Happy Rebuilding Year!
by Nico
on Jan 1, 2008 9:38 AM PST
in News
Sadly, the 2008 Oakland A’s were officially eliminated from the race at 6:13 this morning. “We had a good run,” manager Bob Geren told reporters in an impromptu and emotional press conference at 6:16am. “Our boys fought hard right up to the end and I’m proud of them.” Reached on his cell phone as he was walking Eric Chavez’ dog, Billy Beane preached the importance of looking at baby steps during this rebuilding phase. “Next year, we fully intend to be in the race come January 2nd,” the ever competitive Beane insisted, as he hurled an L.A. Times onto Mrs. Fletcher’s porch to complete Mark Kotsay’s paper route. “I want all the fans in Auckland to know how important it is to me to field a competitive soc—baseball team.”
Ah, but I jest. I’m still excited about 2008, because I want to see what a Dana Eveland looks like, what Barton, Suzuki, and Blevins can do with a touch of experience under their belt, what Dan Meyer’s arm can do when it hasn’t just thrown a full season after sitting most of two years out, what a Denorfia looks like, whether Duchscherer can ease into the rotation as successfully as I’ve suspected, and so on. But I’m also left with a question…
…If the A’s are raising the white flag on 2008 and re-something-ing (build, load, whatever) for a-year-to-be-named-later, why in the world would they play Mark Kotsay at all, ever? Even if the guy could hit .280 next year and play an above-average CF – which is so debatable it’s not even worth debating – so what? That’s not so wonderful, or so much better than someone else could step in and do, that it’s worth anything to a losing team, and it’s not as if Kotsay is in the A’s plans beyond 2008. Getting Denorfia as many games as possible, or seeing what Buck can do in CF, or putting Carlos Gonzalez out there and saying, “Get your feet wet and be ready the following 5 years” – in each case, agree or disagree, there is at least a method to the madness. But putting Kotsay out there in CF in 2008 – other than not having to do his paper route on Sundays or something, I’m just not seeing the point at this point.
0 recs |
73
comments
Read Related
EmailComments
Being Competitive
I don't know where this comes from, but I'm reading so many posts about dumping Kotsay, dumping Street, dumping Blanton, dumping Ellis. I mean --- whether the A's are rebuilding or not, they need to be competitive. I have no interest in watching a team that loses 110 games while rebuilding, and it's no fair to the rest of the league. It also creates a losing culture in the organization. If Kotsay comes back strong from all his injuries, he should play and perhaps at some point near trading deadline be moved for quality prospects or even stay with the team if nobody's available to replace him. If he can't come back, he can (and should) be released.
by richwol on Jan 1, 2008 10:04 AM PST 0 recs
I agree about being competitive, richwol,
but not at the expense of developing what you need to be more competitive in 2009. If Denorfia's development is stunted, or the next CFer isn't discovered and polished, Kotsay's maybe-slightly-better-than-Denorfia isn't worth it.
Beane traded Haren because he got a lot of value in return that can help the A's be a lot better in 2009-11. He hasn't traded Blanton because he hasn't been offered enough for the near future, not because of how much Blanton can help the team be more competitive in 2008. The determining factor right now is, "How do we be more competitive after 2008?" Not by playing Kotsay, I wouldn't think.
by Nico on
Jan 1, 2008 10:12 AM PST
up
0 recs
Yes, but...
The A's are now stuck with Kotsay's $8M salary. If the guy can't play, he should be dumped. But if he does rebound, then he helps the team early on, and helps the team even more if we can get something back for him in a trade in mid-season, or even next off-season. We'll know a lot by the end of spring training, and even more a month into the season. But if Kotsay is playing well, I'd rather see the new guys get more seasoning in AAA instead of rushing them to the majors.
One final thought: the A's CAN be competitive in 2008. It's a real long shot because it requires a healthy Harden and Gaudin in the rotation, and improvements in hitting either from Buck & Barton, or from people like Chavez and Crosby. Again, we'll know more a month into the season.
It's obvious at this point that Blanton is not sufficiently respected around the league to get a decent return in a trade, so any discussion about trading Blanton at this point is pretty moot.
Unless you're the Marlins and have prime talent to burn in a series of trades, rebuilding by dumping nearly everyone of value has rarely been proven a winner in MLB. The Indians did a pretty fast turnaround but they were in the wilderness for five years. Too long for me.
by richwol on
Jan 1, 2008 11:24 AM PST
up
0 recs
Maybe...
Kotsay wll be played because (like last year)there will be some injuries and we need him. It's getting to the point of ridiculousness here on AN. Do you guys really expect to scrap the entire team and start over? It seems like a lot of folks are advocating that. If we are ever to be able to trade Kotsay we need for other teams to see that he is recovered and well.
by IM4Oakgal on
Jan 1, 2008 1:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
I don't want to scrap the entire team -
I definitely want to keep Haren.
Crap.
by Nico on
Jan 1, 2008 2:29 PM PST
up
0 recs
I, for one, want to crap the entire team
by monkeyball on
Jan 1, 2008 2:37 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm sure they'll play better
when they're ten pounds lighter.
by oaklandSMASH on
Jan 1, 2008 4:32 PM PST
up
0 recs
Yes...
None of us have an interest in watching a team lose 110 games (for the record, the A's are not losing 110 next year). But do you have an interest in watching a team win 80 games while not rebuilding?
Mark Kotsay was bad last year. He had a .296 slugging, and a .279 on-base in 225 PA's. And it's not just a one-year thing, his OPS+ has only been above average once in his 4 years in Oakland (his first year). And he's not getting any better in Center. And he costs 8 mil.
When he was healthy (as healthy as Mark Kotsay can be, anyways), he couldn't hit a lick. As PaulThomas's batted ball data (as well as our own eyes) have told us, Kotsay can't center any pitch thrown to him, and doesn't have the power to hit the ball longer than 320 ft.
This echoes the sentiment that the A's "gave up on 2007" when they traded Kendall. Jettisoning a veteran in favor of a young guy isn't in itself a downgrade.
by BWH on
Jan 1, 2008 2:45 PM PST
up
0 recs
And taking ABs/experience away
from Denorfia - who will be rusty as it is when he starts off - hurts the 2009 effort. (As would depriving Buck a chance to learn CF, or Gonzalez a chance to get his feet wet in the bigs.) This was my point.
I don't even agree that Kotsay never could hit a lick. A .314 hitter (who plays gold glove caliber CF) is worth playing no matter how much you're rebuilding. But Kotsay hasn't been that for 4 years and he won't ever be that again. The best he'll be is a bit better than Denorfia. And Denorfia won't get better by watching Kotsay play.
by Nico on
Jan 1, 2008 2:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
Gonzalez service time
Wouldn't it be better to keep Gonzalez in the minors to protect his service time?
by Larry E on
Jan 1, 2008 4:56 PM PST
up
0 recs
Probably not...
When a guy's ready, he's ready. Especially in the A's organization, when your payroll is so low.
And when he's your best option at his position (I think, given full seasons from both, Gonzalez would outperform Kotsay next year).
by BWH on
Jan 2, 2008 1:18 PM PST
up
0 recs
frankly, my greatest motivation ...
... in wanting Kotsay to be waived is that it would (especially along with swallowing most of Kendall's salary last year) be a fairly tacit admission by Beane of his own error in judgment.
Yes, if Kotsay gets any playing time at all, I'll gnash my monkey teeth in frustration, but it won't really make any difference in the on-field results in '08 or in the years following.
by monkeyball on
Jan 1, 2008 2:54 PM PST
up
0 recs
How is releasing a player
"admitting an error in judgment"?
Did the Cubs "admit an error in judgment" when they released Mark Prior? No, they admitted that the guy had blown out his arm like 5 times.
Did the Ravens "admit an error in judgment" when they released Jamaal Lewis? If they did, well, they look like idiots now, because he had a great season for Cleveland after everyone thought he was washed up.
Making the right decision on whether to keep a player now has only a limited connection to whether a contract was the right decision in the first place. Particularly in cases, like Kotsay's, where a player's utility has been severely compromised by injuries.
by PaulThomas on
Jan 2, 2008 12:02 AM PST
up
0 recs
How is posting on AN at all rational?
