Open non-Bonds roster personnel thread
by monkeyball on Dec 8, 2007 8:33 AM PST
in News
Email
PrintSome random thoughts for a chilly (boy, have I wussed out since I left Vermont) Saturday morning:
- Brandon Inge wants out of Detroit, and the Tigers are saying they'll accomodate his request. Inge has 3 years and $19M left on his contract. He had a down year with the bat (ok, he reverted to his more likely true perf level), but he offers exceptional defense, and the Tigers, as stacked as they are and having publicly announced their willingness to trade him and assume some of his salary (I read "would be reluctant to" as a negotiating point), would probably not want too much for him. He'd likely outperform Hannahan at the plate and in the field -- and, heck, could be the backup-backup C. Obviously, Inge would be a "going for it in '08" complementary move.
- Stewart and Piazza declined arb. (Whew!) Had we already known that Beane actually did have a trade of Piazza to MN lined up, and honored Piazza's request to not go through with it? Piazza's declined arb seems like fair repayment.
- Fun ultraCustean batting line from '07: Russell Branyan .196/.320/.423 with 10 HR in 163 ABs. I'm not saying that he'd necessarily be of much use (we certainly wouldn't need Hannahan, Inge, and Branyan), but as you can tell from this and previous posts, I don't have much confidence regarding Chavez' status heading into '08.
- Several AN'ers (including, IIRC, mikeA and PaulThomas) have suggested taking a flyer on Bartolo Colon on a one-year make-good deal. Any takers?
217 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd say no to Inge only because
agreed
though, like grover, i feel like Branyan might be a nice filler piece if Chavez suffers a set back in rehab. i liked him as an insurance option going into '06.
eh
You know how the recent A's have been at their worst when their overall OBP tendencies lead them to have guys at first and second with one out every inning, but those guys are too often left stranded on base (sometimes after an additional walk/weak single in Kendall's case on top of that)? I feel like fielding a lineup with Cust and Branyan might be like that, definitely not because those guys lack the ability to drive guys in with extra-base hits, but because they're both Three True Outcome players to the max. Now, so is Adam Dunn, and I would welcome him here anytime, but Branyan isn't Adam Dunn, and at the age of what, 29 (guessing), never will be. I don't think Branyan would complement Cust well...not that those are the only two guys in the lineup, but I think having the better of the two is enough, in this case.
just took a look at his stats
his K rate went up alot, while his walk rate remained quite low. He got hit by pitches 11 times, his career high. Yeah, I agree his 2006 slugging looks like an anomaly (wonder about injuries, just to give him the benefit of the doubt).
I like that he bats RH and is versatile on defense.
Yeah...
when I sort-of criticized Inge after the Cabrera trade by implying he might not even have a spot on the Tigers' roster at this point (though apparently DET feels the same way, heh), I was informed he was a great 3B defender. I may have been selling him short defensively, but I still view him as, ideally, a utlity player above anything else. And you don't want to pay guys like that $19 million over 3 years. Especially with capable backups like Murphy and Hannahan already on the roster.
Forget Colon
He is over the hill.
Sign Bonds and Gagne.
by SwisherSweet on Dec 8, 2007 8:39 AM PST reply actions
So much for Gagne...
or the possibility of trading Street to the Brewers for that matter, not that that was ever that likely anyway, as it looks like Gagne is headed to Milwaukee.
No Inge in sight
No way would I want to trade for Inge who has a 3 year 24 million contract. The guy is good defensively but is not a great hitter. There is a guy out there who would be perfect for the A's as a 4th outfielder he is Kevin Mench. Always kills lefties and was designated for assignment by the brewers. Stewart days are numbered since he declined arbitation and wants to wait for a better offer. My bet is Piazza retires.
Colon would be a good chance but from what I read a few teams are making offers so heis pay may jump up there. Beane quote on Barry in todays paper basicly spounds like he is saying the rumor is unfounded about Bonds playing for the A's which to me is a good thing. Bonds will end up in Texas is my best guess for the money.
read Rotoworld's last sentence on the sidebar...
of the front page...something to the effect of "Well, this is certainly not an outright denial of interest." Beane basically scoffed at the specific (overhyped} rumor, as he's inclined to do, but, as Rotoworld said, didn't really say anything about the likelihood of a Bonds signing.
Colon
Last I read he was looking for more than a 1 year deal, maybe something like what Mulder got from St. Louis (2 years/$11.5 million with a 3rd year, $11 milion club option/$1.5 milion buyout).
He was pitching at the end of last season but he's never been known for his work habits. 35 in May, I'd hesitate to sign him for 2 years.
Piazza and Minny.
We knew that the Twins were interested in Mike last year and there was a story that came out saying Piazza did not want to leave the West Coast, even for half a season. It mentioned a gentleman's agreement between Beane and Piazza that would allow Mike a Yay/Nay vote on getting traded.
I don't like Inge at 3/19 but I could see taking a flier on Branyan if Chavy is slow in ST. We could use him like we did Todd Walker last year, when the need was gone he goes away.
Colon
Only at the very end of the season was he pitching...in his 3 September starts he posted a sub-4 ERA...after seeing what he's done the last two years, I'm not so sure I'd want to bid against Minaya (likely) for the guy. This isn't Bonds where there's little outside interest...I could see many other teams nevertheless being interested in Colon, based purely on reputation.
Inge
Should be a decent pick-up for somebody, but he doesn't seem like a good fit for our team's needs. Maybe if it were a one-year contract, but it's not.
Sounds like I'm not as pessimistic as you about Chavez. I figure him about 50-50 to turn out pretty good next year. ("Pretty good" = not the superstar once projected but still better than average for starting 3B.) Even this year he wasn't as bad as he's often made out to be; he had an off year but he wasn't horrific like Kendall or Crosby.
Better fit for the Gnats
They like good defensive 3B-men with crappy OBPs and K/BB ratios. Inge is basically Pedro Feliz, two years younger, with a three-year contract.
Inge isn't great,
He is also not Pedro Feliz.
Inge OPS+ last 4 years: 109, 100, 98, 80. I used the last 4 years because 2004 was the 1st year he was shifted away from catcher.
Feliz last 4 years: 100, 85, 79, 81.
Feliz refuses to take a walk. Inge will take walks, but struggles to make contact with his bat.
They're both great defenders.
If he can return to his level of performance
in 2004, 2005 or 2006, he is actually a pretty good player, signed to a pretty good contract. In 2004-2006, he was about 15 runs above average.
My first thought was the Giants, as they
need a 3B and his contract isn't unreasonable.
Plus, they've got spare young bullpen arms to trade and I think the bullpen is exactly what Detroit will be targeting in trade talks. Well, it SHOULD be anyway!
I thought about the Phillies, but I just don't see them matching up well with the Tigers.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 8, 2007 1:34 PM PST up reply actions
Phillies would make more sense...
if they could make a deal work. Inge isn't a guy to bring into a team that has about 22 needs (I'll give Cain, Lincecum, and Sanchez a free pass...maybe 21 if Zito can do something this year...he really shouldn't be a "maybe" at that price, that's for sure)...he's a guy for a team like the Phillies, a team with good enough offense elsewhere and an opening at 3B. They had David Bell for so long there, when's the last time they had a real third baseman? Mike Schmidt?
I agree completely that the Phillies would make
Maybe though Detroit would take a couple decent younger prospects with reasonable upside, just to start re-stocking their system since they just took a big ol' bite out of it to land Cabrera and Willis...
