Sickels on the A's Deals
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 3, 2008 12:57 PM PST
in News
Email
PrintSince I'm not exactly an expert on minor leaguers, I decided to go to someone who is one of the biggest minor league experts in all of baseball. SB Nation's very own John Sickels, who runs the absolutely stellar Minor League Ball that should be a part of your daily reading. He also does an annual minor league prospect book that is a must-own. Especially for teams like the A's that are all about their minor league system now.
Without further ado, here is my chat with John Sickels about the prospects coming to the A's in the Swisher deal:
Blez: First of all, what do you think of the players the A's got for Nick Swisher?
John Sickels: I had Gonzalez as my number one White Sox prospect, and De Los Santos as number two, both Grade B+, both among the best pitching prospects in baseball.
Blez: Can you tell me about them without giving away too much of what's in your prospect book?
Sickels: Oh, sure. Gonzalez is a left-handed power pitcher with two Double-A seasons under his belt at age 22. He projects as a number two starter at the major league level, and showed much improved command this year. He could use some Triple-A time, but should be ready for a spot by 2009. De Los Santos is further away, but he's got a terrific arm and had a breakout season in the Sally League. He'd be more of a 2010 guy depending on how fast they want to rush him, but his upside is terrific.
Blez: What about Sweeney? Some scouts seem down on him at this point. Could we see him starting for the A's in 2008?
Sickels: I must admit that I am not sanguine on Sweeney. He strikes me as an outfield version of Sean Burroughs, in the sense that his power is just not developing the way it was supposed to. I don't think he will just disappear like Burroughs, but I think he's going to be just a platoon player, not an impact bat.
Blez: If you put the Swisher deal together with the Haren deal, how much have the A's improved their farm system?
Sickels: Well, look at the Top 20 list I posted a few days ago at MinorLeagueBall.com. These two trades, plus the good early returns on the 2007 draft class, completely rebuild the farm system. It has been a huge infusion of talent in a short period of time. 2008 might be a rough year, but the future looks really good. Masterful rebuilding by Beane.
Blez: What prospects that Beane acquired do you think are the most major league ready?
Sickels: The two Gonzalezes, Gio and Carlos, should both be ready late in 2008 or in 2009. Carlos might get pushed sooner and could struggle initially.
Blez: In your estimation, are any of these guys "star" quality players? By that I mean, will there be adequate replacements for Haren and Swisher down the road? (I understand there is guesswork involved in this). I guess I'm asking who has the highest ceilings.
Sickels: Both Gonzalezes have the ability to be stars. Anderson is more of a three/four starter type, but a good one. Chris Carter could be a slugging star if he holds up at higher levels as well as he did in the Sally League. It's an impressive group, these guys aren't just role players.
Blez: It'll be interesting to see if Beane continues to add to the collection too by dealing guys like Blanton, Street and even Harden if he proves to be healthy.
Sickels: Well there is rebuilding, and then there is gutting.
Blez: I suppose A's fans actually NEED your prospect book this year just to know who is on their team.
Sickels: LOL. Probably.
Blez: You mentioned the A's 2007 draft. Will the A's also be seeing some stars come out of that draft?
Sickels: It's too early to say for sure, of course. At the least they should get some solid contributors. Simmons should get to the majors pretty soon. There are a lot of polished guys in this draft class who could advance rapidly, but no sure-fire stars.
Blez: Without doing a lot of research and just giving me an off-the-cuff answer, where would you rank the A's minor league system now? Is it among baseball's best?
Sickels: I'm not quite done with the book yet so I don't know for certain, but these trades are probably enough to get it into the top half again. They now have six B+ prospects, and that's a lot
Blez: What's a guy have to do to earn an A from Sickels?
Sickels: I'm a tough grader. To get a Grade A- or even the very rare regular Grade A is quite tough. For me, B+ is high praise.
Blez: I know, that's why I was asking. I'm glad you weren't my teacher in high school. Thanks for your time. Where can ANers pick up your prospect book?
Sickels: LOL. Basically to get a Grade A or A-, you can't have any major question left about your ability. B+ means there is still some doubt there, but the preponderance of the evidence is in your favor. Carlos Gonzalez, for example, is "just" a B+ because of his plate discipline. The book is for sale only through me. You can go to my website Johnsickels.com and order via paypal, or you can send me a check at the address listed there. It should go out in the mail the first Monday in February, and the Top 50/50 list will be sent to everyone who gives us a valid Email address as soon as it is done, probably early next week.
Blez: Thank you so much for your time, John.
Sickels: No problem!
As an aside, Sickels just happened to publish his top 20 White Sox prospects over at Minor League Ball. Go take a look. Three of the top five now reside in Oakland.
291 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Am I reading the list wrong?
Or did Sickels slot both G. Gonzalez and De Los Santos ahead of Barton? I'd be surpised if that's the case. Regardless, sounds like we got some quality arms.
So...Daric Barton is our 4th Best Prospect??? :)
- Carlos Gonzalez, OF, Grade B+
- Gio Gonzalez, LHP, Grade B+
- Fautino De Los Santos, RHP, Grade B+ (
- Daric Barton, 1B, Grade B+
- Brett Anderson, LHP, Grade B+
- Chris Carter, 1B, Grade B+ (an aggressive grade but I LOVE this guy)
- James Simmons, RHP, Grade B
- Henry Alberto Rodriguez, RHP, Grade B (big-time sleeper, great arm)
- Trevor Cahill, RHP, Grade B-
- Aaron Cunningham, OF, Grade B-
- Corey Brown, OF, Grade B-
- Ryan Sweeney, OF, Grade C+ (I don't think his power is going to develop)
- Andrew Bailey, RHP, Grade B- (another sleeper with an aggressive grade)
- Sean Doolittle, 1B, Grade B-
- Javier Herrera, OF, Grade C+ (great tools, but refinement??)
