Haren To The Diamondbacks - Nico's Thoughts
by Nico
on Dec 14, 2007 6:45 PM PST
in News
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
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
0 recs
that's what i was trying to say above
by xbhaskarx on
Dec 16, 2007 10:58 AM PST
up
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 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
0 recs
Good
at times like this Liquor can be your friend.
by IM4Oakgal on
Dec 14, 2007 7:12 PM PST
up
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
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
0 recs
At least
there is still some energy in Oakland sports.
by Shippee33 on
Dec 14, 2007 7:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
Warrios
Those are really good with some milk and a cut-up banana.
by Nick on
Dec 14, 2007 7:45 PM PST
up
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
0 recs
You too
and cheers. Here's to rebuilding ! Like it or not!
by IM4Oakgal on
Dec 14, 2007 7:46 PM PST
up
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 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 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 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 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
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
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
0 recs
No problemo
by mrod on
Dec 18, 2007 7:11 PM PST
up
0 recs
Intelligent writing sounds awesome -
I'll try it sometime!
by Nico on
Dec 18, 2007 10:13 PM PST
up
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 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
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
0 recs
Tobacco and alcohol good,
marijuana EVIL.
Baaaaaaaaaa.
by Nico on
Dec 14, 2007 7:25 PM PST
up
0 recs
That about
by Shippee33 on
Dec 14, 2007 7:36 PM PST
up
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
0 recs
Res Ipsa Liquor, more like
by PaulThomas on
Dec 14, 2007 10:11 PM PST
up
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 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
0 recs
Whoa. Fearless in the zone, Dude.
by iglew on Dec 14, 2007 7:28 PM PST 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 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....