Will the Team Compete in 08?
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 24, 2008 1:16 PM PST
in News
Email
PrintIt might be useless to ask this question already because I just don't think Billy Beane is done conducting his rebuilding. But as we sit less than a month away from spring training, this is normally the time when I start to get extremely antsy for the start of the season I can't help but wonder about how bad the team will be on the field.
Since the two major pro sports teams I follow are the New Jersey Devils and Oakland Athletics, I've been spoiled by having playoff-caliber teams that have the potential to win it all in any given season. This will be a new one for me. Don't get me wrong, I've suffered through some terrible seasons with both franchises, but I haven't had a really bad season with any of the teams since the 90s.
I'm wondering, will the team be as bad as most in the media will have you believe? Or was Wolff's optimism for the upcoming year warranted?
Let's take a look at what the probable starting nine will be for most of the year (pending further moves, of course):
C: Suzuki
1B: Barton
2B: Ellis
3B: Chavez
SS: Crosby
LF: Buck
CF: Denorfia
RF: Gonzalez
DH: Cust
If Cust wasn't a one-year aberration and Buck and Barton don't go through a ton of ups and downs (and stay healthy) I don't see any reason why the offense can't produce similarly to what it did last year. Suzuki for a full year should be an upgrade over Kendall. Barton should be an upgrade over last year's first base and hopefully Buck stays healthy for a full season. Who knows what to expect from Chavez right now? But if he's finally fully healthy for the first time in several years, then 30/100 should be a very distinct possibility.
The problem comes when you look at the rotation. What used to be the biggest strength of the team is now full of question marks.
Blanton will be the team's ace (unless some Canadian has a miracle recovery from all that ails him), followed by Gaudin, Duchscherer then maybe Eveland and Meyer. Blanton is really the only sure thing because you're depending on two guys coming off of surgeries to be a big part of the rotation. And who knows what Duke and Gaudin might actually be able to give before the rotation goes from what I outlined above to:
Blanton
DiNardo
Meyer
Braden
Eveland
It's going to be a weird transition from a team that was once built on pitching to a team that will probably allow quite a few runs this year. Then again, these are strange times to be an A's fan. This just goes with the territory.
So the question is whether or not the A's will compete in 2008? If Duke comes back healthy and makes a smooth transition to the rotation, if Gaudin is completely healthy and by some miracle Harden happens to remain healthy for more than an inning or two this year, then I could see the A's being a team that goes over .500. But as with the last few years, those are a lot of ifs and we've seen how those have broken for the A's in recent seasons. Not well.
64 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't think they will win much
But looking at that lineup makes me happy. If those 2 or 3 of those "rookies" have a decent season the A's could be kind of fun to watch. But the rotation is kind of scary considering the injury potential at the top and lack of experience at the bottom. I guess I just said everything that Blez just did only not as well. i guess I could have just posted, Ditto!
The one thing
that I think will be interesting will be to see if Buck and Barton have slumps. I don't suspect they will have prolonged ones because they have such a great approach at the plate. That's what makes them so special and so exciting to me.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 24, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
Wow, it becomes real
looking at that how nasty the lineup is.....Will be fun to watch Barton and Buck for sure, even in losses. If I had to predict now, I would say 70-92 with a bump up if Harden can be healthy. I think they have very little chance at .500 which would be the absolute best they could hope for. I say 70.
I hope Gonzalez..
makes the team outta spring training. As well as Gio. If they do it will be alot more fun to watch. With some luck out starting staff wouldnt be to bad:
Harden
Blanton
Gaudin
Gonzalez
Eveland/Myeres
I would think that rotation would be pretty decent. Of course it can easily end up:
Gaudin
Eveland
Meyers
Dinardo
Barden/Saarloos
If Harden is hurt and Blanton is traded.
Some quick numbers ...
I averaged the nine players' OPS using each projection system and a tenth "bench player" with a 700 OPS: (for Denorfia, Gonzalez I used he average of available projections for unavailable projections)
James .776
Chone .745
Marcel .778
Average .767
By comparison, last year's A's team posted a .745 and the league average was .761.
The offense should be average or a bit better than average -- but has more upside than downside.