- Dan Meyer, LHP, Grade C+
- Greg Smith, LHP, Grade C+
- Sam Demel, RHP, Grade C+
- Andrew Carignan, RHP, Grade C+
- Grant Desme, OF, Grade C+
- Travis Banwart, RHP, Grade C+
- Josh Horton, SS, Grade C+
- Jermaine Mitchell, OF, Grade C
----------------------------------------------
I'm thinking Sickels might give Sweeney a B- grade, or move him down to #15.
Bonds as an A
I know this sounds weird, but it actually makes sense at this point to sign Bonds. He'll cover Swisher's power and allow Cust to play outfield, particularly if Kotsay is healthy and in center (with Buck in the other corner spot). At that point, the A's make up for the loss of Swisher's bat and have a pretty regular outfield rotation. Denorfia, then, if healthy, becomes the fourth outfielder, with Hanahan as the fifth.
It keeps the A's competitive in 2008.
The thing is, none of these guys appear quite ready for 2008, including Sweeney and the other Gonzalez.
by richwol on Jan 3, 2008 1:01 PM PST reply actions
Signing Bonds
Trade away two Fan Favorites, then sign Bonds. If Beane did that, he would have the biggest set of balls in the history of all Mankind.
I thought if he signed Bonds, he'd have ...
... the smallest set of balls in the history of all Mankind.
The smallest balls and the biggest dichotomy.
Yep, that about sums up the Barry Bonds Experience.
Bonds on the A's in 2008
does not make them competitive. 08 is done....no reason to bring him aboard.
I agree with that.
Since we aren't competing this year for anything except experience why bring someone onto the team that will be controversial?
Because...
He puts fans in the seats. He doesn't take away at bats from prospects. He keeps the A's from losing 100 games. He strengthens the team's lineup.
Look, the A's have to play in 2008. You want to field a team that may lose a lot of games, but is competitive on a game by game basis. Plus, what if by some miracle Harden and Gaudin are healthy and Duke makes the transition to starter seamlessly? As Sickels says, you've rebuilt but you haven't gutted.
I find it disheartening to read so many posts from people who have no interest in rooting for the A's to win any games in 2008, which is what I seem to be reading. Let me emphasize something that Sickels talks about ---- these guys ARE NOT ready. If 2008 is an anomalous year, between one generation and the next --- at least give the team a fighting chance.
by richwol on Jan 3, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
Baseball is a funny game -
Meyer and Eveland have breakout years, Blanton, Gaudin, Duke hit their potential...As Joaquin Andujar said in one word, "youneverknow".
I never said I didnt have interest in rooting for
them...I just see zero way they compete in 08 and I am fine with that, but will still root for them and watch the young guys.
Bringing aboard a controversial guy who might be on the verge of going to jail is a move a team should do to maybe get them over the top.....I very much wanted the A's to sign him last year. I think it would just be a bad decision now. I dont want Bonds on a 72 win team.
All Bonds is going
to cost is money out of Fisher's, Wolff's and Beane's pockets.
I still think if Oakland wants to do that
it might be better served to sign Shannon Stewart, because he has more trade value. Bonds has none, because of all his luggage.
Shannon Stewart
Ageing below average corner OFs, who are average or below average at everything, are easy to find and have little trade value.
Bonds but may have no trade value, but at least he helps the A's put out a non embarrassing team. And sells some tickets, generates some hype.
Stewart is crap, whether for winning games, selling tickets, or trading.
This team, as currently composed ...
isn't a 72 win team.
With average health, we were looking at a mid to high 80 win team (based both on more substantial projections as well as simply adding a couple of games to the 07 pythag, based on average health and full seasons out of new, more productive players) ... I think it's fair to assume that management's best guess is that we won't have average health, so we should knock that down a couple of games. Now we're looking at a low to mid 80 win team. In moving Haren and Swisher we've subtracted about three and two wins respectively, so now we have a high 70 win team.
As currently built, this is a team that should win between 76 and 81 games. Bonds would add about 2 wins to that.
Getting a couple extra games of luck to break our way and having breakout performances from a couple of young guys could easily push this team into contention.
It's not the most likely scenario, by any means, but its also not an unrealistic one.
Even without getting the lucky breaks or extra development, if early season small samples are favorable, the team could easily appear to be in contention for the first few months ... that's more fun than the alternative.
I agree with you on Bonds.
Paying him for one year isn't going to hurt the A's future. He will not cost no draft picks. He won't be blocking anyone, not unless Beane wants to rush Carlos Gonzalez.
Yeah
I'll be rooting for the team regardless. Although bad baseball is never fun, it will be fun to watch the development of some of these young guns.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 3, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
Just want to point out
That the A's entered the offseason with two glaring holes in the organizational depth chart, CF and SS.
Beane has now traded Haren and Swisher and the best long term options available at those two positions are prospects THAT WERE ALREADY IN THE ORGANIZATION PRIOR TO THE FIRST TRADE!
A lot of things will have to go right before Aaron Cunningham can play CF full time. There aren't many (if any) non-A's biased prospect watchers who think Carlos Gonzalez is a legitimate canidate for CF. Newly added Ryan Sweeney isn't thought of as someone who can play CF full time. Sickels just called him a 4th OFer and BP feels the same way.
Beane hasn't added a single middle infield prospect!
Yes, Beane has added a lot of oyung talent to the organization but at some point wouldn't it behoove the roster if he actually acquired players who could fill in the holes that have existed since this whole process began?
I speculated in a quick comment
on the other thread that the next move might be packaging Blanton and some combination of our new acquisitions for a hot SS prospect.
I noticed that about the Haren trade, and agree that we haven't solved the up-the-middle problems yet.
But hard-throwing, top-shelf pitching prospects are probably the most fungible asset to dangle in front of other teams. Who doesn't want a 21-year old who throws 95 mph and dominates AA hitters?