Please explain to me the marginal utility of participating in any discussion online.
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 7:47 AM PST
up
0 recs
I see you've moved on from refusing to respond
to my posts at all to merely mocking them contemptuously. You'd better watch out, man-- somewhere down that slippery slope is actual respect for my arguments.
Being nasty is not going to make me stop rebutting you. If we were the only two posters here, I wouldn't bother, but since we aren't, other people might actually get involved in discussions.
by PaulThomas on
Jan 2, 2008 10:03 AM PST
up
0 recs
Wait. You're saying that ...
... if I continue to mock your arguments, at the bottom of that slippery slope I will find respect for them?
OK. It's a deal!
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 10:54 AM PST
up
0 recs
Your steadfast drive to reach that respect
is an inspiration to us all.
by grover on
Jan 2, 2008 11:15 AM PST
up
0 recs
every slope I stalk is slippery
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 11:39 AM PST
up
0 recs
I draw a good celery
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 1:46 PM PST
up
0 recs
is it OK if I mock them non-contemptuously?
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 11:06 AM PST
up
0 recs
Why should Monkeyball watch out, PT?
It's not like you'd hold him accountable by lodging a CGV complaint. Since people aren't using the available resources anymore, why should anybody watch out for anything? It's every man, woman, monkey, and jerk for itself!
by Nico on
Jan 2, 2008 11:16 AM PST
up
0 recs
Sorry grover:
And puppet.
by Nico on
Jan 2, 2008 11:17 AM PST
up
0 recs
I just figured you were thinking of me
when you said jerk.
by grover on
Jan 2, 2008 11:43 AM PST
up
0 recs
you're a puppet, not a marionette
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 1:44 PM PST
up
0 recs
Like Nico would know the difference
by grover on
Jan 2, 2008 3:23 PM PST
up
0 recs
Didn't Warren Beatty
marionette?
by iglew on
Jan 2, 2008 7:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
It's not a violation
Even if I was in the business of reporting people, mockery is not, AFAIK, a personal attack.
I would assume that monkeyball, being a mod and whatnot, knows exactly what kinds of insulting behavior he can and can't get away with. But maybe I'm giving him too much credit.
by PaulThomas on
Jan 2, 2008 12:26 PM PST
up
0 recs
I have no more CGV knowledge/skilz than thee
I'm usually the first to admit when I've transgressed (or asymptotically approached) the limits -- which I've certainly done plenty of times.
I personally have no problem with deploying the CGV reporting system, which I have before -- but not in a long, long time (and not for anything anyone "said" directly "to" me). I also have no problem whatsoever with someone reporting me, for whatever reason.
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 1:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
You can check the CGs with the link
on the right bar (front page). Mockery absolutely can be a CGV, if it is deemed to be in the "belittling" category, as opposed to just low-grade teasing or a "we like each other, we're both fine with it" schtick. How do we know which it is? That's why there's a committee - to look at the complaint and decide. If no complaint is lodged, no CGV. The committee doesn't search for complaints, it adjudicates them.
by Nico on
Jan 2, 2008 10:50 PM PST
up
0 recs
The err in judgement ...
would have largely been in not recognizing the high probability of his "utility [being] severely compromised by injuries."
by devo on
Jan 2, 2008 10:02 AM PST
up
0 recs
In Kotsay's case,
I actually agree that the extension was a bad idea even at the time.
I don't think that Beane believes this, though-- I think he genuinely thought Kotsay would remain a quality player through 2008. His take on it, I'm guessing, would be that it was a good idea at the time which was torpedoed by injuries. Sort of like the entire 2007 team...
by PaulThomas on
Jan 2, 2008 10:08 AM PST
up
0 recs
My point is that ...
... by espousing the entire "torpedoed by injuries" line (with regard to Kotsay, especially, but also to several others on the roster), Beane is either lying, or is an idiot.
As devo and you pointed out, the likelihood of Kotsay remaining productive and healthy throughout the duration of the extension (heck, even for 50%+ of the extension) was pretty darn low -- and that was self-evident to a whole lot of us uninformed/powerless peons at the time. (There's also the fact that there's a strong chance that Kotsay, even had his back stayed intact, still could have turned into $2 Chuck at the plate.)