The rotation ... that's a different story ...
devo
Email me when you get a chance. I've been trying to email you but the email you have doesn't work.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 24, 2008 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
devinl (at) chccnet (dot) org
I sent you an e-mail a couple of days ago ... not sure why you didn't get it.
without numbers ands using just personal feelingg
I'd have guessed (and do guess) that the A's offense will be better next year.
Suzuki is a MASSIVE improvement over Kendall, and Daric Barton should be a MASSIVE improvement over DJ. Ellis should be fine, and I don't think that Chavez or Crosby will be worse at 3rd and SS than the A's had last year. The outfield is a little suspect given the lack of experience... but it looks promising enough. By the way, wouldn't the A's be penciling in Sweeney before CarGo in right? I'd guess that a full season of Jack Cust will be just fine at DH.
The starting pitching is a giant question mark. The potential rotation Blez listed that includes DiNardo, Braden, Meyer, and Eveland isn't especially appealing. I'm not sure how we can really be all that optimistic unless the rotation looks more like Blanton/Harden/Gaudin/Duke/Fifth for most of the season.
Optimism is relative ...
this isn't a terrible team. I'd say 75-78 wins. It has a ton of upside, though. If Barton or Cust could show that their 2007 numbers were real, if Chavez or Crosby could bounce back/get healthy, if Harden can make 25 starts, if Duke/Gaudin/Calero get healthy ... each of those Ifs is worth about 1-2 wins on top of that projection with Harden being worth closer to 4. If all of them work out, the team could actually contend ... if a couple of them do, the team could easily top .500 ...
Of course there's a decent chance that none of them will work out ...
So am I optimistic? I'm not sure ... it's a relative term. I think I'm probably more optimistic than most.
From your post
You are pretty close to exactly as optimistic/pessimistic as I am. There is significant talent on this team, but almost all of that talent comes with real question marks that makes it very difficult to predict more than 75-78 wins.
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 24, 2008 5:06 PM PST up reply actions
75-78 sounds right to me
I actually might have even gone with 77-80.
As you and others have said, there's a lot of potential (albeit unlikely) upside, while I think we've pretty much seen the catastrophic downside in '07 -- and much of that downside has been jettisoned and/or can't get any worse.
With the pitching staff as projected, I'm expecting a lot of 6-5 wins and 10-5 losses.
oh I'm certainly optimistic...
I mean, there's still 162 games to go this year, right? You're not a fan if otherwise!
I only mean that if the rotation suffers some kind of monster setback that has Gaudin, Harden, and Duke not making the bulk of their allotment of starts... well, then it's hard.
I'm hopeful but not optimistic that Rich Harden will finish the entire year. We all know that if he does, he alone more than replaces Dan Haren... and well at that point we can start getting happy about the A's chances.
optimism
Keep in mind that such a lineup is a best case scenario. What's the probability that we get 500 AB from the 9 players listed? Seems pretty small to me, and what's behind our somewhat questionable front line? Guys I'm still a little excited about but who will most likely have negligible OPSes, such as Donnie Murphy, Jack Hannahan, and Ryan Sweeney. (My quote of the week is from Deric McKamey here where he says, "I think that if either [Ryan Sweeney or Aaron Cunningham] are any better than your third best starting outfielder, your team isn't going to score many runs." Given that it's conceivable that we end up with both of them playing, we'd better set our sights pretty low.)
Plus, remember: high expectations increase the probability of disappointment. Like OaktownPower, I'm trying to just think about the fun of watching these new guys develop rather than fantasizing about how neither Buck nor Barton will even have a "prolonged slump" during the course of the season- you do awesome work, Blez, but I think you need a reality check on this one!
by BerkeleyDawg on Jan 24, 2008 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not Blez ...
and I'd agree that I probably didn't work in nearly enough bench work. Adding a second 700 OPS bench player to that mix (at which point I think gives us:
James .769
Chone .741
Marcel .771
Average .761
Still about average.
Also, I think our bench is pretty good. For about half of these guys (Chavez, Crosby, Suzuki, Gonzalez, Barton), their actual backups don't project much if any worse with the stick than they do.