I still think the Giants match up better as a trading partner because they can give Detroit MLB-ready relief pitching.
We'll see what happens, but whatever happens I doubt very much it'll involve the A's.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 9, 2007 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
Inge
he could be a great pick up for a lot of teams. the Phillies, Braves, Cardinals, Drays, Giants, and Twins could use him.
the White Sox also come to mind (if they can shed Crede).
If the Sox picked up Inge,
I could see the A's adding Crede, if Chavy isn't recovering well and the A's are thinking "we need a better 3B option for the coming year(s). I was just talking to the White Sox' TV announcers and they seemed to think pretty highly of Crede - something about best player, human being, diplomat, concert violinist, surgeon, fabric designer and carbon-based form ever.
Phillies yes,
He would be great for them, considering how horrible 3b was for them.
Braves? Uh no. With Chipper, Kelly Johnson, Yunel Escobar and Brent Lillibridge, the Braves don't have openings at 3b, 2b, SS.
In an OF corner, his bat is too big a liability. Maybe he can be average defensively in CF. But given his contract, he needs to be more than a "maybe" for the Braves.
The White Sox are supposedly tabbing Josh Fields as the successor to Crede.
DRays have Longoria.
oh yeah, Longoria slipped my mind
and i didn't know the Sox were ready to let Fields win the job.
i still think Inge could be useful for the Braves. Chipper should be in the outfield at this point in his career. it'll give them flexibility with Diaz/Francoeur.
They tried to move Chipper
to the OF in 2002 and 2003, when they signed Vinny Castilla. Playing in the OF was blamed by Braves fans / followers for his hamstring injury in 2004. Whether this is true, is unknown. There were also indications that he was unhappy with the move.
Also, there are no indications that he needs to be moved. Actually, his defense appears to have gotten slightly better, strange though that seems to be.
I seriously doubt the Braves are going to move their franchise player to another position for Brandon Inge. ARod, yes. Even if they do move Chipper, it's seriously doubtful why they would want to replace him with Inge, instead of with one of KJ, Yunel or Lillibridge, given Inge's contract.
KW has stated repeatedly that Fields will not be moving to the OF.
Coco Crisp
I haven't been able to follow all the conversations like I did earlier this week, but does anyone have thoughts on the A's acquiring Coco Crisp. That one, unlike most of the CF rumors, seems plausible to me.
Coco is on A's list
According to the boston globe Crisp has been in talks with the A's but also in talks with a few teams. If he is not in the santana trade then the resox want acouple of propects for him which may be out of the A's range.
Not likely to happen
Epstein is asking for far tooo much for all of his players.
Maybe his leverage with Crisp will drop though, now that his agent basically came out and demanded that either Ellsbury or he be traded.
To me the problem is that
the A's already have not one but two CFers, one of whom is a big sunk cost and not very moveable right now, the other of whom is under cheap contract control for a long time and hasn't disproven that he can be as good or better than Crisp. So if you acquired Crisp, then what?
Sunk cost
As far as I'm concerned Kotsay doesn't exist except as a salary liability.
If both Denorfia and Crisp turn out good, well, that's a fine problem to have.
If Kotsay's a sunk cost
Why not just let him go?
I was going to make a comment about cement shoes and the Bay but that seemed a little harsh.
I think because letting him go right now
means getting nothing for sure, whereas keeping him right now means you don't lose anything (he's not going 0/4 right now) while seeing if Denorfia wakes up in January and goes, "Ow!" or a team calls in mid-March saying "Can you believe our starting CFer broke his ankle today? BTW, we're interested in Kotsay," or whatever else can happen on any given day that changes things.
I wasn't really thinking about dumping him now
It wouldn't hurt anything to give him a chance during ST to prove himself healthy and maybe even productive again. But if he didn't show marked improvment I might not want him on the A's 40 man roster anymore.
Beane may agree
Denorfia has so much on Kotsay - likelier return to heath, age, salary, years under contract control. Basically everything rational.
but did he pitch in college?
Actually, given that he played in D-III
it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he did.
Frequently at small schools, the best athlete is a pitcher/shortstop or a pitcher/center fielder.
Not just any college,
Cal State Fullerton. That's what Kotsay has on Denorfia.
whatever Denorfia has on Kotsay can't match ...
... whatever it is/was that Kotsay, Kendall, Crosby, and Larry Davis have on Beane.
Not quite
By keeping him right now you lose a roster spot. That's not nothing.
Are we allowed to send him to Sacramento? I mean can we at all? I know another team would be allowed to take him off waivers, but I have no problem with that.
Waivers
That team would have to take on his contract, right? That would be ideal if far-fetched, heh.
No
Kotsay has more than enough MLB service time to refuse a minor league assignment (either an option or an outright), keep his salary, and become a free agent. Waiving Kotsay would be tantamount to releasing him, and the only thing it would save Oakland is the league minimum salary when he signs with another club.
It might well be the correct move anyway. The team is in a complete catch-22 with Kotsay. He has a no-trade clause, so they can't trade him to be some contender's fifth outfielder, or ship him off to Siber...er, I mean, Kansas City. He has veteran privileges, so they can't send him to the minors. The team may simply have to end up releasing him. Pretty depressing.
according to ESPN at the time Kotsay's
what I find even more depressing ...
... is the apparent unlikeliness of Beane actually pulling the lever on that trap door.
I dunno
Given the fact that he's now gone two seasons with declining productivity on both offense and defense, and his contract is expiring soon, I would be surprised if the A's hang on to him unless he shows he's still got something in spring. Sure, Beane likes him, but there's only so many pop-ups to short left field that anyone can see before he loses his mind.
yeah, but using that rational argument ...
... (with which I totally agree), Beane probably wouldn't have acquired Kotsay in the first place; or would have asked for/accepted less for trade offers pre-extension; or wouldn't have signed the extension; or would have shopped him after the extension; or would have had Macha/Geren sit his ass more often; or would have waived him already.
It's the pattern of behavior by Beane that leads me to doubt we'll see him waive Kotsay.
A trade that should go down
Here is a trade that should go down but is unlikely since the giants hate the A's. Dan Johnson for Kevin Corriea. Why it works the giants have no 1stbaseman and nobody on the market is as good as Johnson. Corriea could be the A's long man out of the bullpen. Sabean over values his players so the trade is unlikely even though Johnson would instantly one of the better hitters on the giants.
... no, actually, Correia is better than DJ
which is why that won't go down.
I want to see the A's just deal DJ for a Giants farmhand. Sabean doesn't respect them anyway.
But I don't see the A's needing a long-man
They have a Rule-5 "keep him or return him" pitcher now, plus Dan Meyer is out of options, plus DiNardo is currently still in the mix. Meanwhile, Street, Brown, and Casilla (and at the moment Calero) give you plenty of right-handed arms with just as much upside/track record as Correia. You'd be adding Correia to replace Calero, and/or DiNardo, and/or Casilla - is this enough value for your league-average hitting 1Bman?
Err
the guy who traded Nathan, Liriano and Bonser for Pierzynski overvalues his players? The guy who traded Accardo for Hillenbrand overvalues his players?
We don't know how seriously
Sabean pondered Lincecum for Rios. Any more than Beane pondered dealing Haren. Lots of talk, lots of listening, lots of rumors. 8% of all of it accurately reflecting reality.
actually in this case
there seems to be a fair amount of information. just yesterday i heard sabean on the radio talking about lincecum for rios. and there are very specific reports that sabean is for it but others in the front office are opposed.
on the other side there are reports that he refused to trade lowry for milledge.
but i definitely wouldn't say sabean overvalues his players as a rule.