Beane's moves so far don't get us further away from the goal of acquiring our next SS. They may even get us a little closer.
yeah, Beane ain't done yet
And by "yet," I mean "preparing for 2009-2010" -- I'm guessing that Beane is essentially considering the 2008 season as an extended offseason between '07 and '09.
Must have missed that comment
300 or so posts in a couple hours tends to obscure some stuff.
As for acquiring our next SS... get a move on Billy, I'm tired of waiting!
Urgency of the CF/SS acquisition
I think Beane is now clearly in the mode of opportunistic trades -- a 180 degree turnaround from the Loaiza deal last season.
If he sees a Cf or SS he likes in someone else's system, he can try to put a deal together. If the deal doesn't work out, he'll stand pat. He doesn't need to overpay, or get a mediocre prospect, for the sake of this season, god knows.
I'm also curious if new opportunities will open up after the draft in June -- isn't it a rule now that you can't trade players within a year of drafting them?
Rules
A player must stay with the org. that drafted him for for 1 year from the day of his signing. A PTBNL must be disclosed within 6 months of a trade. Therefore, it's possible that a player drafted by a team could be earmarked to go elsewhere in a trade within 6 months of his signing date but he could not report to his new club until a full year.
Not many folks are comfy with the idea of "their" prospect being in the care of another team for an extended period of time.
Beane will have to make a deal with the Devil ...
... to behoove the roster.
grover?
He may have some more cards to play. If you know this Beane knows it too. We still have Blanton, and Street as trading chips ...aw well as some other guys that we would actually enjoy unloading.
He does have cards to play
And yes it's me, not sure why you're questioning my identity.
Here's the thing that gets me. Beane has traded two of his best players and has not acquired that which the A's need most. He can trade someone like Street and pick up The Next Great SS.
Which leads me to ask, why not hold on to Swisher and Haren, trade Street for the new SS and reload for 2008 and beyond?
isn't that oversimplifying things a bit?
i think the organization as a whole was too weak to seriously be in contention through 2010. the system was stretched far too thin with promotions, injuries, and a couple of mediocre/poor drafts. consider that, how close (or not so close) we came to winning the division last year, and factor in the Angels' soon to be graduating young talent– it's a long shot.
We wouldn't only need a SS or stop gap CF, we'd need both + a SP in my opinion (especially considering Gaudin's injuries). Oh yeah, plus we'd need Chavez to successfully come off surgeries, Duke to transition to starting coming off surgery, and be more fortunate on the injury front.
In my opinion, it was a better move to get the very best value possible for players not likely to be here in 2011. No, that doesn't include Swisher, but I think that was more Beane accepting what he thought was a f'in A deal than wanting to shop Swisher.
Interesting though. Beane should move Blanton and Street for value (imo), but I can't see the A's acquiring even more corners and pitchers– even the farm gets full at some point. I'm anxious to see what the front office does next.
Not oversimplifying at all
2008 might have been a rough season regardless but it also would have been cathartic by ridding the team of excess weight. With a strong FA class coming in the 08/09 offseason it's possible the A's could have bounced back to full on contender status by 2009.
Setting that aside, if the Angels suffer a key injury or two in 2008 (namely, Vlad) they're in a very bad way.
the thing is
You can never be overstocked in the minors. The A's are sitting pretty for future trades if thats how they want to get what they "need". Now they don't have to just trade Street or Blanton alone (or whomever), we now have other prospects to throw into a deal to get anyone they want, like a CF or SS. Stock the farm system with the most players you can get and trade from a posistion of strength.
But, whats the rush to get what we "need"? This team isn't going to win the division this year so its not imperative that we fill any glaring holes yet. But if something comes along, great. BB can now sit on any player til someone comes a callin.
No matter how much we liked Haren and Swisher (and I did like them both, quite a bit of course), the fact is the team for the next few years wasn't going to be any good nor was there anyone in the high minors coming along to change that. By pulling off these trades, BB made sure the A's weren't going to turn into the Giants. Now we are stocked and ready to roll as the need arises over the coming seasons.
And, c'mon, now we will have some fun prospects to root for and argue over who is going to be better and that beats watching what the team was before the trades and being bored for another season. At least the unexpected is exciting.
by ChickenStanley on Jan 3, 2008 8:34 PM PST up reply actions
C'mon, we have Kotsay and Crosby
Seriously, though, I suspect he figures that the team can trade minor league talent to fill holes if need be once the team is competitive again. Right now, I'm inclined to agree.
I'm already visualizing a Hunter Pence for Carter/Anderson/somebody trade in a couple of years' time.
CF: SS: 2B
I know it's healthy to be "strong up the middle", but past champions didn't need it to win rings. Names like Eckstein, Uribe, Iguchi, Lugo, etc... immediately come to mind.
I don't agree with just trying to fill specific
holes on your roster. You get the best talent available and if you need to fill a hole down the road at a certain position, then you'll have plenty of talent to offer for it.
I think you can't seek out particular position players. Stocking up on young, great arms can never be a bad thing because once you get to a point where you've built up a competitive, young team again, you can either sign that missing piece or deal for it.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 3, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
That works great until you put your team
on the field.
Bobby Crosby is still the SS and unless Gregorio Petit shows last year's hitting wasn't a fluke Bobby Crosby will be the SS in 2009 as well. Once Crosby leaves (because at this point the idea of an extension is ludicrous) we are left hoping Justin Sellers can be the guy in 2010.
Sellers didn't make Sickels top 20 list prior to the Swisher trade going down and neither did Petit. Horton did but even if he can move through the system in 2 years he's still a long shot to stick at SS.
Beane traded one of his best hitters and maybe his best pitcher and we are still looking at the same names to fill an obvious hole. All those great young arms would perform a lot better if they had a legit SS to field groundballs.
