The Sporting News says we bought the farm
by may7 on Dec 14, 2007 8:57 PM PST
Email
PrintIn a good way. The writer seems really enthusiastic about this trade and seems to think that the A's received more than an adequate return. However, I think as Baseballgirl pointed out, this crop may peak later than the Barton/ Suzuki generation. Maybe Beane is hoping that the A's won't have to be cheapskates anymore by that point and can actually retain a few of these guys. Next year, however, will be as ugly as the post-Raiders Coliseum. However, I'm old enough to recall the 1986-7 seasons, which was pretty ugly, but featured Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire and mid-season pick up and Phillies cast-off Dave Stewart and Cubs cast-off Dennis Eckersley. So maybe there is hope on the horizon.
Also, sorry about adding the millionth Danny Haren centered blog, but what else are we supposed to talk about today? Steroids? Puh-leez!!
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Uh
No offense, but "the Barton-Suzuki generation" will be A's from 2008 to 2013.
No prospect in all of minor league baseball, not even Angel Villalona, is projected to take until 2014 to make a major impact.
It will be too late for the '04s, though (except for Swish with his long-term deal).
Suddenly a wide variety of players are on the block: Kotsay, Crosby, Ellis, DJ, Harden, Calero, Duke, Gaudin, Street, Blanton, Embree...
Not all of those are going this offseason, of course. Many of them have moderate to severe health questions dogging them. But I doubt many of them will be part of the next contending club, which saddens me.
I think what he meant ...
is that these new guys don't profile as the kind of players who will step in and perform at near peak levels from the day they're called up, like Buck, Swish and, perhaps, Suzuki ... we'll get, maybe, four cheap/productive years out of them instead of six.
scout.com
has carlos gonzalez as the #3 prospect overall after hughes and bailey?? that can't be right... can it?
http://diamondbacks.scout.com/a.z?s=...
Ahead of
Adenhart, Garza, Maybin, A. Jones...Kewl...
adenhart
i was disappointed with the milb.com list where adenhart was 18th, two places ahead of jake mcgee. i know he was young for the league, but he didn't strike out too too many and his BAA was .275. i don't know what his babip or anything was...but still.
oh and he's an angel. overrated. ;)
Those are a year old ...
it has Kevin Mellilo, Javier Herrera and Landon Powell as our top three prospects.
And stupid
Melillo, Herrera, and Powell were never our top 3 prospects.
by BlameChannel53 on Dec 15, 2007 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
No, they were 6, 7, 8 ...
but the first five hadn't been born yet ...
Haren had a long term deal...
...and we see how far that got him.
Plus, if recent trend indicate, the Barton/Suzuki generation won't last beyond '10, if that long. Then, they'll be traded for prospects.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Kinda.
my two cents
As I hear comparisons to the Mulder and Hudson trades, I recall my reactions to those trades at the time. I preface this by saying that I'm lukewarm about the Haren deal and will miss him terribly, but I think quantity and youth are smarts ways to go, given the A's current system from the low minors through the majors. that said...
The Hudson trade looked darn good to me when it happened... I wasn't happy... Huddy was my favorite... but to get a top LHP starter prospect from the Braves, like Meyer... and a former top prospect who maybe just needed a change of scenery (Cruz) and a young, rising solid CF prospect with great defense and speed (two buck chuck) -- looked like good value. In the end... total duds. BUST!
Alternately, I remember being out at a bar with a big group of friends back east, when I saw the espn ticker go by saying Mulder had been traded for Haren and two guys I'd never heard of!!?!?! I literally fell to the floor in pain! My buddies asked me what was wrong and I said I couldn't bear to talk about it... but my A's had just traded our stud LHP who was signed cheaply for TWO more years -- for 3 nobodies! Well... as it turns out... all three have been major contributers... and I was wrong.
So now we have one Barton-esque prospect (though older and more proven) in Gonzales... and a few young LHP and power hitters to infuse our barren minor league system. The Diamondbacks do have one of the best minor league systems in baseball... so to get 3 of their top 10 prospects and a few other good prospects is way better than any deal I heard about from the Mets, Indians or Yankees... the Dodgers are the only team that realistically could've made a better offer (Kershaw, Kemp and change), but they were/are clearly unwilling to do so... and I think will (wisely) still hold on to those guys rather than go after Bedard.