If you aren't in the mood for feeling optimism, that's fine. I understand the desire to be pleasantly surprised. But I believe that this is a realistic assessment of the quality of the offense. Both Buck and Barton's projections are significantly worse than their 2007 numbers. I'd definitely assume that both will slump at some point.
If the offense produces like last year and
the pitching is worse than last year,then that pretty much answers your question about how well the A's will do (i.e. not well).
Why no Greg Smith in the rotation?
He's 24 and already spent time at AAA. Put together a 3:1 K:BB ratio in the minors. 3.78 ERA in 52 innings in the PCL last year. He should get a better chance than Braden.
Smith threw 122 innings last year, and 148 in 2006. He could stretch out to around 160 this year. Either they give him a chance at the ML in 2008, or wait on him, give him a full year in AAA, and plan on giving him 2009 (age 25) as a starter, by which time it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to throw 180-190 innings.
I don't think the A's were aiming to pick up any organizational arms in the Haren deal. Which is why I think Eveland will get a fair shot in the MLB rotation in 2008. I think his spot, barring a Spring Training injury or meltdown, is fairly assured in the Opening Day rotation.
I just think it's weird that a 24 year old with a 3:1 minor league K:BB ratio rarely even gets discussed for the 2008 rotation. We seem to all be sleeping on Smith. At age 24, he should at least have a shot at making the MLB team.
Doesn't Smith also have Moxie?
If so then put him in there!
He may be a little short on moxie...
but he's got a lot of vigor, vim, vitality and pep!
I think Oakland will want to see him do well
at AAA before deploying him as a potential starter in the majors. He's a guy who relies on guile and fooling people, and if he isn't doing it in the minors, he's not likely to do it in the majors either. And even if he does manage it down there, he might not at the highest level.
Other than not having attempted the majors yet, I'm not really sure how he's any kind of upgrade on Braden. Braden's MiLB numbers from last year were exceptional as well.
I wouldn't be pessimistic enough to call him an organizational arm, but I can't envision him being an above-average MLB starter.
Looks like a lot of league average there
Average lineup and subpar rotation does not a .500 season make. There's upside in the lineup, and the bullpen looks averageish, but the rotation could be a total train wreck.
Someone mentioned 70 wins, which sounds about right.
If everything
or at the least the major "ifs" break right (i.e. Chavez is healthy and productive, same for Harden, and Duke can make the transition) then this team could finish above .500 and if you can do that then who knows where you'll finish.
In any case with the amount of young talent sure to see action next year then I'm not afraid of falling asleep during games like this year.
The rotation isn't that bad ...
Blanton is a plus and Gaudin/Duke (conservatively figure on one season between the two of them) and Dinardo should be at least league average.
The bottom of the rotation could be scary ... but there are few teams for whom that isn't the case ...
The offense should be a bit better than average, same with the 'pen.
I'd say the team should win 75-78.
I can't figure out where my math is wrong
I think the team should win about as many games as last year's Pythagorean record. (Which was 79 wins.) Loss of Haren and Swisher is canceled out by having Barton, Denorfia and Suzuki instead of Johnson, Kendall and Kotsay.
At the same time, I calculated them to be 5-10 games worse than the Angels. I think the Angels got lucky last season, but they did win 94 games. Can they really be a mid-80s wins team next season? Were they THAT lucky?
The Halos pythaged 90 wins last year ...
so that's a difference of 11 games. Essentially the high end of your calculation.
As I've outlined previously, I think you are optimistic about the Angels suckitude. Although he's overpaid, I think Hunter represents a very real upgrade and several examples of moving to full seasons of younger, more talented players should help them as well.
The available projections don't really think Barton is an upgrade on Johnson and, without that, I doubt Denorfia and Zooks are enough of an upgrade to make up for Haren alone, not to mention Swisher.
I'm not sure what actual math you're doing (and I haven't done any actual math beyond the quick and dirty lineup assessment above), so I'm not sure where, specifically you went wrong, but I'm pretty sure you are pretty wrong about the Angels and only slightly overly optimistic about the A's.
I think you may be underestimating just how bad
Kendall and Kotsay were.