Let's remember though
that yes Crosby sucks. But if he is your #9 hitter on the team and plays good defense, it's not the end of the world. Look at what the Red Sox did last year with Lugo.
We didn't miss the playoffs last year bc of Crosby and we weren't going to be awful this year because of Crosby. When we're ready to compete in a couple of years we'll replace him with a MLB ready SS that we acquire through trading some of our new minor league talent.
The RS are a big money
team that can compensate for Lugo by paying big bux to Manny, Papi Ortiz, Mike Lowell, Varitek etc.
<sigh>
Bobby Crosby hasn't been the #9 hitter, the #7 hitter or hold down any other spot in the line-up because he can't get on the field!
It's been 3 freaking years since Crosby has played a full season and to date the A's have yet to find a successor. They've traded Haren and Swisher and did not bring in anyone with even the slightest chance of challenging for the starting SS job.
In my opinon there's no reason for
Beane to taint the dealings of his two best trading chips by overlooking talent for need.
He should get the best haul of talent he can, and worry about filling positional holes later.
Yes and no
Beane should go for the best package he can get.
At the same time, he needs a SS. And a CF. Beane needs to address these areas and until he does I raise the question.
we still have two more potential big trades
blanton and street would almost certainly net a lot in return. i think it would have been a bad idea to specifically target SS and CF in the first two trades - get as much talent as humanly possible and go from there. but now, we have tons of talent at the corner outfielder, pitching, and 1b/DH spots. i suspect beane will get a few top CF/middle infield prospects when dealing blanton and/or street.
by guy incognito on Jan 3, 2008 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
Seriously dude
Beane does not need a SS or CF for '08. Period.
He's got time before this team is ready to compete to acquire a SS and CF. Why don't you understand this.
Would you rathe have 4 Dan Harens or 1 Jose Reyes?
by methodrampage on Jan 3, 2008 8:44 PM PST up reply actions
You're not allowed to be snarky with me
if you can't keep up.
The A's need a SS and a CF now. They also need a new pair in 2009. In 2010. And beyond. The best prospects currently in the system to fill those two positions long term ARE GUYS WHO WERE IN THE SYSTEM BEFORE BEANE TRADED DAN HAREN!
That said, I'd rather have 4 Dan Harens vs. 1 Jose Reyes. That's a freakin' no-brainer.
CF
I think Beane already thinks he has his CF. Rightly or wrongly, Beane traded for Chris Denorfia last season, trading away a pretty decent pitching prospect (MacBeth).
2008 CF Depth: Kotsay, Denorfia, Buck, Sweeney, Herrera, Blasi, Putnam
2008 SS/2B Depth: Crosby, Murphy, Petit, J. Sellers
2008 2B Depth: Ellis, Murphy, Melillo, Petit, J. Sellers, Pennington
- Have you given up on Kevin Melillo as a valid replacement to Mark Ellis? Less than 6 months ago, you were steering the Melillo train (if I remember correctly).
- There aren't any superstars at the 2B/SS depth charts. But with the additions of Gonzalez/ Anderson/De Los Santos/Eveland/Smith + homegrowns Cahill/H.A. Rodgriguez/A. Bailey , etc... I think you can still win with great defense up the middle.
Would it be nice to get a new SS? Hell Yes. Is it necessary Right Now???? Nope. Beane isn't done yet.
Blanton + Kotsay to Atlanta?
Melillo has slipped
He's back in the "gotta prove it" category.
As for Denorfia, I'm all for giving him a chance in 2008. I'm just not betting the farm on him panning out. Furthermore, if Beane does believe in Denorfia then why go firesale? Why not make smaller moves designed to reload?
Why does it have to be either-or?
I'm much more inclined to think that Beane thinks about players as having certain probabilistic outcomes-- something like the PECOTA graphs. Even if Denorfia has (say) a 70% chance of "working out", maybe there were enough other cumulative negative probabilities (like Eric Chavez's health) to make a rebuild look like the best option.
How does that make sense?
Thinking Denorfia has a 70% chance of being a league average CF is justification for not signing one of Rowand, Hunter or Jones. Give him his shot. So much was going to have to break right for the A's to contend in 2008 that it makes sense to experiment next year. Let Murphy challenge for the SS job.
But if you really think Beane could spend money on FA talent in the near future then way would you trade two of your best players, players under team control for at least 3 more years, for prospects who are unlikely to help the team until 2010? Signing a FA is supposed to provide an immediate benefit.
Beane has traded two of his best for prospects who can only be expected to replace the players they were traded for. Unless these new faces are significantly better then the two they replace the A's have not improved themselves.
what?
Rowand, Hunter, or Jones? Overpriced, aging guys who are likelier to drop in performance almost immediately after signing their contracts?
And who would have, even if added to an A's roster that included Swisher and Haren, not made up the difference between contending and not?
I'm genuinely not sure how to respond to this
because it's a non sequiter. You're going to need to clarify those first two paragraphs, because I can't make head or tail of them.
As for the last paragraph, he traded a SP and an OF for 5 SP, 3 OF and a 1B. If even two of the SP work out, he can trade the extra one to fill in another position. Similarly with the outfielders or the first baseman, since the team already has one. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Maybe you're confused
because I was agreeing with you. Give Denorfia a shot in 2008. That's a perfectly good reason not to go after a FA CF in 2008.
You've argued that Beane could sign a CF or SS via FA. I agree. But if you're going to go that route, if you're going to sign an expensive player, why not keep the inexpensive yet established talent you already have on the roster. Signing a FA is a way to strengthen your club without sacrificing what you currently have in hand.
It makes less sense to say "I'm going to sign Frucal a year from today" then trade Haren and Swisher for a group of players that largely won't be ready for another 2-3 years.