Re: Inge
Inge is just not a quality hitter, guys. The last thing we need is another Crosby-like lineup hole. Yes, he has some right-handed power, but that's ALL he has. He has no ability to hit for average or work walks. Throw in that horrific albatross contract, and it's a no-go. Detroit is going to have real problems moving him for more than a bag of baseballs. And as noted, Hannahan is likely to perform as well or better for much cheaper anyway.
If the A's dealt Chavez and somehow managed not to get LaRoche back (don't ask me how this would actually go down), I could see using Inge and Hannahan as a platoon. But the A's already have a platoon option with Murphy.
I think the question with Colon is: how much guaranteed money is too much? I'd draw the line at about the $10 million mark. But if the team is trying all-out to compete, it could go higher.
Something that strikes me as funny
So far in this thread we've seen Epstein and Sabean accused of "over-valuing" their players.
Why don't we ever accuse Beane of doing the same?
Beane seems to be holding out for a deal on Haren or Blanton that the market will not bear. Isn't that textbook over-valuing?
But he's OUR guy
I'm sure other teams say that
or they might be saying the Beane really has not intention of trading Haren or Blanton, that he's just trying to see which names come up for possible trade availability.
This isn't about
trading or not trading Blanton or Haren. They're just the latest examples. It is very rare to see anyone on AN accuse Beane of over valuing his players, especially when we're talking trade talk.
it's more that...
he gets players that are undervalued by the rest of the league, so if the time comes to seek a trade, or consider a trade, it only makes sense that his opinion of them is higher than the rest of the league's opinions...that's how he was able to get these guys in the first place.
Now, there are a couple homegrown exceptions to this general rule...Crosby being the most noteworthy example. I also think he has shown an inclination to overvalue guys that once were valuable, but no longer are (K&K). But some of that might be attributable to his understanding of the need for large sample sizes...the practical effect of this, though, can be too much patience with clearly declining veterans or clearly stagnant young players.
i don't know about that
also, there's the waiting to see what the angels do before deciding whether to buy or sell thing, and the waiting to see if the rest of the team is healthy thing...
You're missing my point
This isn't about trading or not trading Haren or Blanton.
You almost never hear Beane accused of over valuing his players, not by the voices on AN anyways. Theo Epstein just won a his 2nd WS title and 5 weeks later people accuse him of over valuing his players. Beane gets a pass.
every GM, no matter how good
overvalues certain players and undervalues others.
that might even be a tautological statement, ask mikeA or paulthomas...
But enough about Kendall and Kotsay
<hostile reaction>
So why don't we ever call Beane on it?
Just to use Haren as an example, the market has not been willing to pay Beane's asking price. Sure, he wants to wait until Santana's dealt but Johan is still wearing a Twins jersey. Minnesota has (thus far) over valued Santana's worth on the market.
But you don't hear anyone on AN say Beane needs to get realistic and lower his asking price.
I could do it, but I generate enough hostility without trying to take a home run swing.
see the comment immediately above yours
(nico's)
That's slightly different
As I clarified to OaklandSi, I'm mainly referring to trade discussions. But let's think about Kendall for a minute. When he came to Oakland there was almost unanimous support for the move.
I need to acknowledge that Beane has received a lot of flak from AN re: his FA purchases. But when we start talking about trades you never hear anyone say that Beane has placed too high a price on his talent.
Which strikes me as amusing.
most ANers may have liked the Kendall deal
I most definitely and quite "vocally" (in writing, anyway) questioned it. No, not claiming any clairvoyance -- I was concerned that his offensive production was on the way down due to age, injuries, huge amount of games catching, and changing to the AL. I also felt that Beane could have traded both Redman and Rhodes -- both lefties -- in other, smaller deals. But Beane often covets a player for a long time (Kendall was one, Durazo another), and eventually gets his man. In Kendall's case, I thought he was paying for past perfomance (something he has said he wants to avoid). Had he gotten Kendall a few years earlier it might have been a better deal -- of course Kendall might also have cost more.
well
i haven't seen any "Lowry for Milledge" type offers flying about from other teams that Beane has refused. i'm trying to think of good offers he has refused for players that have been public... help me out here.
Afraid I can only offer the best rumored packages
Blanton didn't get dealt because the A's were hung up on Ivan De Jesus. Beane supposedly had a couple top prospects in hand when that fell apart.
Yankees were supposedly offering Hughes for Kotsay way back before Kots' extension.
Off the top of my head.
last year
i don't remember hughes for kotsay, but that is obviously terrible if true.
and when i say
Milledge and Heilman alone wasn't enough
The Mets side was lacking a suitable 3rd player.
Yeah, Heilman and Milledge...
but wasn't Maine's name getting mentioned sometimes, too? That might have just been baseless wishing by us, not even supported by the least credible of NY Post rumors, but I seem to remember his name being brought up.
Kotsay's extension was signed in 2004?
right?
it's really tough to work out a good trade during the season by 2 clubs in contention. and the A's were in it down to the wire. it would have been difficult to trade your 3rd best hitter (at that point) for even a first round pick. maybe if we knew the full extent of the offer it would be a clearer mistake, but Kotsay for Hughes at that point probably gives up on contention that season.
re Blanton: unless they had LaRoche/Kershaw in the Blanton deal, i don't know that Beane was overplaying his hand.
I don't think anyone gets Kershaw!
I don't know all the details to the Blanton/Dodgers saga but the deal died when the A's got everything they wanted except a SS in high-A.
right
but, in the Blanton case, it's probably because they value DeJesus so highly, not Blanton. otherwise, a deal probably gets made.
then again, he could have just been using DeJesus as an excuse... who knows.
so if they weren't gonna get Kershaw or Billingsley or Loney (or so i'm inclined to believe)... how could have the package been worth it?
but you don't know who else was involved
I seriously doubt it was two top prospects.
2005, not 2004
according to the NY Post (via Sports Illustrated) the A's asked for Hughes and Duncan but the Yankees were resisting:
Yankees owner George Steinbrenner's desire to add blood-and-guts outfielder Mark Kotsay has run into a couple of roadblocks. One, the A's and Kotsay are talking about a two-year extension. Two, the Cubs, who have better prospects to offer than the Yankees, who won't budge on No. 1 pitching prospect Philip Hughes. In early discussions with the Yankees, the A's wanted Hughes and infielder Eric Duncan for Kotsay but were described as being flexible.
-- New York Post
ah, thanks
that would have been a much better season to move Kotsay, though the team probably had a better season overall. Beane probably could have sold high on Kotsay's reputation at that point, inserted Byrnes in CF and still be in contention.
kotsay-hughes
"Yankees were supposedly offering Hughes for Kotsay way back before Kots' extension."
vs
"...the Yankees, who won't budge on No. 1 pitching prospect Philip Hughes. In early discussions with the Yankees, the A's wanted Hughes and infielder Eric Duncan for Kotsay but were described as being flexible."
so the a's made the offer (and were flexible), not the yankees, and the yankees were unwilling to give up hughes.
It's been a few years
But in the end, I'm pretty sure the Yankees did agree to part with Hughes. I think Duncan was out of the deal at the time.
with a news article on one side
but still, obviously unfortunate if true.
besides blog-talk, I saw Gammons and Rosenthal
mention it in late June 2005, although Rosenthal heavily qualified the possibility that the Yankees might include Hughes (he also mentioned that at the time Hughes was sidelined with shoulder inflammation).