They were collectively about 2 wins under replacement level (BP replacement level, mind, which is very low). Kendall was almost stunningly bad-- 22 runs below average with the bat and probably 5-10 more with the glove. Kotsay didn't play enough to post that kind of suckitude, but he was probably 15 runs below average.
If Denorfia is 10 RAA (OK, I like the guy... sue me) and Suzuki is 5 below, you're looking at a 5 win improvement. The loss of Swisher definitely eats into that, though. Collectively the two trades probably cost the MLB team 8 wins next season.
Of course, if you look at it that way, the Angels look even worse, since I was comparing them directly to the A's... now suddenly 5-10 wins better is 81-86 wins, which even I don't believe. My quick-and-dirty math is predicting a Mariners division title...
Reviews of Kendall's D are extremely mixed ...
and statistical assessments of catching defense is very, very much in its infancy, so I would be very, very hesitant to agree that he cost the team even half a game with his glove.
In 2007:
Kotsay -14 BRAA
Kendall -22 BRAA
Swisher 23 BRAA
Haren 23 PRAA
For a total of 9 RAA
Hmm ... well I still say its a downgrade ... but maybe not by very much.
As far as the Angels go, they pythaged 90 wins last year and didn't lose anything of any real value. GA is a year older/worse, but other than that, the rest of their key players should either be peaking or on their ascent. Getting Hunter to effectively replace their pathetic 2007 DH situation is a huge step up and so is removing Colon from their otherwise solid and deep rotation.
The Angels are a good team -- not just the last man standing in a poor division.
Kendall's glove
He may not throw out a lot of runners, but it was evident right away when Suzuki replaced him that he has excellent range around the plate, and is gifted at blocking balls in the dirt. I've always thought those skills don't get enough consideration when people evaluate him defensively.
Unfortunately. . .
This year it doesn't really matter what the A's do concerning our record. Whether its closer to 70 or 80 wins is very meaningless when it comes to a full season. I'm using this year to follow our prospects at the MLB and AAA level.
I've always found the minor leagues somewhat boring however now I'm extremely interested in them, mainly because that is where our talent is. I've started going to John Sickel's site minorleagueball.com ever since you guys have been interested in what he rates our prospects.
The one question that has been bugging me ever since the Haren and Swisher trades is, what percentage of his B+, or B, or A prospects actually pan out into successful major leaguers?
Stockton
I'll be paying a lot of attention to Stockton High-A ball. The Starting Rotation should be really, really fun to watch.
- De Los Santos
- Cahill
- Henry Rodriguez
- Andrew Brown (Midland Bound?)
- Mazzaro (Midland Bound)
- Italiano
- Lansford
by Colorado Fan on Jan 25, 2008 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
I'm guessing Andrew Brown isn't Midland bound
since that would mean DFAing him...
If you mean Andrew BAILEY, then yes, he is. He might even get jumped to Sacramento if he has a great spring.
Mazzaro will also head to Midland, I'm sure. Italiano will probably drop back to Kane County.
I mapped out the starting rotation a few days ago; I figure it as
DLS
Cahill
Henry Rodriguez
Alex Leon
Jamie Richmond
Jason Fernandez
with Travis Banwart and Graham Godfrey starting in the bullpen.
I don't know what to do with Lansford... he's just been so terrible as a pitcher. I hope they can convert him back to third base.
Blez touched on it at the end
I think the end-all-be-all of 2008 will be about two things and they won't be wins and losses; rather those two things are:
- Getting Chavez, Crosby, Duke and Harden healthy enough for the Oakland organization and every organization in baseball to get a reasonably accurate read about what kind of ballplayers they are at this point in their careers, and
- Getting 400+ at bats for Buck, Suzuki, Barton, Denorfia, and Sweeney in order to see exactly how these pieces fit into the future of the organization.
Honestly, everything else that happens with this team in 2008 will largely be irrelevant for the future of the organization. The team is not going to contend in any way next season and like I point out, competing probably won't even be one of the top priorities of the 2008 squad.
From a purely psychological standpoint, nearing the .500 mark might be good for team chemistry and development, but I don't think anyone in the clubhouse will be crushed or stunted all that much if the team doesn't even come close to that mark by end of September.