As for the last paragraph, he traded a SP and an OF for 5 SP, 3 OF and a 1B. If even two of the SP work out, he can trade the extra one to fill in another position. Similarly with the outfielders or the first baseman, since the team already has one. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
All 3 of those OF prospects project, long term, for two spots that the A's already had covered through 2012. Where was the need for a corner outfielder?
The 1B is at least 2 years away and the A's top prospect is Daric Barton, a guy they'll control through 2013. Where was the need for a 1B?
Of the 5 SP, Smith is weak, Eveland is a total wildcard, Anderson and DSL are at least two years away. That leaves Gio to "replace" Haren, maybe as soon as mid-2008.
If Beane does trade a couple of the newbies for a CF or a SS he'll have done EXACTLY what I've asked him to do, strengthen the weakest areas in the system. Then I'll be happy.
But until that deal happens...
That would explain the confusion
The free agent thing: Basically what I'm arguing is that the team can wait until the "go for it" year arrives-- probably 2010-- and address the needs of the team through free agency then. You're right that if the team wanted to strengthen itself now, free agency would be the way to go-- but the available guys were expensive and mediocre, and Beane opted to rebuild instead.
As for the rest, I guess I'm just not sure why you seem impatient with the process. If 2010 rolls around and the A's still have 4 corner outfielders and no center fielder, or 8 starters and no infield defense, it'll be time to start questioning why Beane hasn't made a move. Right now the team still has time to wait for the best opportunity.
The go for it year
Keep in mind, the 2009/2010 FA class may not have whatever it is the 2010 A's need. (Again, homework could clear some of this up but I'm not doing it. I want to copy off someone else for a change.)
As for my impatience, the rest of AN is going off on these trades. They're weighing in on how well Beane did and the like... why should I have to stay quiet? Beane's brought in a bunch of talented prospects but he's done little to address critical spots on the roster.
Them's the facts.
Well, we know at least one guy
who'll be in the 2010 FA class... Andruw Jones. Lackey will be if they need a starter, while Sabathia is available next offseason.
I'm not saying you have to "stay quiet": if you dislike the prospects, or whatever, have at it. It's a fair observation to say that right now the A's still have unfilled holes on the roster-- but it's equally fair to say that those holes don't have to be filled yet and that failing to do so immediately does not, in and of itself, make the trades poor ones.
OK, last time
I'm not saying these were poor trades. I'm saying they did not solve the pre-existing problems. Beane traded Haren and Swisher and the best long term options for CF and SS are players who were in the organization before the 1st deal.
if all you want is legit SS to field groundballs
... then, really, what's wrong with Crosby?
Not that I'd want him extended, but if Beane's recently acquired prospects pan out, then we could certainly "afford" a Crosby/Vizquel-all-glove-no-bat at SS.
Other then the half season vacations?
I've said it before, if Crosby could play a full season my anger towards him would be mitigated.
SS may be a hole.
But pitching is always needed and is always a hole. The team could still be winners with Bobby Crosby...but without a decent pitching squad no year will bring a winning team. Signing two great pitching prospects is a great move. Regardless of other holes.
Why was there a hole in the rotation?
Well, for one thing Beane traded Haren.
Haren, Blanton and Gaudin gave the A's a strong base rotation for the next 3 years. Beane deliberately weakened his rotation to strengthen positions that already had long term answers.
Gaudin's a big question mark at this point,
and I think the A's window at contention was closing, so they pushed reset. what i'm wondering right now is- what kind of college SS will be available early in the draft? anyone exciting?
Unfortunately, no
Unless one explodes on the scene, there will be no undrafted SS worth drafting at our spot in the first round.
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 3, 2008 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
High school SS prospects
There are three high school SS prospects that at this point would be reasonable picks at #12: Tim Beckham, Harold Martinez, and Niko Vasquez. Beckham will most likely be gone by the time the A's pick as he is the most talented high-school hitter available and could be the #1 overall pick if he explodes. Beckham is basically Moustakas offensively but with the defensive ability to stay at SS.
The only way Beckham would fall to the A's is if he prices himself high (he is rumored to be signing with Boras) or if he falls for injury/performance/makeup reasons. It would be an interesting test of the A's "new" philosophy if he was available with a $6-7 million bonus demand to see whether the A's would pay for the best player available.
I don't know much about Martinez or Vasquez, but their names are floating out there in the range where the A's will be drafting. Other than that, the middle infield is somewhat of a weakness in this draft.
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 3, 2008 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
the a's ownership should offer beckham
$250m / 5 years.
Only if
Victoria comes along for the ride.
and I get to ride Victoria . . .
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 3, 2008 4:34 PM PST up reply actions
Those young arms would be very happy ...
if Gregorio Petit's leather was behind them. He has no real upside beyond that, but he has the glove to be a league average short stop in the Adam Everett mold.
He's not quite there with the bat yet, but I think he can be a useful player.
The reason BB can't target SS is because there simply aren't enough targets. Who could he acquire that would presumably shore up the position by 2009 and not hurt the new young pitchers?
By my count, there are three guys:
The first is untouchable, Reid Brignac. He's easily the best SS prospect in the minors and looks like he'll be able to stay at the position.
The other two are Chin-lung Hu of the Dodgers and Brent Lillibridge of the Braves. (I don't expect Lowrie to be any better than Jeter defensively if he stays at short)
Unless BB could work out a deal specifically with one of those two teams, he couldn't acquire a high end, fairly near ready SS prospect.
If he was in negotiations with either of those two teams, obviously those guys should be targeted -- but if he's not ... there's not a lot he could do.
how does petit compare as a hitter to crosby?
if he can give the team similar offensive production, that would be an improvement at defense and hopefully 150 games instead of 85.
He's completely different ...
no power to speak of ... should cut his strikeouts and hit for a solid average as he matures, draws a respectable number of walks. I'd look for something like 280/340/360 out of him.