On the other hand, Slusser had the A's asking price for Kotsay as more than just Hughes and Duncan:
Oakland discussed a deal with the Yankees for Kotsay, but the asking price of New York second baseman Robinson Cano and prospects Eric Duncan and Philip Hughes was too steep, according to one major-league source.
I was looking for articles
I came across a bunch of stuff from July 2005 that said the A's were asking for Cano, Duncan and Hughes for Kotsay. Couldn't find anything that said the Yank's agreed to part with Hughes but I did quit after half an hour.
You know what's amusing?
That you're the person who most vocally criticized the Hudson trade, saying "anyone could've gotten Meyer; a GM as good as Billy should've been able to land more additional returns than CT and Juan Cruz." Never mind that Beane was more set on rebuilding then than he is now and that Hudson only had one year left on his contract. But now you're saying he's holding out for an unrealistic price for a rising star pitcher with three cheap years left on his contract.
Inconsistent, that.
Beane got schooled in the Huddy deal
As to the current situation, asking for 6 prospects (I'm exagerating here) for Blanton is setting the price too high.
that said...
It's still an example of a time when it couldn't be said he was overvaluing his player. He was willing to trade Hudson for one legit pitching prospect, a live arm, and a guy who projected to maybe be a Coco Crisp type but didn't pan out.
I'll give you the live arm
Because Juan Cruz was indeed live and had an arm. But 2 Buck projected as a Coco Crisp type? That is the 1st time I've heard that comparison. I would not have bought it then.
I don't by it now either but no one does anymore.
Beane critique ignores leverage dynamics.
There are four main species of leverage: necessity, desire, time and competition. Nothing matters 'til late March at the earliest, so why would Billy pull the trigger now, when there's a better-than-even chance that he'll have time, and necessity, and competition on his side if he waits?
And lest I be accused on focusing overmuch on Bla-Ren, those things have to be factored-in every time you look at valuation.
I'll be happy for him to limit himself of farkin'A trades -- the ones that happen when leverage flows your way.
by The Dogfather on Dec 8, 2007 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
He already has
Necessity and competition on his side. Sure, he might get more if Santana ends up with one of the NY teams or Boston but he could just as easily lose some leverage if Snatana ends up with someone like Seattle.
Beane has leverage now, he may never have enough to move the object in front of him.
Time will tell. I just wish we'd had Jay ...
... Marshall back when Minaya was looking to donate Milledge.
by The Dogfather on Dec 8, 2007 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
Santana will not be traded
to anyone other than Boston or New York. He has already said that he will veto any other trade.
Asking for more in trade than other teams are willing to give you is not prima facie evidence of "overvaluing" your players. Players are not collectible coins. They have productive value. In this case, it seems like the productive value of Haren is better than the productive value of any of the putative offers. That's all that matters here.
When did Santana say that?
He's said he wouldn't waive his no-trade in July. Other than that, his agent has come out and said that Santana was not trying to force the Twins to choose between NY and Boston. It hasn't been expressly stated, but it's likely Santana will only waive his no-trade clause if his new team is willing to sign him to an extension. That's why only the big market teams have pursued him. He already turned down a reported $20 million annual package from the Twins.
The NYY/BOS only rumor
was denied by his agent:
The Providence Journal reported yesterday that Santana will only waive his no-trade clause for the Yanks or Red Sox, limiting the Twins' ability to leverage a deal. That report was vehemently denied last night by Santana's agent Peter Greenberg, who said his client was angry about the rumour.
I think it is very much the "we're the home team"
thing when it comes to discussions of the values of A's players relative to potential acquisitions through trade.
I think most on this site are quite capable of dispassionate... ok, maybe not dispassionate, but at least "reasonably objective" shall we say... analysis of players' relative values but we all tend to think either more or less highly of our own players because of our direct observation of them as fans, too.
It's easy to agree with Beane wanting a king's ransom for whatever players he might trade, because we're rooting for him to make an amazing deal and we also support the idea that our players are undervalued by the rest of MLB (which they often are, due to lack of national media coverage) or even overvalued (same reason- reputation versus direct observation.)
But yeah, critiscism of Messrs. Beane, Forst, Wolff, et al is generally made more when a trade goes down and we all feel like we didn't get enough, as opposed to when a trade is being discussed and doesn't happen because Billy won't pull the trigger and might be holding out for too much.
Is that fair? No, not really. Do plenty of us quietly think "dammit, just pull the trigger on that deal!" or "why didn't he do that deal?!" but not necessarily vocalize it? Yes, I'm sure we do.
Why don't we vocalize it? Well, my own theory is that Beane has become, in the past few seasons, very much the consistent "face of the franchise" for plenty of the fanbase. This is not my idea exclusively, and it has been discussed on this site before and in other blog and media outlets. As such, to attack a move Beane makes or question him for not making one, is like breaking faith with the perceived figurehead of the team we all root for. The usual party line is something of the "Beane is a genius, don't question what you don't understand" ilk generally. Which may even be true- oftentimes moves that seemed good at the time don't pan out long term and vice versa.
I think in the final analysis that Beane is hard to critiscize too much because we are rooting for him.
And in the case of prospective trades that are rumored, we're smart enough to know that what's supposedly on the table isn't the whole story so we just figure he knows more than we do and hope he'll do what we would do.
When we find out otherwise, though, I think it should be more or less open season. For example, if we really had an offer from the Dodgers for Blanton that included Hu and Laroche and a SP or RP prospect like McDonald or Meloan last season and he didn't take it... then I think that was a mistake, personally, and I would've taken that deal.
Just like I still think that both Haren and Blanton are quite possibly at their peak perceived values this offseason and while I wouldn't rush to trade them I would still be very amenable to moving them both for 3 or 4 solid prospects each. And if Beane and Co. hold out for more than the market can bear in that regard I will probably consider it a mistake.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 8, 2007 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
Well, I can't speak for others
but as far as I'm concerned, this is flat nonsense. If Beane makes a move that I think is insane, I will say so (and have said so before-- see the Loaiza threads). He's a good GM, not some kind of plaster saint. Hoping he's right about a player is not even close to ASSUMING he's right, which is what you're postulating people here do.
Ok, then you go ahead and explain the
general reluctance of AN members to criticize Beane for his personnel decisions and his trades, either the ones he does make or the ones he doesn't, too harshly.
And the way that those who criticize him too vocally on this site are often, if not always, lambasted by the general population of the site for not being clever enough to understand his top-secret rationales for the moves he makes.
And the general acceptance that whatever he does he must know something we don't.
And the whole "In Billy We Trust" mantra.
And nowhere did I indicate that I thought it was a bad idea to ruminate over moves he makes and to criticize when one disagrees, by the way, or to consider alternatives. I was just suggesting, since the topic was broached, that the reluctance of most, not all, AN members to rip Beane in effigy for moves he makes could well be because we're basically rooting for him and hoping he's right.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 8, 2007 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
OK, I'll explain it
- We do often criticize the trades he does make.
- The trades he doesn't make rarely get criticized because we generally don't really know what was offered. You can't criticize what you don't know. (Sure, I could criticize Beane because he didn't trade Bobby Crosby for Miguel Cabrera, but that's just stupid.)
- If Beane does something we're not sure about, we're inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. That's not because we think he's perfect -- he's surely not -- but he does have a decent track record, and we realize that there's a good possibility that he knows something we don't but extremely little likelihood that we know something he doesn't.
Failing to complete a trade
doesn't mean that he's overvaluing.
It's entirely possible that 5 or 6 GMs agree with Beane about their value. The problem might be that they have nothing to trade in return that the A's want, or that they won't do the trade for other reasons (i.e., not wanting to trade within the division).
This is less like selling a house than it is like trading one house for another -- even if two parties agree in the abstract on the values involved, if they don't happen to control the right combination of components, the deal can't happen.
epstein is a good GM
no doubt about it. Boston has a good place to be by not needing to make a trade. he made a fair offer for santana but was turned downed. Elisbury is a future allstar. When a team has alot of holes like the giants they need to take a chance and rebuild. Boston can wait.
ball in Beane's court
The good thing is Beane doesn't need to trade Haren or Blanton. Haren is signed very cheap and for 3 more years why trade him? Blanton is more tradeable since he doesn't have a contract. If the dodgers offered Kemp and a pitcher for Blanton then I would make a trade with Blanton.
A good starting pitcher should bring you a everyday player and a prospect. Pitching is more valuable than a good hitter. Beane admits he wants a lot for his pitchers so the GMs know it coming in. Over valueing is expecting alot for a average player. Sabean is smart in not trading Lincecum or Cain but he could pick up some good average players rather cheap but doen't make a trade. The mets are the team that way over values. You would think Heilman was a cy young winner the way they wouldn't trade him.
Colleti paid Andrew Jones 18 million a year and anyone who looks at his stats sees that he only had 1 great year. Most years he is a Kotsay with 15 more homers.
Yeah, Andruw
most years is Kotsay with 15 more homers. You make that sound as if it is an insignificant difference.
Andruw also walks more.
Also, most years Ichiro! is a Kotsay with about 70 more hits.
What is Value?
You don't understand what Beane was trying to do. He is not going to trade quality pitching unless the buyer is desperate and will give up more future value than present value. If a team wants to win now they will give up more. No one out there is desperate yet.
When all the other pieces are in place and one of our pitchers can put them over the top, they will up the offer.
Value depends on each teams perception and timing. Every time a team puts a piece in place, the value of our pitchers go up to competitors with that team. The only major pieces put into place at the winter meetings were by the Tigers and Dodgers. So who becomes more interested?
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 8, 2007 3:33 PM PST up reply actions
I know exactly what Beane is trying to do
We all do.
He's trying to build the best team possible, the only thing we aren't sure on (and this includes Beane) is if the goal is more short term than long term.
Why would a team have to be desperate to be interested in Dan Haren? That idea makes no sense. Look at the teams who have been most interested in making a deal. Do you really think Boston or the Yankees are ever going to be "desperate" to make a deal? They shouldn't. Arizona could qualify, yet they've refused to include Young or Drew or Upton, not to mention a couple pitching prospects. The Mets don't have the talent to acquire Haren.
Value doesn't always rise. If Beane sets his price too high and misses the peak market then if does make a deal he'll be getting less than what he could have.
I think it's simpler than that, grover -
Beane decides "This is what (this team) would have to give me to make it worth it TO ME to deal Haren." If they're willing, he pulls the trigger, if not he doesn't. If the "worth it to me" players constitute a package that objectively "overvalues" Haren, so what? If it isn't worth it to Beane to trade Haren for his exact value, he shouldn't make the trade. That's not overvaluing Haren, it's knowing what's worth it to you and what isn't at any given point in time.
So what?
You've just illustrated the mentality that worries me. Beane decides that he needs these 7 guys before he'll make a deal. Just getting 4 of those 7 would constitute a F'n A trade by any outside viewer. The other team offers 5 of the guys and Beane says "meh".
"Meh" to a package that would help the A's. If Billy Beane has one job (as far as the fans are concerned) it is to do the things, to make the decisions that will help the Oakland A's.
This has nothing to do with market price though
What you've just stated is "I worry that Beane is an idiot." If the players being offered are objectively better than the players being given up, it would be idiotic not to make the trade.
Well, frankly, most of us don't share those worries. What you were talking about earlier was a scenario in which the best offer on the market was less than what Haren is being worth to the A's-- you appeared, at least, to support selling off Haren anyway to facilitate a rebuild of the team, something that I, at least, disagree with. That mentality would lead to, for instance, a much more favorable view of the Arizona package. It's currently the best offer on the market, and might well be the best that ever gets offered.
Look, the relevant question to ask is not "is this package worth more than the other packages are worth?", it's "is this package worth more than Haren is worth?"
You may think that Beane is overvaluing Haren's worth. But other than you actually saying so, I don't see evidence for it, seeing as how every actual reported trade proposal has caused you to denounce it. As far as I can tell, you're concocting fantasy trades in your head and then getting mad at Beane for not accepting them when in fact there's no evidence that said fantasy trades are even on the table.
PT, your skills as a mind reader
are rivaled only by your incompetence at player evaluation.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that Beane is over-pricing his pitching in comparison to what the market will bear. You say you haven't seen any evidence to support my worries?
Beane has said that he expects Blanton to be worth as much as Haren. Maybe 1% of AN would agree with Beane that Blanton is as good as Haren. He doesn't have the skills, nor is his contract as favorable. Now, some of that is probably posturing but from all indications Beane is actually pushing Blanton centered deals (Mets, Dodgers) as if he were parting with Haren.
As for Haren, I've said repeatedly that I want him to stay.
However, Beane is pricing Dan Haren as if he's a better pitcher than Johan Santana. Talent wise, Santana has the edge. Haren's one big advantage is his contract status but the teams who are seriously interested in Santana aren't worried about spending the money on an extension to keep him beyond 2008. The big money teams have essentially negated Haren's greatest attribute by virtue of their overflowing wallets.
So, if monetary issues aren't that significant a factor and Santana is the better pitcher, where does Beane get off pricing Haren at a higher price than teams are willing to spend on Santana?
Now, if Beane wants to make a push in 2008 then none of this matters, I'm worrying over nothing. But if he plans on going into rebuild mode he will have to lower his expectations on what he can get for Haren, Blanton and Street.
I don't see you working as a player evaluator
for an MLB team. You and your gratuitous ****ing insults can sod off. I'm not even going to bother responding to this shit.
If you're going to take pot shots at me
If you want to insult me and belittle me, be prepared for the return fire.
Otherwise, play nice.
That's the most ridiculous statement
I've ever seen.
Now I'M insulting YOU?
Good lord. You ARE good at projection. Just not the kind of projection that you think.
As far as I'm concerned,
if two people both keep violating Community Guidelines insulting one another (and I've seen multiple examples both ways), and both are "above" reporting CGVs when they occur, then both people are part of the problem and neither is a victim.
Don't know what you're talking about Nico
And I'll even take the rather unusual tact of defending PT as part of this, but while we have sniped at each other there has been nothing said that remotely reaches the status of a CGV statement. Sure, if TPTB wanted to toe the letter of the law and make examples out of the two of us then I'm sure they could find something on both of us.
That would be a marked change from how the CGV committee has worked in the past. If they did such an act I'd insist on them sticking to that standard for the rest of AN and pretty soon 90% of the members would have at least two strikes on them.
So.
Paul, we may not get along but I will play nice if you will.
Let me make a few things clear
because it seems like they aren't, right now.
- When I say X is tantamount to Y, or X is effectively Y, I do not mean that you said Y. I do not mean that I think you said Y. I do not mean that I'm misinterpreting your X as Y. I mean that X, if true, naturally implies Y. This is like the third time that you've punched me out (verbally speaking) for saying something like this. Yes, I actually know how to read. Thanks for asking. If I want to literally quote you, I'll use the handy "blockquote" function situated immediately below here.
- While I have no particular desire (as Nico noted above) to get the "authorities" involved, insulting my intelligence will instantly end any thread from my perspective. I'm not interested in being a punching bag for your epithet arsenal, nor am I interested in retaliating and getting banned. I don't know if you have some kind of special arrangement or tenure or whatever with the authorities (and honestly, I cannot understand how you could continue to post if you didn't), but I do know that I don't.
we have pictures of grover
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/1...
Dude, that's Cookie Monster
Your skills at monster recognition are matched only by... hm, strike that.
;)
And by "strike that"
I don't mean "strike (me for) that"...
For clarity's sake
All the X's and Y's... can I buy a vowel?
Like I said, you want to trade punches, I'll oblige. You want to play nice, I can do the same.
I can't read each committee member's mind,
but having seen all the votes on all 86 CGV complaints, I'd wager that "your skills at mind-reading are rivaled only by your incompetence at player evaluation" would earn a "strike" of some kind (full or warning).
Fine, throw the flag
Here's my defense...
PT called Capuano and above average pitcher, then said he sucked, then said he was an average pitcher. All in about an hour.
Paul, this is not an attempt to re-hash an old arguement.
Nico, throw the fucking flag.
I wasn't aware "I'm right" was a defense
against the charge of being insulting. It's literally irrelevant to the question at hand.
In legal terms, I'm taking a demurrer on this one.
Of course, if it IS a defense, I'd like to know...
Well, thanks for saying I was right
I'm not sure it's an insult if you agree with me.
I've offered an olive branch twice now, do you accept?
You weren't right
You just don't know what a demurrer is, which is understandable, I guess. It's an abbreviated way of saying "Even if what you say is correct, which I'm not commenting on either way at the moment, you still have no claim." Or, in this case, no affirmative defense, if we want to get really technical.
BTW, if that's an olive branch, I'd hate to see... well, whatever the opposite of an olive branch is (a willow switch?). No. If you want to apologize, that's fine. The above is not an apology. I don't know where you acquired the mistaken impression that I'm someone you can berate and insult at your pleasure, but let me assure you, that's not the case. If, or more likely when, you behave toward me as you did in this thread, my reaction is going to be precisely the same-- denounce it and end any substantive conversation.
I'm not going to seek you out and insult you, if that's what "an olive branch" means. If not, well, whatever. I really see no reason why I should respect someone who patently refuses to return the favor.
Oh, cry us a river
You're the only one who thinks he's an innocent victem here.
Well, I tried.
See you on the next one.
Oh, come off it
That was like being forced to make up by teacher in the first grade. Your disingenuousness is palpable. Why should I waste my time on that shit?
I'm not exactly sure what "the flag" is
supposed to be. But I'll just say that what Paul Thomas did or didn't say about Chris Capuano, that was or wasn't inconsistent, in a previous thread, does not entitle you to personally attack his "player evaluation skills" in this thread. I look at each case separately, rather than take sides and always support or oppose the same person - in this particular case, in this particular exchange, I think you, grover, have been the jerk at least 80/20.
(And I do wish you'd both respect that some people, myself included, simply don't care for the profanity - I mention that not as a site administrator, but just as one of AN's frequent participants.)
Fine
So call the CGV police. Throw the flag. Send a memo.
REPORT ME!
I know you don't like the language, that's why I used it. It was meant to spur you into filing a CGV complaint against yours truly. I don't think I deserve a strike for that comment but I stand behind it.
The larger issue is this: PT has suggested that I may have some kind of standing within AN that would allow me to get away with a CGV. No member has such leeway. It's also well known that you and I are fairly friendly towards each other. I don't share your interest in farm animals but other than that, we're cool. Therefore, if you report my alleged violation then we can show that there's no ol' boy network in play here.
I stand behind the comment. I won't take it back. I think PT deserved the shot after his comment in the post I was responding to. I don't care if you or anyone else thinks I came across as a jerk, someone takes a shot at me I fire right back. Always have, probably always will. Now report me or back off.
And if I do end up with a strike I'll be insulting your taste in sheep the very next day.
Ewe wool do no such thing!
I'm not going to report your "personally insulting" comment - just my choice on this one. But I'll report the next one by either of you, and the next one, and the next one, because your public bickering has gone from amusing to just distracting and annoying. "I'm right, you're wrong, reporting violations is tattling" - grow up!
And you are correct that you have no special standing; neither do I. AN simply doesn't do favortism. And I still like you, grover; and I'll still report the next CGV, by you or PT, because enough is enough.
You like me?
You really like me?!
As for the rest, how far we've seemingly come since the days oaktoon roamed AN's bandwidth. My exchange with Paul wouldn't have gotten to 1st base with oaktoon.
I do like you -
I just don't, like, "like-like" you.
Basically not furry enough
By the way
Who was it that said reporting was tattling? Is this another definition behind "demurrer"?
I've responded to this via email
as I don't think anything further is served at this point by continuing this in a public forum.
Take it a step further -
I don't think anything further is served at this point by you and grover spatting back and forth in this public forum. Why don't you two send each other private emails? Then you can let 'er rip all you want and thousands of us can be spared the details.
damn it all to hell, Nico!
I was hoping they'd keep going so I could set the record for most comments in an offseason post.
Grover, usually agree with you
but don't understand this. When did BB ever say he was trading for Haren, or Blanton? no where. Drunken sportswriters have opined that BB was inquiring about it, but BB says only that he listens to anyone about anyone. Figure it out, how many pitchers in the AL are better than Haren? He surely ranks in the top 10 in the AL. Given Haren's age, durability and money owed there is no way he can be traded.
There are people on this site who seem to think that if this team is blown up now, magically in 3 years they will reappear as a contender in the West, and possible WS champion. There is just as much chance that in 3 years we will be in permanent cellar mode. It is not easy to construct a winner in baseball, too many variables and when you give up healthy, productive players for promising young talent you are likely to be KC for the next 10 years.
by china bob on Dec 8, 2007 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
China Bob-
I don't think it would be fair to say in Haren's case that "there is no way he can be traded" simply because he's a valuable player- it would just take a trade offer that gave the A's a better chance to be a solid team overall than they would have if they held onto him.
Since I'm a proponent of trading him now, for the right deal (meaning not just for the sake of trading him, but only if the A's get what they need from the trade) let me explain why (and this applies to Blanton and Street also) I think that.
A lot of my thinking on the matter has to do with things you brought up- namely that "it is not easy to construct a winner in baseball, too many variables." I agree with that completely. But this very mindset leads me to believe that Haren's trade value may be as high right now as it will ever be, and since I don't consider the A's to have a roster full of long-term certainties but rather one that's full of many question marks now and going forward, I would prefer not to take the chance that Haren gets injured this coming year or has a mediocre or sub-par year on the mound.
As it stands right now, he's an affordable (contract-wise) starting pitching option for almost any MLB team for 3 years; he finished near the top of all MLB in ERA this past year, and led at least the AL for the first half of the season in ERA and started for the AL in the All-star game (further raising his profile) to boot; he's been healthy throughout his career thus far for the most part, and has raised no red flags regarding his durability; he has no apparent "character issues" that would make other teams reluctant about adding him to their rotation and in fact has been praised for taking a leadership role with the A's generally young pitching staff; he's plenty young and headed towards the prime years of his career and has shown improvement and development every season thus far, which would lead other teams to believe he has room to get even better.