If...if...if...
the health situation improves, then .500 is certainly within sights. SP's could be OK. I see full season of Barton/Buck/Suzuki and...dare I mention?...Crosby as ++ upside on offense. The outfield should be OK (esp. if Sweeney/Gonzo make team) and Cust/Brown/DJ/Hanoran (spp?) should provide some offensive entertainment.
I have no stats or vorps or ? to support predictions, but believe A's should compete well within division and with AL Central. The AL East has strongest teams, but intra-division play will exhaust rotations and deplete reserves. Perhaps A's can exploit back o' rotation matchups, do well. One can only hope.
by nihilist on Jan 24, 2008 5:09 PM PST reply actions
Get that Crosby BS out of here
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 24, 2008 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
"Be careful what you wish for..."
I remember last season when baseballgirl, after something like our 28th consecutive 1-0 loss, said she's prefer a team that scored a lot of runs and gave up a lot of runs because at least it would be more exciting.
I'm not saying this offense will score 7 runs/game, but this coming season we may have more 7-6 games than 2-1ers. And the 7-6 losses can be plenty aggravating!
agreed
As I said above before seeing your post, I'm expecting a lot of 6-5 wins and 10-5 losses.
I'm rooting for them
to surprise the hell out of all of us and put together a 2005-like run.
I think we're all looking
for that Christmas present/surprise.
It's the same every year. After spring training, the "writers" do an assessment of all thirty teams. For all but about three, it's always, "And, if Martinez has the kind of year he's capable of, this team could be right there fighting for a wild-card spot in September.."
Every team looks "potentially great on paper."
Just to be an optimist, I think finally we get a bunch of good "career year"(s), the pitching surprises, and the team ends up 84-78.
by One won lost won on Jan 24, 2008 8:21 PM PST up reply actions
It really underscores how many
damn players there are named Martinez.
You have an interesting definition of optimism
since if the scenario you describe comes to pass (i.e. the players hit their ceilings and the team basically sucks anyway), the A's won't sniff the playoffs for at least the next five seasons.
unclear on your distillation
Heck, try to call a "career year" for Warren Spahn.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/spahnwa01.shtml
As much as it's a cliche, I do trust in Billy Beane, because he's proven he knows (and his braintrust knows) how to assemble talent into a winning team in a very short timeframe.
Those that can, do it. Those that can't, work for the Baltimore Orioles.
by One won lost won on Jan 25, 2008 10:47 PM PST up reply actions
the A's always look "great on paper"
Unfortunately, it's always that paper that doctors put on their examining tables.
There's a real possibility they could contend
But there's a much larger probability that they won't.
Last season, the pen imploded away many winnable games. This team has enough starting pitching depth, 8-9 guys who have a chance to have ERA's under 5.00, that they could ride an exemplary performance by the bullpen into say a 60-50 record going into August. Would that count as contention? This assumes that Street is still an Oakland A through mid July.
It's not that I think this scenario is likely, but I could see it happening, a bunch of relievers having a good half season at the same time. It's not likely, but it's more likely in my eyes than the Crosby/Chavez/Harden/young guys ready scenarios.
more like the Washington Generals
Sorry, but the A's are the "other" team of nobodies that let the big stars look good. The MLB is promoting the Japan series as a showcase for the Red Sox, the AP writer can't even come up with an angle for the A's... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...
To be expected I guess, they are the world champs and seem to own the suffix "nation."
We have no "papi" just the best defensive 2nd baseman since Ryne Sandberg just with less charisma.
We are going to lose a lot of games, and I expect Dan Johnson to start more games at 1B than Barton.
Why?
(To the Johnson/Barton thing, I mean.)
Short of a season-ending injury to Barton, that makes very little sense to me.
i agree that barton will stay 1b unless
he hits under the mendoza line until september...i think our offense is ok, but its not going to carry our team at all, its just decent, not murderer's row. Also, there is only a miniscule chance harden stays healthy, and probably ditto for duke. i dont see how this team could possibly win more than 82 games, and even that may be a stretch. my gut feeling is that they are going to replicate their '07 standings by finishing third.
by maffew @ Athletics Nation on Jan 24, 2008 6:15 PM PST up reply actions
The pressure to hit for power
will affect his ability to use the whole field and draw walks. He had an amazing June in Sac and a great 18 games (pot of coffee) with a last place big league club . But, to hand him the starting 1B job is still wrong. When you write off Dan Johnson, he will demonstrate power and contact extremely well and demand playing time. I agree, feature him for a midseason trade and roll with DB and Carter for the long haul.
