee and Red Sox fans, and their ability to be good every year. We're not going to be good again until 2010 at the earliest. I suppose it's possible we never would have been good enough in 2008-2009 if we retained the core of the team, but I just don't believe it.
In any case, it's not a terrible deal, if not a great one, either. I hope we see it payoff in 2010, and give Oakland a proper sendoff.
by jeepers on Dec 15, 2007 7:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ugh, that was terribly written.
I need coffee. Let's try that again:
These are the days when you envy Yankee and Red Sox fans, and how fortunate they are to root for a good team every year. The A's aren't going to be good again until 2010 at the earliest. I suppose it's possible they never would have been good enough to contend in 2008-2009 if we retained the core of the team, but I just don't believe that.
in any case, it's not a terrible deal, if not a great one, either. I hope we see it pay off in 2010, in time to give the city of Oakland a proper goodbye.
by jeepers on Dec 15, 2007 7:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Saves me big money
After about ten years as a season ticket holder I tossed my package. Good seats will be available at discounts for any games I care to see.
If the team can't keep its best player at age 27 there isn't much hope. Wolf might as well tarp off the Plaza level..........What is he going to do with all the money this year from the Yankees? Pocket it?
by Aparicio11 on Dec 15, 2007 7:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Guh
Haren.
Was.
Not.
Making.
Big.
Money.
I swear, if I see another post that implies this has something to do with money, I'm going to have a coronary.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See ya on the other side then
'Cause you know that post is coming.
by grover on Dec 15, 2007 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
$16.25 million over next three years
(presuming D-backs pick up option). That's quite a bit more than the (mostly minor league) salaries for the collection of youngsters will be.
Of course this is about money. It's about it not being worth paying big league salaries to stars for a team which won't contend anyway, as compared to the plus of restocking the system and maybe the team for the future. I'm sure you understand this, but your post above could suggest otherwise to the untutored.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 15, 2007 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Salaries had nothing, but nothing
to do with this on any level.
The team had a talent deficit. Trading one-for-many was an attempt to remedy this talent deficit. High-level talent is usually borderline unobtainable through free agency. Sometimes you have to give up current talent for future talent; money really doesn't even play into it.
To put it in even simpler terms: if I was Brian Sabean and the D-Backs had offered me this package for Lincecum, I would have taken it, even though Lincecum is making MLB minimum and the Giants have a lot of money to spend, because their minor league system desperately needs an infusion of top prospects.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see those as mutually exclusive
Yes, the one-for-many move addresses a talent deficit (created as jeepers and others have said in part by poor recent drafting). But if salaries and profits were truly not an issue at all, then the A's could have been playing the Tiger-style plus-slot draft payment game, as you yourself have suggested.
The present talent for future hopes exchange isn't one you see well-heeled teams make much, and even when they do (like Boston) it's as one strategy among several, including big money extensions and/or FA pickups. The multi-million dollar differences of Haren (plus Blanton Street Embree etc) compared to the minor leaguers to come is going to be largely pure profit into John and Lew's (and Billy's) pockets. To say that's played no part at all in the calculus seems unlikely, even if the other considerations you note are true.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 15, 2007 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but, to engage in a signature metaphor ...
... that's like saying the smell in the bathroom is the motivation for excreting.
by monkeyball on Dec 15, 2007 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's not like that at all
unless you're suggesting your stink is fungible (which may be the case; I hear Jeter's is).
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 15, 2007 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, if you believe that the A's ownership
is so parsimonious (and moronic) that they're willing to sacrifice a substantial asset to save a tiny (by industry standards) amount of cash, there's no way I can convince you otherwise.
It's such a miniscule sum that it makes no logical sense for any MLB team to take it into account at all in a deal like this.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What a load of crap
I've been suggesting rebuilding instead of contention for '08 for months. To ignore that this happens to work well with a profit taking strategy also is what's moronic and makes no logical sense. And since teams' annual operating income last year ranged from the Marlins' + $43 million to NYY's -$25 million (per Forbes, many caveats implied), I'd say that yes, a series of Haren/Blanton/Street/Embree/Ellis/whoever moves add up to a meaningful sum for A's ownership, given that it'll go straight into their wallets as profit.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 15, 2007 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you even reading my posts?
I did not say, imply, or in any way impute to you the idea that the trade was ALL about profiteering.
It's such a miniscule sum that it makes no logical sense for any MLB team to take it into account at all in a deal like this.
See where I said "take it into account at all"? That means "take it into account at all." Not "make the entire decision based on this one factor."
You're saying that you think the money weighed in. No? I'm saying, it damn well better not have, because this sum is f***ing peanuts. It's utterly irrelevant to the operations of a baseball team.
Haren is such a mind-bogglingly good deal that it would be absolute idiocy to get rid of his contract on an even partially monetary basis. At any time.
Not to mention, "profit taking" is stupid for an MLB franchise. The returns on investment have been insanely good for the last 10 years. It makes so much more sense to invest the money in the business operations.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs