Rumor: Braves interested in Kotsay
by dboysick on Jan 10, 2008 4:53 PM PST
62 comments
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/sha...
Please oh please, let this rumor be true. Seems like John Schuerholz liked the Huddy deal and wants some more.
But, a rumor is a rumor.
"But as I’ve said, I still think the Braves might make a move or two before opening day, including the addition of another stopgap center fielder. And there is reason to believe that Oakland’s Mark Kotsay could be the guy.
I’m not saying a deal is imminent or even that the Braves have strong interest in the veteran Kotsay, but I’ve talked to people connected with both teams and have yet to have anyone tell me it’s not gonna happen. Maybe that’ll change soon, but so far nobody is shooting down the possibility, and that tells me something could be up."
0 recs |
62 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I dunno
The Braves are generally smart in their decision-making. Who knows though, at this point I'd take Lillibridge in exchange for Kots, as long as it might take me to get over the loss.
...
...
Okay, I'm good.
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 10, 2008 5:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
BB would probably pay ...
all of Kotsay's salary, if it returned him Lillibridge.
by devo on Jan 10, 2008 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Works for me
by grover on Jan 10, 2008 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pay the Braves $4m to take Kotsay ...
and another $4m for Lillibridge ... seems fair to me ...
by devo on Jan 10, 2008 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Although
I'm not entirely sure MLB would allow it. I think the Braves would have to pay some portion of Kots' salary... say $500K?
by grover on Jan 10, 2008 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think you're right ...
by devo on Jan 10, 2008 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you seen Sickel's review of Tampa?
Sick.
Wicked.
3 A's
4 B+'s
3 B's
3 B-'s
by grover on Jan 10, 2008 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah ...
based on my GPA rating, they are in 1st place (obviously) ... but the difference between them is twice the difference between the 2nd and 6th place teams ... if you took away one of those A's, replaced it with a C, they'd still be in first ...
13 players with a B- or better ... which ties the Rangers, but is 2 better than anyone else.
He only has awarded seven pure A's ... and 3 of them went to the Rays ...
Wow ...
But here's the question ... given those ratings, would you bet on them topping .500 in the next five years?
by devo on Jan 10, 2008 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me make sure I'm reading that right
Are you saying they'll play .500+ ball over the next 5 seasons combined?
OR
They'll crack .500 at least once in the next 5 years?
by grover on Jan 10, 2008 10:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Once ...
by devo on Jan 11, 2008 12:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
just once in the next five years? yes
book it.
by xbhaskarx on Jan 11, 2008 12:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Honestly, I think he's buying into the hype a bit.
Maybe you have to see it to believe it with Davis and Price? What I know is that one of them has numbers which, while excellent, are not so outrageous as to warrant a pure A grade, and the other has yet to throw a single professional pitch. They both seem like A-s to me. But I'm not the expert...
Shrug. IF they're what they're cracked up to be, and IF Brignac emerges as a real shortstop, and IF either this all happens in the next 2-3 years or they're able to pull off a Mulder trade for Kazmir or Crawford, then it's possible that they MIGHT make the playoffs. I guess we'll find out.
by PaulThomas on Jan 10, 2008 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Davis only got a B+
Longoria, Price and McGee got the A's
What's not to like about Price? He's got the perfect build, scouts love him, his mechanics are flawless, he has three plus pitches, he has great athleticism, he strikes out a ton of batters and has fantastic control ...
It's true that there's a lack of information on him, but every single thing we know is basically perfect.
Sickels, Goldstein and Baseball America all agree that he is the Rays #2 prospect.
by devo on Jan 11, 2008 1:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Braves offered Lillibridge,
Beane should not only give them Kotsay and his entire salary, but throw in Crosby and HIS entire salary on top of it.
I think what I'm saying here is that that would be an unbelievable steal for Oakland. Maybe if the A's offered an MLB-ready starter (Lenny D?) along with Kotsay and most of his contract, it might get done.
by PaulThomas on Jan 10, 2008 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
But I don't see anyway we get anything like that. Most likely, we'd get some low-level Grade C prospect and we'd pay a portion of Kotsay's salary. I'd still be happy with that.
by Egg Foo Yung on Jan 11, 2008 5:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh
I dunno if you all picked up the sarcasm in my post. In any case there's absolutely no way we get Lillibridge for Kotsay. That is unless Wren has a very large hole in his dome.
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 10, 2008 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, we all picked up the sarcasm
We just chose to be wistful about the comment.
by grover on Jan 10, 2008 8:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
I didn't, but that's because I'm a little dim.
by Egg Foo Yung on Jan 11, 2008 5:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you were a little dim sum
by monkeyball on Jan 11, 2008 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah yeah
Growing up with a name like mine, I've heard them all before. But I guess you know what that's like.
by Egg Foo Yung on Jan 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know that last year Kotsay joined many A's
on the ever-expanding DL and was nowhere near the player he had been, but I thought this blurb from the article was a fair and gracious description of Kotsay:
He’s an excellent defensive CF and a strong leader and clubhouse presence, described everwhere he’s been as a great teammate who, whenever he’s in the lineup, plays all-out, without regard for his battered body and chronic back.
I would love to get $8-mil off the books and continue the re-build/tear-down, but will miss Kotsay if such a move is made. I always enjoyed watching him in CF and recall his joy when the A's became the first + .500 team he ever played for.
I think the most likely scenario with Kotsay is a trade, but near the July deadline after teams get the opportunity to see if he can actually suit up and play on a consistent basis.
by WannaBeGM on Jan 10, 2008 5:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
fcair and gracious is one way to describe it
by monkeyball on Jan 11, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd trade Kotsay for...
free, as long as his contract goes with him. I'd even consider paying some of it too.
I loved Kotsay, but that player is never coming back as far as I can tell.
by SwisherSweet on Jan 10, 2008 5:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
trade
There's no way any GM would take on Kotsay's contract, as inept as some GMs may be. But we might as well get what we can for him and let the kids play.
by Nick86 on Jan 10, 2008 5:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Chicago
I heard the same thing being said about Jason Kendall last year... but what do you know. A team eventually needed a gritty Catcher w/ leadership qualities. And Beane happily obliged.
Would Kotsay bring back a Supplemental 1st Round Draft Pick? Kendall did.
by Colorado Fan on Jan 10, 2008 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Kendall to Chicago trade
might go down as Beane's best trade ever. I still can't believe he got Blevins and Bowen for an old catcher who was having a historically bad season.
by EastCoastA on Jan 10, 2008 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Beane gave the Cubs $4.5 million to cover the remaining $5.3 million of Kendall's contract. That kind of cash usually buys you a back-up catcher and a AAA arm.
by grover on Jan 10, 2008 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Cubs got Kendall
for approx. $1.2 million a season (prorated) which is probably about what he was worth. So that pickup would have made some sense as a free agent signing. (At least, as long as you don't consider the fact that it blocked Geovany Soto.) As a trade in which they gave up actual talent, it was utter insanity.
Meanwhile, Oakland saved $600,000 plus, while unloading a guy who had negative value to the team and picking up both a quality prospect and a jump of the waiver line on Bowen (not worth a huge amount, but it's something). If Blevins can pitch at Embree levels (not that hard, actually), he'll save the team way more money than Oakland paid Chicago for Kendall.
Forget making bricks without straw, that's making bricks without clay.
by PaulThomas on Jan 10, 2008 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your numbers are wrong
The Cubs paid Kendall $857,650.
As I said, $4.5 million will buy you a back-up catcher and a AAA arm.
by grover on Jan 11, 2008 5:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, OK, so they overpaid Kendall as well
You're confusing the financial math here.
The Cubs got: Jason Kendall for 2.5 months at $857,000. That's the equivalent, over a full season, of paying him approximately $1.8 million. (My math was wrong there, but in a way which actually helps my point.) It would be seriously stretching a point to claim that Kendall was worth that much money given his actual play. So it would have been an iffy signing even if it had been a free-agent contract. Instead they also gave up Blevins. (Bowen had already been DFAed.)
Oakland saved almost $700,000 once you subtract out Bowen and Blevins's salaries. It also picked up a backup catcher and a AAA arm, and in return lost virtually nothing from the MLB team.
The number "4.5 million" doesn't even enter into the discussion here. The question is purely one of which assets and liabilities each team added and subtracted from its balance sheet, and the 4.5 million (which didn't move anywhere) doesn't enter into it. Saying the A's paid the Cubs 4.5 million for Blevins assumes, without saying it, that the Cubs would have been willing to claim Kendall's contract on waivers if they had had the chance to.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2008 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Cubs got a supplement draft pick
for losing Jason Kendall (Type B) free agent...
So I think the Cubbies actually did pretty good with the trade. And JK was actually pretty good for them.
I think the trade was pretty fair for the both teams. (not to Braves, take Kotsay!, Billy's more than fair!)
by Instant Replay Umpire on Jan 11, 2008 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Billy must have realized
Kendall would get a comp pick, but probably thought:
a) Blevins + Bowen > Supplemental pick
b) Watching Kendall at bats was only slightly better than sticking hot pokers in your eye. (although I guess that would save you from having to watch said at bats...)
by rebus on Jan 11, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure he did "realize" it
for two reasons.
- Compensation is relative to league, and the AL has better catchers.
- Playing in the AL (and the Coliseum) was likely to depress Kendall's numbers vis a vis playing in the NL Central in Wrigley.
There's no guarantee that Oakland would have gotten a pick out of Kendall. It may have been a non-zero-sum situation.
Getting a supplemental pick does explain the Cubs' actions a bit better though.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure my math is fine here
If you want to get detailed, the best way to breakdown the trade is as follows:
The A's kicked in X dollars in the trade of Kendall for Bowen. They then added Y dollars to get Blevin included in the package. X+Y = $4.5 million (approximate).
The "$4.5 million" ABSOLUTELY enters the discussion. It IS the discussion. Without a large portion of that figure the deal doesn't happen. The A's get to keep Kendall, they don't get to save any cash, they don't get Blevins and it's doubtful they acquire Bowen.
Saying the A's paid the Cubs 4.5 million for Blevins assumes, without saying it, that the Cubs would have been willing to claim Kendall's contract on waivers if they had had the chance to.
Not really.
by grover on Jan 11, 2008 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
The A's kicked in X dollars in the trade of Kendall for Bowen. They then added Y dollars to get Blevin included in the package. X+Y = $4.5 million (approximate).
I really think there's three numbers here. Let's call Z the amount the A's would have had to give Chicago just to get them to take Kendall off their hands in return for nothing.
My "best guess" as to what these figures are is something like:
Z=$2.7M
X=$0.3M (added price for Bowen)
Y=$1.5M (added price for Blevins)
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2008 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Z couldn't happen
Teams can't just give a player to another organization, there has to be an actual transaction. It could simply be a cash exchange (like when the A's bought Cust from SD) but there has to be an exchange.
Of course, I wonder if the ol' bag o' baseballs bit works in the bigs.
by grover on Jan 11, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Assume the A's get Julio Manon
or someone of his ilk. An organization player with no chance of making the majors.
Didn't some team trade a PTBNL that turned out to be a steak dinner?
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Kotsay would...
Kendall did because he was a Catcher, and was ranked against OTHER catchers, and mainly by counting stats, where his games and ab's (IE: durability) helped him a lot.
Kotsay will just get lumped together with other outfielders.
by Zonis on Jan 10, 2008 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be shocked if any team would take him
before he proved he was healthy enough to play, and that he could be at least adequate on defense and with the bat.
by OaklandSi on Jan 11, 2008 5:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is kind of off topic
In that, yes, I'd be plenty happy to give Mark Kotsay to anyone for anything, especially a Brent Lillibridge, but...
Why do prospect followers in general seem high on Lillibridge? He had a nice 2006 in leagues that he was generally a little old for, and as a 23 year old in 2007 didn't top a .767 OPS at either AAA or AA. (I mean God yes I'd give up Mark Kotsay for him, but as far as prospects go, he seems kind of run of the mill to me.)
(Also I admittedly don't know much about his defense or the park effects of where he was playing in 07, so if those explain it I could understand it then.)
by walk off bunt on Jan 11, 2008 9:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
+1
i also don't know anything about lillibridge, but have been wondering the same thing for the last week.
by xbhaskarx on Jan 11, 2008 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's not a middle of the order hitter ...
His glove will play at SS just fine (not likely a GGer ... but average [which says a lot at SS] or better).