I was shocked
but once I breathed I saw that Beane had traded Mulder for two major league-ready pitchers, one starter and one reliever. I had been impressed by Haren in the postseason, and was a fan of Calero's for years. (Knew nothing about Barton.) I also recognized Mulder's injury history and well remembered the nightmare of the second half of his 2004 season.
In Haren's case, I am seeing a young healthy ace -- signed far more cheaply than even Mulder was -- traded for not even one major league ready player, and at least 3 (maybe four) who are not even ready for AAA. Also, the A's netted not a single one of Arizona's top prospects (the ones they want to keep, since Gonzalez has been widely reported as being offered in various trade rumors). I'm talking Young, Upton, Scherzer.
In the Marlins-Tigers blockbuster you could really say that the Tigers emptied the farm. Interesting that they refused to send Maybin and Miller to the A's for Haren (now that would have been a f'ng A trade for Oakland). Cleveland might have given up some prospect pitchers but no young MLB ready player such as Cabrera.
I think Beane saw that Haren couldn't get as much as he wanted -- and other teams sensed how much Beane wanted to trade his top pitcher.
Beware of Beane (and Forst) when he says he feels no sense of urgency. I remember that line with Hudson. Now at least he's come out and said the rebuilding of the organization is in full swing.
I'm not sure Beane's determination
to move Haren was that big a factor in what he was offered. I mean, everyone knew that the Marlins were going to trade Cabrera, and Willis has been rumored to be on the market for over a year -- but they still got a huge haul for those two.
what I meant was that teams
may have guessed that Beane was going to go in the direction of a major rebuild, rather than just staying with the team if he couldn't get the really top and/or MLB ready prospects that he was saying he wanted. Haren was clearly the biggest trade chip that the A's had.
No team was willing to include one of their "untouchables" -- and when Beane saw the results of the health conclave, he blinked first on the Arizona trade offer.
The Tigers weren't willing to trade Maybin/Miller to the A's for Haren, but they were (plus others) to the Marlins for Cabrera and Willis.
I think that means
It could also have to do with the fit between the 2 teams needs/available players.
Haren has had 1 tremendous 1/2 season and has been very good in the majors outside of that. Cabrera looks like a future Hall of Famer.
I think Cabrera got more because he's better than Haren.
so do I
I was referring more to the issue of why teams wouldn't blink and include any of their "untouchables" for Haren. I think they guessed (correctly) that Beane would do the major rebuild instead of keeping the team together to "go for it" in 2008
I disagree ... well, yes and no ...
I definitely disagree with the idea that the Marlins got more for Cabrera than we did for Haren.
The big two in that trade MAY be better (though that's far from a certainty) but all six of the players the A's got for Haren are legit prospects, whereas the back four guys the Marlins got project as little more than organizational filler.
Cabrera should definitely be viewed as the better player -- but not necessarily the better investment. Haren is under contract for three years at $16.25m. Cabrera is under team control for only two years of arbitration, which are likely to cost the Tigers at least $22m.
I think if we had traded Hudson
for Haren, people would be praising the Hudson deal - remember that Hudson had a recurring injury problem and had just one year left on his contract.
And that's exactly what Beane did. Dan Meyer was major league ready - he was supposed to be the A's #5 starter in 2005 - and he projected every bit as highly as Haren. He got injured; it happens.
As for the D-Backs deal, maybe the reason Beane didn't get a major-league ready pitcher is that he felt the D-Backs' top AAA pitchers were like his own - Windsor, Komine, etc. Maybe he felt the 19-20 year olds were the only prizes and that he'd rather have a Cahill and a Simmons than a Windsor and a Komine. I'm down with that.
I enjoy that optimism but along with it you
remind us how even a can't miss prospect like Meyer,
...can drop completely off the boards.
Haren went right to the MLB rotation. I'd feel a lot better if we could point at a SP here that projects as a legit #3 by the end of 2008.
We can not put anyone in this trade on the 25-man roster as an everyday starter as of today.
Things happen to the A's young players. The organization is littered with the flawed careers and bodies of players that came with high expectations.
...this isn't my first B-B-Q.
Where are the skilled players here? 1B? LF? GB starters/relievers?
We improved on CFer Denorfia? How hard can that be?
Everyone seems to point at Cahill & Simmons' arrivals. Yeah, that has been a given for awhile now, ...only now their arrivals won't overlap Haren's duration as the A's #1 starter on an established rotation.
Keep convincing me. So far, I see owners worth $3-5 billion playing paupers so they can alienate the community they joined 40 years ago.