So here's the thing- this guy is about as good a trading chip as you'll ever have if you're a team that is missing pieces at the MLB level and not particularly strong in its farm system.
The viewpoint on where the A's, at the major league level and in the strength/depth of their farm system, stand at this point in time is open to discussion/interpretation.
But I would submit that it is this viewpoint which should inform whether or not trading Haren is something that can or should happen.
It's a question of what will help the A's more going forward- 3 years of a cost-controlled starting pitcher coming off a great year who will hopefully remain healthy and durable and also hopefully remain effective, or 3 or even 4 good prospects across a range of roster positions, at least two of whom are essentially MLB-ready though unproven each of whom may or may not turn out to be good MLB players.
If you're looking at risk and reward, I'd be more inclined to think that the A's, at this point in time, would be better off gambling on the 3 or 4 good prospects than gambling on Haren staying healthy and repeating or improving upon the season he just had.
But that's just my view, and I don't consider other folks' views invalid so I understand why most people would rather keep him as a cornerstone player to build around. I would be tempted to do the same, if I thought the A's as currently constructed were close enough to where they need to be that having Haren in the rotation was going to be the difference-maker the next 3 years. I just don't think it is.
As for "blowing up" the current team and shooting to contend in 3 years- I don't really hear a lot of proponents for that approach nor do I consider myself one of those in favor of such an approach because I agree with you that it's totally hit-or-miss. I think the goal each season should be to field a solid team while also improving at every position as best you can, and I suppose I endorse the "rebuilding while remaining competitive" ideal which might not be a realistic one.
The question then becomes- how do you best remain competitive and also keep yourself in a position to stay that way in perpetuity?
And I guess I figure the more talent you can attain across the board to fill ALL roster spots and improve the strength of your current MLB team and your farm system, particularly at the upper levels, the better off you are.
So I wouldn't keep Haren just to have one good, or even great, starting pitcher while I had:
- serious questions at shortstop and center field, and even at 3rd base (health-wise if nothing else)
- an unproven but promising 1B rookie
- a 2B superhero who will probably be gone by '09
- corner OFs with talent and promise but still in the unproven range (Swisher being more proven, Buck being less than one season into MLB and never having played above AA before that)
- a DH and 4th OF with less than a year of MLB success and mediocre bordering on awful defense
- a rookie catcher who shows promise but is still pretty green, and a more experienced back-up who's never been able to get a full-time C job
- a rotation that will be more question marks than certainties- Harden? Gaudin? Duke? Meyer? DiNardo again? aside from Blanton (and Haren if we did keep him)
- a bullpen where the only real, proven quantities seem to be Street and Embree at this point (and Street is questionable in terms of durability going forward, too) and Duke if he doesn't make it as a SP
I don't know... does that seem like a situation where Haren is going to make the difference to you? If everything breaks (deliberate word choice) right, then maybe. But for the right deal, and that's the key thing here, I think the A's could go a long ways to improving that overall picture for this year and years to follow. So I wouldn't rule it out, and I don't think Beane and Co. would either.
by still bills kingdom on Dec 8, 2007 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
Chavez
Last year he was bad because we not only expected him to be a lot better (point of reference), but we NEEDED him to be a lot better.
This year he can bat behind our 5 guaranteed stud hitters and Ellis, so Ill take my chances with him and Hannahan. (assuming BONDS)
I like the Kevin Mench idea, we really do need that lefty masher and Mench is like Super-Kielty in my opinion, but maybe he has become truly awful since I last took notice.
So I'll revise, A's money should go this way:
Bonds (1 year + team option)
Gagne (2 years, pull the trigger)
Lefty-crushing 4th/5th OF (Mench?.....cut ties with Kotsay)
by SwisherSweet on Dec 8, 2007 9:51 AM PST reply actions
Mench = Kielty with worse hair
Cindi says, "No way!"
so, bring back kielty?
YAY!!!!!!!!!
Maybe I just have a thing for red-heads <cough, Darrell in Ms. Willoughby's Humanities class, cough>, but I say BRING BACK BILLY KIELTY!!!!!!!!
-Cindi
inge
i don't see us trading for a guy who will cost us $19m/3 when we have chavez and hannahan.
stewart and piazza: both class acts, i wish them all the best.
branyan: i guess if he's cheap enough and if chavez isn't ready.
colon: it could be worth a shot if he'll take a one year deal.
it's interesting that this is the non-bonds roster personnel thread, because with bonds on the team there's not a whole lot left to do with the roster besides maybe adding a pitcher (unless we cut kotsay or trade DJ).
I don't see the appeal with Branyan
He's like a poor-man's Cust. He's basically what we fear Cust could be instead of what we hope Cust is.
yeah, let me clarify
what i mean is i'm not at all excited about branyan and i can't really see it happening, but i guess it could if he was inexpensive and the team got some bad news about how chavy is progressing.
Makes sense - I just think
we've already "been there, done that, better" with Hannahan.
i agree
i'd much rather have hannahan out at 3b than branyan.
also, isn't branyan a lefty with some crazy splits? doesn't this lineup have enough leftyness going on as it is?
Actually, splits not as dramatic
as you often see:
Career vs RHP: .231/.332/.479 (.811 OPS)
Career vs LHP: .215/.297/.469 (.766 OPS)
A .332 OBP against your favorable split is pretty bad. Basically, he sucks against everyone but slugs pretty well against everyone. Ron Kittle? Rob Deer?
yeah but are they
from 2004-2007?
it's pretty big for three of those four years.
Well Colon would be appropriate
since he is technically Shrek, the green would be becoming on him.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 8, 2007 10:10 AM PST reply actions
And if we signed Colon and Bonds,
they could be Shrek and Shrunk.
Shreck and Cupcakes
on the same team would be the perfect storm of calorie consumption.
Colon = Loaiza 2
I have no faith in Colon. Which one shows up the good or the bad like loaiza. To much of a chance.
If we sign Colon
What will the banners say in the bleachers? Colon's Scopeys?
Ride BARTolo!
Colon's Cleansers!
I got nuddin.
bob costas thought he was being clever
with "gets a whiff of that Colon," or something to that effect.
although he probably reaks of Sex Panther.
The Spastics? Appendices? Vestigials?
Imperialists?
by The Dogfather on Dec 8, 2007 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
And, of course, ...
... the Colon Bleachers.
May be NSFW, and sorry I thought of it, but after that happened, it had to be done.
by The Dogfather on Dec 8, 2007 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
and in "we hardly knew ye" ex-A's news
the Nationals re-signed Ryan Langerhans to a split minor/major league deal...which no doubt AN was anxious to know ;-)
Langerhans lives
Long live Langerhans!
We were a .500 team with Langerhans,
a sub .500 team without him. And that doesn't even speak to the dramatic decline in clubhouse morale when the guy was traded.
Milledge AND Langerhans?
The NL is theirs to lose!
by Englishmajor on Dec 8, 2007 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Assuming Jon Rauch wins 20 games,
and who doesn't?
gagne signs with brewers
report just up. Rangers were hoping to sign him. The rangers are now looking like a team rebuilding. The M's have done nothing and even a loss without guillen. The angels are still the favorite but how much better are they than last year? Hunter does help but cordero had agood year batting and defense. Garland is solid so how much betteer are they?