All of which is why I will be surprised if Beane does waive Kotsay -- he's gonna be stubborn and try to squeeze something of value out of that extension, even if it's only a sub-Blevins 29-year-old single-A reliever at the cost of 95% of Kotsay's 2008 salary.
Given what I "know" and suspect of Beane's temperament and roster management habits, yes, I think an outright release of Kotsay would be tantamount to an admission of error.
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 11:04 AM PST
up
0 recs
Mein Gott, an actual substantive response
Now, can I get you to dismantle some nuclear warheads in exchange for some mixed oxide fuel reactors? Or perhaps some oil for food?
As for the substantive bit: I think Beane will release Kotsay if and when he decides that he's not worth a roster spot. He did it before with Kielty and Witasick. It's not a question of admitting error-- it's just a question of admitting suckitude.
I think Beane has the mental discipline to not throw good money (or, in this case, good playing time) after bad (as he showed with the earlier releases). When you're playing a game of progressive information, a good player (and Beane is a good player at the game of baseball management) makes decisions based on the info he/she has at the time. I could go off into an extended poker metaphor here, but I'm assuming that if you play poker you're already aware of most of this stuff anyway.
by PaulThomas on
Jan 2, 2008 12:59 PM PST
up
0 recs
But April Glaspie *winked* at me!
I never play poker, because I'm really bad at it. I'm a kibitzer.
Beane, obviously, would likely win the tail off my back in any sort of negotiation/contest.
And you could be absolutely right regarding Beane and Kotsay. My guess, however (and, informed or not, that's all it is), is that Beane has a lot more (both financial and personal/professional) tied up in Kotsay (and Kendall ... and Chavez) than he ever did in Kielty or Witasick -- and that Beane is far, far less avant-garde/purely-rational/impersonal than his myth suggests.
by monkeyball on
Jan 2, 2008 1:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
No one's purely rational
which is why I find it particularly amusing when people imply that I'm Mr. Rationality. "Economic Man" is strictly a concept invented by conservative economists. Economic rationality is a skill (and not necessarily a particularly useful one, depending on your occupation and social standing), not an inherent fact.
Beane does seem to be better at this sort of thing than most, though.
by PaulThomas on
Jan 2, 2008 4:36 PM PST
up
0 recs
Well...
Technically, the Cubs didn't "release" Mark Prior, they just didn't offer him a new contract.
And who's Jamaal Lewis? A basketball player, or something?
Releasing Kotsay would be admitting a mistake, because they have to eat money. It would essentially be saying, "We'd rather pay you $4 million to leave the roster than pay you $8 million to actually play."
Please try and respond without referencing Game Theory or liquidity constraint.
by BWH on
Jan 2, 2008 1:28 PM PST
up
0 recs
Define Competitive
What has Kotsay done over the past two seasons to suggest that him on the field is "being competitive"? Kotsay was worse than Danny Putnam last year. He's worse than replacement, which means he's the exact opposite of being competitive. It also means that any one of the young players would be a better option, not just for the future but for right now.
And nobody says anything about "dumping" Street, Blanton, or Ellis. Jason Kendall was a salary dump (except not really, since Blevins looks to be solid). Moving any of those three guys would be a move to improve the organization as a whole.
by thejd44 on
Jan 1, 2008 3:35 PM PST
up
0 recs
rebuilding
I agree that we are not going to the playoffs this year, so we might as well try to see who can step up and do well in the big leagues. Kotsay's only value to the team is to do OK, so we can get some prospects for him later in the season. We will be just as competitive with a bunch of young, eager, and healthy(so far) players than the average veterans we have. I'd love to go to a game and watch Gonzalez, Murphy,(anybody but Crosby), Denorfia, Piedra, etc. play their hearts out to stay in the big leagues. Watching Buck last year and Byrnes in years past play with so much energy is much more exciting than some aging average player, who we all know won't be a part of the future. Happy New Year/Season to all!
by crb29 on Jan 1, 2008 10:20 AM PST 0 recs
Where have I heard that before??
Oh yes after the A's traded Mulder and Hudson but wait they rebuilt quickly and did better. I am not writing the A's off until they have a record worse than the giants.
by Arcman on Jan 1, 2008 10:40 AM PST 0 recs
Well, don't worry about that one
Next year's Giants are going to be historically bad. The A's could lose 90 games and still be almost 100% certain of finishing in front of the Giants.
by PaulThomas on
Jan 2, 2008 12:04 AM PST
up
0 recs
Not seeing Kotsay out there
...may be the best part of the New Year!
Now if we just could do something about that Crosby fellow....
by BerkeleyDawg on Jan 1, 2008 10:52 AM PST 0 recs
Is anybody else tired of seeing
Todd Walker on the Rotoworld side bar?
Random, I know, but I need some new A's news! Happy New Year everybody!
by faninphilly on Jan 1, 2008 10:57 AM PST 0 recs
On the contrary - I MUST know
where Jeff DaVanon ends up!
by Nico on
Jan 1, 2008 10:58 AM PST
up
0 recs
The best news would be if Kotsay, Crosby and
Harden actually showed something early in the season and could be traded for something useful. So I guess they need to play for the first couple of months.
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 1, 2008 10:59 AM PST 0 recs
Kotsay in CF
Well, if he plays semi-decently in the first couple of months the A's might be able to move him to a contender in need of CF help. CF is a tough position to fill and Kotsay could be a trading chip in order to get a B level prospect somewhere...
by BruceBochte on Jan 1, 2008 11:19 AM PST 0 recs
There are several reasons to play him a bit ...
- Try to develop a little bit of trade value.
- Keeping the entire roster sharp, in the (unlikely) event that something big happens and the team is competetive.
- Keeping Kotsay happy so that he is a positive influence in the clubhouse and is willing to put everything he can into teaching the young guys to play CF well.
- Determining what Kotsay has left so BB can make an educated decision when offering him a three year extension.
- Assuming we don't acquire someone who specifically is a center fielder, having Kotsay there as the official first option will help to alleviate pressure on the others, as they are learning a new trade.
by devo on Jan 1, 2008 11:20 AM PST 0 recs
I'd like to see a 3Y/$15M Kotsay extension
If he's willing to pay that much money to be on the roster while we're not contending, it could help Beane sign some draft picks.
by monkeyball on
Jan 1, 2008 11:30 AM PST
up
0 recs
if only
by flipgatey3 on
Jan 2, 2008 2:28 PM PST
up
0 recs
"a touch of experience under their belt"?
by monkeyball on Jan 1, 2008 11:28 AM PST 0 recs
Maybe they were Congressional pages
by FreeSeatUpgrade on
Jan 1, 2008 12:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
re-capitulat-ing
by iglew on Jan 1, 2008 12:37 PM PST 0 recs
They'll be dumped in due time
I see no evidence that Beane disagrees with you, Nico. But what's the rush?
There's a couple of guys on our roster who are very likely going to be dead weight -- Kotsay, Johnson, Crosby. The front office knows that. There's also the small possibility that they won't. You can project all you want but you never know for sure if the guy everyone expects to suck is suddenly hot, or vice versa. You don't rely on that, of course, but there's no reason to limit your options any sooner than you have to.
Guys like Kotsay or DJ will be unloaded as soon as there's good reason to unload them and no sooner. Examples of good reasons: a decent trade offer; a need to free up a roster spot.
As soon as we really do need to free up a roster spot, whether in a pre-season trade or during the season to play a guy, then sure Kotsay will be tossed overboard. But for now, nothing is happening, so he and the others just sit there on the roster, on the off chance that maybe we get a trade offer for Crosby, or maybe Kotsay surprises everyone and hits .375 in April, or maybe Barton and Cust both get hurt at the same time and we suddenly have an opening for DJ.
The point is not that you need to keep them for such contingencies. The point is that so long as there's no compelling reason to get rid of them, you may as well keep them around just in case.
by iglew on Jan 1, 2008 1:26 PM PST 0 recs
But if they don't trade Kotsay this month,
there's no way we'll win any games in February - at least until pitchers and catchers report, because they're really important.
I guess best case scenario is that Kotsay rips the cover off the ball in spring training and is dealt for a young pitcher, or SS, or reliever. "In Denorfia We Trust"
by Nico on
Jan 1, 2008 2:28 PM PST
up
0 recs
Kotsay trade value
It may be that if he rips the cover off the ball early that the thing we gain is that someone takes his contract off of our hands. I have a hard time believing right now that Kotsay can do enough to merit some team giving us a prospect(s) and assuming his contract.
by Larry E on
Jan 1, 2008 2:47 PM PST
up
0 recs
I doubt they'd do better for Kotsay than for
Kendall. IOW pay most of the contract and get back a middle reliever.
by WaddellCanseco on
Jan 1, 2008 5:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
Urban's 2008 Season Preview
One thing that bothered me about his "Road Ahead" section is this comment:
In the meantime, talks with arbitration-eligible Street, who is young enough to be included in the youth movement, figured to continue.
Haren was young, had 3 cheap years left and we traded him. Blanton is young, controlled for 3 more years and we're shopping him. So why would Urban say that because Street is young (and controlled for 3 more years) we would include him in our rebuilding phase?
by faninphilly on Jan 1, 2008 3:09 PM PST 0 recs
maybe we'll trade him for a "prominent infielder"
Street, that is, not Urban.
by monkeyball on
Jan 1, 2008 4:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
some people here
would be fine with trading urban
by flipgatey3 on
Jan 2, 2008 2:30 PM PST
up
0 recs
We don't really know if Beane was
shopping Haren any more than he was shopping Blanton - it may be that he got enough (he felt) for Haren, not enough for Blanton, and was ready to trade either, neither, or both depending on what was offered. The same probably applied to Street, only more likely Street would have been packaged (with Blanton or someone else) for a bigger haul than he could yield alone.
by Nico on
Jan 1, 2008 5:33 PM PST
up
0 recs
Discount shopping?
Why is it assumed that you could get more by "bundling" players such as Street and Blanton than you could get in two separate deals. (At the store you usually get a discount if you buy in bulk.) I would assume that, all things being equal, that you could get just as much by dealing them separately -- especially since we are in no great need to trade one, either, or both.
by Larry E on
Jan 1, 2008 5:49 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm not assuming that Street + Blanton
would yield more than each might yield separately. I'm assuming that Street alone would not yield that much, due to his injury history, and that to get what Beane wanted back (really promising young talent) for Street, he might have to add a piece. I don't think that is true with Blanton or Haren, whose value as a starting pitcher with no injury history is high enough to bring back a fair haul on its own.
by Nico on
Jan 1, 2008 6:32 PM PST
up
0 recs
Street's a lot younger than either of them
Both Haren and Blanton are likely to peak before or shortly after hitting free agency. Street is still going to be in his mid-20s when he becomes a free agent. So the team is going to be more willing to re-sign him at that point.
by PaulThomas on
Jan 2, 2008 12:10 AM PST
up
0 recs
happy new year, AN!
i'm still very sad about the haren trade but i am excited about the 2008 season. i'm excited to see what the kids can do!
by gotgreen on Jan 1, 2008 3:31 PM PST 0 recs
Happy new year!
by pollutighb889 on Jan 1, 2008 4:26 PM PST 0 recs
Happy New Year, AN!
I agree that noone wants Kotsay, Harden, or Crosby, so you may as well see if they have anything left that may be of worth. Kotsay can also be a good teacher to Gonzales or Buck. I think we will all be surprised with a winning season in 2008. GO A'S!
by A'sfansince1970 on Jan 1, 2008 8:02 PM PST 0 recs
"I think we will all be surprised with a winning
season in 2008. GO A'S!"
All that hinges on Blanton/Street/Ellis trade. However I dont think we will be nearly as bad as some people think. Not gonna compete for post season but we would win 80.
by Syphon on
Jan 1, 2008 9:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
There's even still some faint hope
of surprise contention. What it hinges on, however, is both Dan Meyer and Dana Eveland having breakout years. G'luck with that, but still...hope springs eternal in the Spring, eh?...Personally, I never saw the merits of conceding anything in January.
by Nico on
Jan 1, 2008 9:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