Clap, clap, clap.
by A s Eh on Dec 15, 2007 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree
Eveland is not only going to be on the 25-man, he basically has to be. Partly because the A's have no starting pitchers anymore, and partly because he's out of options.
by the way, while the bloggers over at
MLB trade rumors think the Diamondbacks got the best of the deal, some Diamondbacks bloggers think their team gave up way too much for Haren.
The whole premise of that second article seems...
wrong to me. The author mentions the prospects once and goes on to merely compare Dontrelle and Danny. The author feels the DBacks trade is bad only in relation to the Marlins one. However, he does not discuss the merits of Miller or Maybin compared to Gonzalez. He merely says that six prospects equals six prospects. Somehow, I don't think that's true. The Marlins package IS much better. I'm reluctant to buy that DTrain's value is the same as Haren's, but to discuss nothing on the comparison of prospects strikes me as very strange from a prospect site.
The second article was crap
They compared Haren and Willis via W/L record and ERA.
are they even comparable just based on that?
But the Marlins package isN'T much better ...
Maybin and Miller may be slightly more valuable than Gonzalez and Anderson -- but the A's got four more real prospects to go with the top pieces, while the Marlins got nothing of any real consequence.
well said
baseball is a very funny game. At this time last year who would have thought Suzuki would be the starter late in the year, and who would have thought he would do so well. I figured he had no chance to be a major league player, but much to my surprise he was much better than I would have guessed. There are players in the A's system right now who have been written off, but who will become solid players in the major leagues, count on it, that is the way the game goes. Like you I thought Cruz was going to be great, but instead he had to go to the NL to have any success. I have not written off Meyer yet, sometimes it takes time from an injury, happens every year. Of course some of these players the A's got yesterday will never get a sniff of the majors, but others probably will. I for one am happy with the trade, hated to lose Haren, but fun for the future.
by china bob on Dec 15, 2007 12:21 PM PST up reply actions
The loss of Haren is very saddening
And as such, I want to put some time between when I heard about this trade and when I evaluate it.
However, I will say this: when I heard rumors for Haren, I was expecting for the deal to occur at least one top prospect who was very close to making the majors. I have a lot more faith in a of prospect who is young and in AAA than I do in a couple of prospects who are just starting in AA, even if the player in AA is slightly more talented and slightly favored by scouts. Too much can happen in between AA and the majors. For that reason, I wanted a Chris Young, a Justin Upton, a Stephen Drew, a Matt Kemp or a Clayton Kershaw. I had tons of doubt any of those names would be available and as such I had tons of doubt Haren would be moved.
The other thing that shocked me about this trade is the timing. Without Haren, I don't think we can contend next year and I think that makes a couple of our players unnecessary. Blanton is a key example. He won't be around when we are contending again. Now, any potential suitors will now Beane will be strongly trying to trade him. It just doesn't seem like the best way to maximize value. But if we are conducting a fire sale, let's find the next Hanley Ramirez (Brandon Wood somehow? please?) even though everyone knows we are in full rebuilding mode.
Eh, why do we HAVE to trade them?
Now, any potential suitors will now Beane will be strongly trying to trade him. It just doesn't seem like the best way to maximize value.
I know why we WANT to trade Blanton, Street, et al but at the same time, it's not a necessity. If the offers aren't good enough, sign him to a one year deal (1st arb year, should be about $2.5-$3M,) and wait until summer. You don't think a steady middle-of-the-rotation guy won't command some value once the trade deadline starts creeping up?
The questions to answer are these:
Is there a chance Haren can get better than he was in 2007?
Is there a chance Haren could be worse than he was in 2007?
Which is more likely?
If the answers to those questions are yes, yes, and the latter, then it was right to trade him now.
As perhaps Rich Harden demonstrates.
...where he can bat against the Big 3! n/t
If 2008 is 1986, I'll be delighted.
I remember 1986. It was a heckuva lot of fun. I was living in Boston at the time and caught Dave Stewart's first start in an A's uniform, on July 7, when he (and nearly-as-new A's manager Tony LaRussa) beat noted steroid abuser Roger Clemens 6-4. Both noted steroid abuser Jose Canseco and noted female reporter abuser Dave Kingman hit monster homers for Oakland. It was, in many more ways than any of us knew, the start of something very big. We were in last place at the time, but that night in the Fenway bleachers, with the A's beating the best pitcher in baseball, I hardly cared.
Unfortunately, there's no guarantee whatsoever that 2008 will be 1986, even if we suck.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 16, 2007 9:20 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