Bobby Crosby will probably never hit above .250 again, but in a full, healthy season he should hit 20 jacks and have a solid isoSlg of about .140. If he got healthy, maybe a 240/320/380 would be reasonable and he could have real upside well beyond that.
Crosby is going to keep being trotted out there because Petit isn't banging down the door (he's only had half a season at AAA) and there's no real downside to finding out if Crosby is a total loss or not.
Useful vs. truly starting caliber
That is the question re: Petit.
And I think Lillibridge can be had from Atlanta. They're young up the middle on the big league roster and looking for arms. Street could entice.
If that's the case ...
BB should explore it.
Petit's definitely not going to be a star. He won't have to hit a lot, though, to be a league average starting short stop with that glove. A league average player is not a hole.
Chin-lung Hu
I know that it appears that the Dodgers would no longer need Blanton and that is too bad because a deal for Hu and let's say James McDonald and Blake DeWitt would be a great fit for the A's.
As far as other SS to consider that you have not mentioned and I would because I would want to get a potential SS and 2B and another P in a deal for Blanton, while considering a team who could use a SP and wants to contend:
Chris Nelson from the Rockies would be a player that the BB should consider. There are two reasons why he should be available: Troy Tulowitzki and Hector Gomez (the other Rox SS prospect). Nelson was in High A last year and flashed power potential and good speed:
289/356/503
19 HR, 42 2B, 7 3B, 27 SB (84% SB%)
BB could also consider in a deal for him (in order of highest value): Greg Reynolds (SP in AA), Ian Stewart (3B in AAA), Brandon Hynick (SP in High A), Daniel Mayora (2B in Low A), Eric Young, Jr (2B in High A), and Bruce Billings (SP in SS).
I say Stewart because the Rox are trying him out at 2B this off-season and he obviously can play 3B. I say Reynolds even though he was injured this year because he is highly rated. I consider Hynick even though he is more of a control pitcher because he had really good High A California League numbers and seems to project nicely in Oakland. Then, I just threw in some 2B from their system and a short-season prospect who was awesome in SS and only a 30th rd pick.
I personally would try to get Nelson, Hynick and Stewart if Stewart looks like he can play 2B adequately and if he cannot, then I would try to get Nelson, Hynick, Young Jr., and another low-level prospect like Billings, if not he.
Nothing wrong with Crosby's defense
by jarforcefatherofforce on Jan 4, 2008 1:11 AM PST up reply actions
Exactamundo!
Case in point, go back to 2000 - 2004 when the system was loaded with pitching prospects who were traded to load up for the playoff runs. You can never have too much pitching, or outfield prospects.
I am happy Swish is gone, the guy had no clue about how to read the pitch, especially with two strikes; he had the worst looking strikeouts I've seen this side of Matt Williams. BB stole 3 prospects for a guy who CANNOT play CF although he is a gold glove prospect at 1B. We now have room for Barton to play 1B all the time, and for the young guns to be in the OF. I also would love to see Bonds signed in order to take the heat off of the locker room (all interviews will be on his side of the room & who cares if Cust took roids if the master roid man is there to take the heat), hit some bombs, and put butts in seats at home and on the road.
I am truly excited again at the prospect of surprising the AL West/Worst again.
After this trade, Super Joe and Huston Street are not going anywhere! There is no need to trade them now that the farm is well stocked.
So, everyone, get off of the wagon of desperation and climb back aboard the bandwagon. This team will be much better than most here have opined.
by AAAAAces on Jan 3, 2008 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
Optimism
I like it, but we're not competing next season.
2008 Rotation:
Blanton
Harden
Eveland
Duke
Gaudin
2/3rds of that rotation won't be healthy for about 50 starts, so count on Braden and Meyer taking those starts. I don't see how that rotation competes. We'll have to hope that Gio Gonzalez, De Los Santos, Brett Anderson, Eveland, Simmons, Cahill, H.A. Rodriguez, Bailey, and Greg Smith to continue their development in A/AA/AAA. They are the future.
Drafting for Quality or Position
I recall seeing a lot of articles about the NBA and NFL drafts in which it's more or less acknowledged that any team not in contention should generally draft the best player available rather than examine the specific needs of the organization and draft a lesser player to fill a hole. In a year or two, as players start to fulfill their potential, Beane will have enough depth to trade a prospect in one position for one in another. I hate this trade and I love it, both at the same time.
It strikes me, and I could be wrong, that Beane had no intention of trading Swisher, but when the White Sox (not the brightest bulbs in baseball) came calling with their top two pitching prosects plus a top prospect who hasn't quite panned out, the deal was just too good to pass up. Even if Swish hits 40 homers in a hitter-friendly environment, the Sox are still going to suck, and they've just traded away their future.
by richwol on Jan 3, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
Getting more arms always makes sense
Getting KW's two best for Swisher makes a lot of sense.
Right up until you ask yourself who's playing SS and you realize Beane needs to make another deal.
As things stand now, Beane has severly weakened his 2008 big league roster and he has not filled the holes that most needed filling.
Hey Gonzo can take over in RF! Yeah, well, you could have kept Swisher in RF.
I'm not saying that Beane didn't acquire quality talent in these deals. I'm saying he's traded proven production for prospective hope at the same positions while not addressing organizational weaknesses at other positions. That doesn't make much sense, not when Swisher and Haren were under team control for at least 3 more years.
what's with the focus on '08?
Who cares who plays SS next year? Beane's got plenty of time.
We have to finalize the 2010 roster
now, so Zonis can start posting batting orders.
I want to see Zonis's lineups for 2008 and 2009
At this time, no particular reason
If and when Beane trades for a SS this could be an issue.
Let's just pretend that Beane trades Street to Atlanta for SS Brent Lillibridge. Lillibridge is at least ready to challenge for a big league job come ST. Let's go so far as to say he wins the job.