He has very good speed -- he'll add several runs a year on the base path.
As he refines his approach, scouts think he should be able to cut his strikeouts. He has good gap power. A favorable but reasonable projection would put him at .300/.380/.440.
He wasn't really old in 2006, considering he went to college.
He's not likely to be a superstar -- but he's very close to being ready and has a very good chance of being a very good player.
by devo on Jan 11, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 11, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that just about verbatim ...
... the pre-promotion scouting report on Crosby?
And if Lillibridge is "very close to being ready," then mightn't we be better off targeting a higher-ceiling prospect who's a year or two further behind?
by monkeyball on Jan 11, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's probably just about verbatim
the pre-promotion scouting report on a ton of guys.
Just because a guy superficially resembles a talented bust doesn't mean he's inevitably destined to go down the same path.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really ...
A pre-promotion scouting report on Crosby would have read something like:
Solid glove at short, his strong arm and soft glove will make up for his range being limited by his size.
He's a big bodied shortstop in the mold of Alex Rodriguez or Cal Ripken Jr. and he could develop the power to match the latter.
He has the swing of a power hitter, which will always lead to a lot of strike outs. As long as the power continues to develop, this should not be a problem.
He's a smart base runner with above average speed. He won't steal many bases but should be able to take third on a single without much trouble.
If the surge in power he showed in AAA was real and continues to develop, he has the makings of a star.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, no ... he projected to be a completely different kind of player -- with much more upside but much more risk as well. It's like the difference offensively between A-Rod and Derek Jeter.
by devo on Jan 11, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Understanding Lillibridge
The difference between 2006 and 2007 was Lillibridge changed his hitting approach. So already he's shown more ability to adapt then Crosby. (Only partially kidding with that one.) Scouts noted that in 2007 Lillibridge seemed to be trying to hit more balls in the air... he was trying to hit for more power. He was much less patient at the plate, looking to attack fastballs early in the count.
The numbers back up these reports.
His BB totals dropped from 87 in 2006 to 40 in 2007. His fly ball percentage went from 40% in 2006 to 46% in 2007. His pop-up numbers went from 27 in 475 AB to 44 in 512 AB, a 29% increase.
Power is not going to be a big part of Lillibridge's game, so he needs to get back to the approach he showed in 2006. If he does that, then with his defense and plus baserunning he'll end up a good to very good big league SS.
by grover on Jan 11, 2008 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If my interpretation of Crosby's batted ball
profile is correct, Crosby needs to do exactly the same thing as Lillibridge. I.e. more patience at the plate and a ground-ball swing.
He won't actually do it, because he's a rockhead, but it's what he ought to do...
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2008 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
With fairly poor contact skills
and lacking plus speed, Crosby wouldn't have a lot of value if he employed that approach.
by devo on Jan 11, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
basically, Cros just shouldn't swing at all
by monkeyball on Jan 11, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's safe to say
that his current approach doesn't exactly have a lot of value, either.
When he hits fly balls, with relatively rare exceptions (he's well below average in HR/FB and I suspect in 2B/FB as well), bad things happen. He'd be better off sticking to grounders, which already account for most of his batted balls in any case. His speed is fine; I don't know how far above average you have to be to be "plus," but it's definitely above average.
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2008 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As a fairly unhelpful answer ...
he'd have to be fast enough to beat out enough ground balls so that the infield needs to play him in, opening up holes for him to swat it through ...
It's not my opinion that he is that fast ... but that's a pretty unscientific way of looking at it ...
by devo on Jan 11, 2008 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
She blinded me with science!
by grover on Jan 11, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like my solution better
by monkeyball on Jan 11, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What's that?
Throw poo just behind him so that he stands closer to the plate?
by devo on Jan 11, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that would work, too
by monkeyball on Jan 11, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to admit
that you could take my sentence, cut out a few parts
When he hits [...] balls, [...] bad things happen.
and still have a valid argument...
by PaulThomas on Jan 11, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kotsay to Braves close
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/sha...
Beane has apparently called Mark Kotsay to tell him that he might be dealt to Atlanta. With Kotsays (at least limited) No Trade clause, he might be required to waive it.
A's would recieve a mid-level prospect, and send over cash.
by Zonis on Jan 11, 2008 1:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