I must have missed those 18 games ...
... where Barton played for the Rangers.
When DJ actually
does demonstrate contact ability and power, THEN he can demand his playing time.
To hand Barton the starting 1b job might be wrong, it is equally wrong to hand DJ the job. Make the best player earn it.
Someone who groks the market-based
sports speculation models ought to set up some sort of low/no cost AN play opportunity, wherein interested users can buy shares in various levels of season win predictions. The market price would fluctuate based on purchases. And (I predict) the pessimists (of which I am one) would clean up.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 24, 2008 6:21 PM PST reply actions
you're offering to clean up?
{flings poo}
Will the team compete in 08? Of course.
Will they win? Hmm, that's less likely.
Wouldn't you have to assume . . .
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that was the "convetional" wisdom. Of course, I am not B.L.Beane and don't know how he wants the next crop of homies to develop.
Heres my simplistic view...
Harden > Haren.
Health+Buck+Barton+Suzuki > Swisher.
If those two work out, and people are healthy we could easily win 81 games.
Gonzalez in RF?
I question this placement. The A's are obviously not going to compete this year, so allowing the kid some time to adjust and earn his way to the Bigs is a more likely scenario. Unless of course he tears it up in Spring, then all bets are off. However, Bean got Emile Brown for a reason, and thats to play at least the first half of the season.
OakFoSho
"Even a little dog can piss on a big building"
I think he got Emil Brown
because replacing him with one of the kids at any time--even at the start of the season--couldn't possibly be controversial. He should ultimately be viewed as a replacement for Bobby Kielty who doesn't insist on hitting left-handed.
Let me jump to Blez's defense here
because a couple of people have made comments along these lines. Blez didn't say that this would be the opening day roster-- just the starting nine "for most of the year." This would be perfectly true even if the A's don't call CGonz up until the beginning of June. (Which I, and some others such as notsellingjeans, consider highly likely for salary/arbitration reasons.)
I just hope we get a long enough look...
at all the potential outfielders we have before they start going down with injuries. The almost inevitable injury situation will mean we get a look at all of them, the only problem is if someone looks great for a month, then goes down with an injury for a month, and then comes back for only short spurts at a time. Those type of situations only raise more questions than they answer. Specifically, I'm most worried about Buck and his recurring, nagging injuries, because he seems to have great potential. If he can't stay healthy for long stretches, we're going to be in the same predicament that we are with Harden.
Health is the most important factor...
There is enough talent on the roster to be a .500 team or better, but health is going to be essential to any progress this season, as always.
I think we'll see a platoon of Sweeney and Brown in LF depending on a lefty or righty starter. Looking at their splits and combining that with a healthy Denorfia and Buck, the A's should have a much more productive outfield than last year. CarGon will get the call in mid-summer because the A's will wait as long as possible to get his arb clock started while getting him to the majors this year.
The starters are very tough to get a read on right now. It's going to be a fun battle to watch this spring as DiNardo, Meyer, Braden, Smith, and Eveland shoot for the final rotation spot(s).
A healthy Harden would really give this team a lift (duh) because they need someone to take pressure of the young guys at the front of the rotation. The team defense and bullpen are superb, and not losing close games will do wonders for a young team's and a young starter's confidence. This appears to be why Billy has not traded Blanton, Street, or Embree. With Harden and Blanton anchoring the rotation, this team has the potential to easily be better than last year's squad.
I like your assessment
even if it's all based on good health as the underlying linchpin.
I'll keep it in mind as the season unfolds.
It's Jan 25th and raining like crazy..."as the season unfloods" I wrote initially!
by One won lost won on Jan 25, 2008 10:54 PM PST up reply actions
Good Summary
wow, it never occured to me how bad this team was going to be until i looked at the projected starting line-up and rotation.
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.