So know the A's have a rotation headed by Haren, Blanton and Gaudin, Duke and Embree are in the pen. Swisher, Buck and Barton cover RF, LF and 1B. Find a DH (back to Bonds' maybe?) Suzuki instead of Kendall, Ellis at 2B, a recovering Chavez a 3B backed by a solid Hannahan. If Lillibridge can stay healthy all year then he wouldn't have to hit much to be an upgrade over the constantly absent Crosby. If you get anything out of Kotsay/Denorfia... I hate to say it but you're looking at a roster that could contend in 2008.
Instead Beane has gone for a total rebuild (which I can appreciate) but he still has not filled the biggest holes in the organization. He hasn't done it. We can give him a maybe on CF but that only pays off if Mitchel or Brown ends up starting in CF come 2010. We already had those guys. Trading Dan Haren for a 2 year stop gap in CF is kind of a waste!
Thus, to this point, Beane has weakened the team he plans to field in 2008 and he has not stregnthened the team he hopes to field in 2010. He could have had Haren and Swisher in Oakland in 2010. He has traded those two for their hopeful replacements while not filling in holes elsewhere.
Beane has converted Swisher,
the demand for whom was dependent on particular teams' needs, into a couple of very desirable players -- hotshot ML pitching prospects who throw hard and get tons of Ks.
I think the Swisher trade has probably made it easier for Beane to acquire a SS or CF -- Blanton + high-quality pitching prospects or Street + high-quality pitching prospects is a better package than Blanton or Street + Swisher, because there are fewer teams that want a pretty good corner OF/1B than who want really good pitching prospects.
Think of Beane as baseball's George Soros. He's trading okay currencies for stronger ones, and hoping to make a killing. Moneyball, indeed.
And when Beane does that
I'll be satisfied.
Until then, Beane has done a lot of busy work.
I Can't Understand your Comments . . .
about 2010. I think things are looking a lot more positive in the future. For the first time in along time the A's have some players with demonstrated power in the low minors. They have some power pitchers as well.
by jarforcefatherofforce on Jan 4, 2008 1:21 AM PST up reply actions
OK, I'll try to explain
A lot of the guys Beane traded for are too far down in the minors to try and predict their 2010 big league performance. So I'm going to focus on arrival time for the newbies.
Carlos Gonzalez will probably be entering his 2nd full season in 2010. He's destined for RF. The last two years Swisher posted an OPS of 865 and 836. Assuming no improvement from Swisher, can we expect Gonzo to match or surpass that production in 2010? Maybe.
Gio Gonzalez should be in his 2nd full big league season.
Brett Anderson will be a rookie trying to break in.
Ryan Sweeney is probably a back-up.
Aaron Cunningham will be looking at his first full season in the bigs.
DSL is still in the minors.
Chris Carter will (likely) be a rookie trying to break in.
Greg Smith will be around, probably in the bullpen but you never know.
Dana Eveland is a wildcard.
So by the start of 2010 we could have replacements for Haren and Swisher in place in the form of Gonzo^2, Cunningham could be pushing Buck for LF or maybe trying his hand in CF... LF being more likely. Odds are if the A's develope a legit CF by 2010 it'll be Mitchell, not one of the new arrivals. Big question marks at SS. Two quality rookies working into the line-up but let's not put too much burden on them to carry the team.
Where's the massive upgrade? This is pretty much assuming all 9 guys pan out, which would be a bloody miracle! Hey, maybe we're due.
Don't worry, there's no way
that all 9 of them pan out.
That being said, if even half of them do, the A's will have enough pitching to make a move for a shortstop and/or a center fielder. They already (reading between the lines here) almost got Pence from Houston in the Haren trade, so we know they have their eye on him-- and by then Houston will be in sad shape.
I still don't really understand the Mitchell love around here. I think the odds of Cunningham (or, for that matter, Denorfia... or Corey Brown... or Grant Desme... or Carlos Gonzalez... wow, that's a lot of guys) being able to hit his way around mediocre CF defense are far greater than the odds of Mitchell fielding his way around mediocre offense.
If we're willing to accept mediocre D
for offense in CF why not just stick Swisher in CF?
Sure, Beane could always trade some of his new toys for stuff he's always needed and when/if he does I'll be placated. But if he trades Street or Blanton for a piece he needed (CF, SS) then what was all the other stuff for?
Yes, Beane has added talent in these trades but by and large he has merely filled the holes he dug by making the trades in the first place.
Don't assume . . .
. . . the A's can't fill any holes with free agents. They have done this in the past and have had some success. If it looks like the team will be a winner, they may even spend a few bucks.
Don't look for this to happen this year unless they sign Bonds. Bonds would not be more than a stop gap to create some interest in 2008.
by jarforcefatherofforce on Jan 4, 2008 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
Sure, there are other options
Let's talk FA's. Who do you like better a year from now, Edgar Renteria or Rafael Furcal? Cots doesn't have a 2010 FA list and I don't trust anyone else with getting the info right. I could do some homework to figure out who could be available 2 winters from now but... NAH!
Of course, if we were willing to spend big in FA a year from now does it really make sense to trade Haren and Swisher for prospects which, by and large, won't blossom for 2-3 years?
This still bothers me about the last trade
I like this one a lot, especially in light of the glut of corner ofs, but in 2010 we're still missing a plus C, 2B, 3B, SS, and CF, which I'm not sure can be solved by trading who we have left. The pitching looks great now, though.
I love the pitching
don't care for the positional side. Too many prospects who project to be corners / 1bs / DHs.
Why not? The Yankees can ...
Because
Oakland doesn't buy A's tickets like New York buys Yankee tickets. Plus we're not douchebags New Yorkers but you aleady knew that.
by methodrampage on Jan 3, 2008 8:48 PM PST up reply actions
I was really, really hoping ...
that wouldn't incite a serious response ...