Roster spots
Does "non-Bonds roster personnel thread" mean discussion of potential moves other than signing Bonds, or does it mean moves we might make only if we don't get Bonds? I'm assuming the former.
With Bonds, the A's will have their 9 starters (Barton, Ellis, Crosby, Chavez, Cust, Bonds, Swisher, Buck, Suzuki) plus Hannahan, Murphy, Bowen, Kotsay, Denorfia, and Johnson. That's already 15 players for what are probably 13 roster spots.
One move is obvious. I like Dan Johnson a little more than most people here do, but we definitely won't need another 1B/DH. So assume he's gone. After that, the possibilities are:
- Keep 14 position players and only 11 pitchers. People suggest this every year, but it never happens, and it still won't, although given the early schedule they might do so for the first week to put off making a decision.
- Dump Kotsay and eat his salary, as discussed above. I'd be fine with that one.
- Someone will surely suggest dumping Crosby and making Murphy the starter. Regardless of whether that is a good move, it wouldn't solve this problem, as you would still need to use a roster spot on a backup 2B/SS (Petit, Melillo, or whoever) instead.
- Start Barton back in AAA. This has been discussed elsewhere. I don't think the A's either will or should do this. Barton is ready to contribute now. It would also leave Swisher as the only 1B on the roster, assuming we're still getting rid of DJ.
- Demote Hannahan or Denorfia to AAA if they still have options left. I'm not sure if either one even does.
Adding someone like Inge or Branyan just means that instead of needing to make one of the above moves, they would need to make two of them. Is either one enough of an upgrade over Hannahan to make it worth it? I don't think so.
Of course, there's also the possibility that someone will start the year on the DL. The most likely candidates are Chavez, Denorfia, and Kotsay, although all are supposedly going to be ready for spring training. But if one of them has a setback, particularly Chavez, then adding some depth at 3B starts looking like a much better idea.
i agree with almost everything here
i'd switch the positions of dj and kotsay on the who's out list.
if the a's sign bonds both dj and kotsay have to go. if they don't, it makes more sense to dump kotsay than to trade dj.
can dj be sent down to sacto?
I don't see the point of
keeping DJ around in any scenario.
Mark Ellis can play first base
if need be.
I'm certain Hannahan has an option left; he didn't crack an MLB roster until 2006. Pretty sure Denorfia does too, as he was on the "MLB roster" (viz. 60-day DL) all last year.
Clearly the A's are going to have to make use of their option possibilities if they want to extend the time they have until they have to make a decision. Ultimately, though, Kotsay and DJ have to go.
Hannahan is pretty certain
to start with the team. They won't start the year with only one legitimate 3B. Starting Denorfia in AAA if he has options seems plausible, but of course I'd rather just dump Kotsay.
Shouldn't either Chavy, Kotsay, or Duke
(if not all three) start the year on the DL until after the Japan trip? That puts off roster decisions an extra few days - which as Scutaro found out, not once but twice, can help these decisions take care of themselves.
Also, Swisher will get food poisoning
and Haren will spend a few months in jail after Japanese customs finds a big bag of "oregano" in his carry-on.
abso-freakin'-lutely
The only positive outcome from having Chavez and Kotsay fly to Japan would be if they're both entirely disabled by the flight from ever playing again, and Beane can move on to the next options at 3B and CF.
(No, I'm not wishing that on either player; and I do know that Chavez is, if recovered from his surgeries, superior to the alternatives.)
Speaking of Ostler,
and wantonly ignoring your post title, his column today is a mostly failed set of jokes on the subject of Bonds, Oakland, and his legal situation. But Ostler does get off one very good line:
Q: Was the courtroom packed Friday?
A: There were empty seats. If the trial itself doesn't draw better than this, the government might tarp off the back two rows to make the crowd look bigger.
that's pretty funny
Anyone catch the courtroom sketch of Bonds? Perhaps the worst I've ever seen. For starters, his head was disproportionately small. Should've just brought in a caricaturist.
The courtroom sketch was awful -
Barry's testicles looked way too big.
Seriously though, the sketch looked more like Bobby Bonds than Barry. FIRE THE ARTIST NOW!!!!
< snerk >
My contributions:
- The feds should build a smaller courtroom, farther away from public transportation.
- They wanted to shift the venue to San Jose, but Magowan wouldn't let them.
- When/if it goes to trial, Sabean will sit in on voir dire and reject any prospective juror under 35.
*flier
When's the last time monkeyball made a spelling error...ever? As for that flier to which you referred, I'd support it. It should be safer than the Bonds "flier" from a legal standpoint anyway....
And I don't think Inge would out-perform Hannahan at the plate...all while being paid $6.33 million this year. Between those two, I think we got the right 3B from the Tigers' system.
clarification
I put quotes around "flier" when referring to the potential Bonds acquisition (which was probably a distasteful reference in a non-Bonds personnel thread anyway...I apologize to all the people I offended) because I don't really consider that to be much of a flier at all, but rather a relatively safe bet. But other people might label it a flier, so....
for...
off-the-field reasons primarily, though I have seen some posters (A's Eh being one) who doubt he'd even help much on the field...with which I strongly disagree.
re flyer
My bad...after some self-doubt, I consulted dictionary.com, and it looks like "flyer" is acceptable for this usage after all. I still prefer "flier", heh.
and you missed my true spelling error
I need another "m" in "accomodate."
flier/flyer
Flier is the older spelling, which is why it appears first in many dictionaries. In the second half of the 20th century, flyer gained ground. In my estimation, throughout the 1970s and 1980s (the formative years for many of us here) it was the preferred spelling for all usages, and the dominant one for the paper handbill/brochure sort of thing. Then some time around the mid-1990s the flier spelling started to reclaim the preferred position.
The flyer spelling is boosted by brand name "Radio Flyer". Also, many of the frequent flyer miles programs begun in the 1980s have maintained the "flyer" spelling in their names.
Parallel cases are mixed. Fryer is overwhelmingly preferred to frier. Dryer is preferred for one that dries, but drier is preferred for more dry than. That seems to suggest a pattern, but it's contradicted by shyer, crier, and pliers, which all point in the opposite direction.
I think all the y spellings gained ground in the post-WW II era. Dryer for more dry did, though never enough to displace drier. For nearly every word in this category, the minority spelling is acknowledged at least as a variant.
All of which serves to point out
why so many of us hate the English language. Seriously, do the Chinese allow this crap to go on?
they should stop propping up the US bond market
... until we get that fixed.
Who knows...
That's only because
the secret to Greek Fire has been lost to the ages.
Yet another example of
here's a misleadingly simple mind-bending stumper
How does one pluralize "stye"?
I ran across that at work a couple months ago, and the entire editorial department suffered an aneurysm as a result.
and Branyan more or less does that every year
Even with the small sample sizes (annually), he manages to post roughly the same sorts of stats...rate-wise, anyway. He would indeed be the ultra-Cust...and his home runs tend to be 430-foot blasts that ascend above the tree line at their highest point. He's a useful pinch-hitter/AAA guy, but not really more than that b/c he makes contact so infrequently.
Hello, this is the A's....
Why pay someone 19 million to back up 3rd base, when the A's will not pay someone (Scut) 3-4 million to back up, SS, 2nd, LF, and 3rd?? Right??
well, I wasn't envisioning Inge as a backup
Acquiring Inge would allow the A's more freedom (than just having Hannahan) to either trade or shut down Chavez.
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.