I'm sure he's thought of that
My guess is that he's trying to get prospects that add depth at key positions that he sees being in demand 2 or 3 years from now. If he corners the market at those positions, then it gives him exponential bargaining power for the positions in less demand down the road.
by GusanoQuemador on Jan 3, 2008 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
Rebuilding or Gutting?
I just don't know and the wait to find out is assured to be painful. We will be the most gutless offense in baseball for sure.
Florida used to disgust me with their purges of quality guys and MY A's are hovering on the brink of justifying similar ire from me.
Nonsense
The A's offense will remain far better than several teams': the Royals, the Giants, the Pirates, and probably several other teams.
The problem area is the pitching staff, which is going to be godawful next year-- and even worse once Beane completes the rebuild by dealing Country Joe.
I third it - pretty amazing, Blez
Makes me feel humble to be just an ok writer with space to fill tomorrow. It won't be anything like this!
you could email me for my thoughts
That's right - the zoo reopened today!
Thanks
I wanted to know more myself, so I just did my best to try and connect with someone who knows the minor league stuff a lot better than I do. It was great for me to hear. My initial reaction to the deal was WTF? Then I looked at the South Side Sox site and they had the same reaction. So that's why I went and got a hold of Sickels.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jan 3, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks
No doubt, I'd rather be in a win-now mode than this. But if that's all I cared about, I'd just by a Yankee or Red Sox hat. It only costs you your soul!
If we aren't there, and I agree with Beane that it takes a lot of wishcasting to get there from the end of 2007 roster, this is way better than being the Baltimore Orioles, always paying through the nose to stay at 81 wins. Fine, our window has closed. Let's be great in the 2010s.
Go Rivercats!
Gonzalez
Has their ever been a minor leaguer pitcher who was involved in 3 Major deals before he even reached AAA? I know he's a top level prospect, and hes been traded for 3 pretty good players in Thome, Garcia and Swisher... but I guess I was just wondering if anybody had heard of any minor leaguer who went through a similar path?
Not quite the same thing but
Andrew Brown was traded for Milton Bradley twice.
nice interview
very timely. I was waiting to hear Sickels' take on the trade, and it was a pleasant surprise to see it come so quickly. I guess that's one of the perks when an A's fan (Blez) runs the show at SB nation.
Oh, and I'd like to encourage everyone to buy Sickels' book. I've been buying it for four years now, and it's easily, easily worth every penny. It's a fantastic resource if you want to have any idea who the up-and-coming players in baseball are. I keep it right next to my computer, and reference it almost daily.
I just turned on my trusty computer
and saw a bit by Blez talking to Sickels, thought Blez made a typo error talking about the minor league players the A's got for Swisher, first name was Gonzalez so naturally thought he meant the Haren trade, read further and started to figure out the A's traded Swisher, what!!!!!!!!!!!I was shocked, almost the last guy I thought the A's would trade, but when I checked previous posts I realized all this went down while I was working on something around the house.
Wow, BB is serious this time. I can hardly wait for the season to start now, will really be interesting, one eye on the A's, the other two eyes on Sacramento and Midland or do I need an additional eye for
Stockton. This almost certainly means Carlos will start in right, Buck in left, and unfortunately Kotsay in center, at least for awhile. This is great stuff, can Crosby be far behind?
by china bob on Jan 3, 2008 2:01 PM PST reply actions
I'd rather start Denorfia in right than Gonzalez
Gonzalez needs more AAA time, while Denorfia needs an extended audition at the MLB level. Doesn't matter that much how he gets his ABs, but he needs to get several hundred.
Nico comment
I'm quite suprised that Nico seems to have missed the opportunity to make some sort of joke out of china bob's 3 eyes here.
Whether or not this was a great deal
for the A's (personally I think it was), I think I can safely say that it was a horrible deal for the White Sox.
Beane can buy SS and CF in 09
The A's will have cheap talent at the other positions...even the A's don't need a cheap prospect to fill every position.
by SwisherSweet on Jan 3, 2008 2:41 PM PST reply actions
Not to bust on John Sickels
because I like his books, but what exactly makes one an expert in baseball prospects? It seems to be that fact that one calls oneself an expert and that one's opinions generally agree with the mob opinion.
Has anyone ever done any sort of analysis of these various experts to figure out who is good at predicting players and who is bad? Would be timely since ranking/grading systems are fundamentally different amongst the experts, but maybe someone could come up with a standard way to compare predicted value with actual value. I bet that correlation looks pretty ugly.
Since football's Mel Kiper has been around a long time, maybe someone has done an evaluation on him.
Just curious how these self-proclaimed experts perform in their predictions.
For me the value
of a guy like Sickels and his ilk is that whether they're good at predicting or expert or not, they at least knows something about these guys beyond their stats (which I can look up), whereas I know nothing.
and it's just one more data point
if i'm looking at a prospect, i want to know what sickels, BP and BA think.
would that be metasabermetrics, sabermetametrics,
... or sasabermetrics?
you could evaluate old lists
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...
i'm not sure if sickels does overall rankings or how long he has been doing this...
Ah, 1998 - #1 overall: Ben Grieve
Good times.
Reading that list from the early 90's
all the A's turned out to suck
Todd Van Poppel, woo!
You know whats interesting
Is that in any given year the top 5 prospects yielded at least 4 solid major leaguers, but outside of the top 5 its really just a crap shoot. Its kind of sobering because the A's don't have anyone even in the top 20 in all of baseball according to Sickels. We don't have 1 Grade A prospect. So if 3 of these 8 guys we got in these two trades end up being solid major leaguers, then we win.
by GusanoQuemador on Jan 3, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
Nice trade
I don't buy into the bit about the Angels being a lock on winning the division title in 2008, thus other NL West teams should focus on rebuilding. Anyways, this is a nice trade for the A's future. The park factors of going from Oakland to Chicago-AL shouldn't have much of an effect on Swisher. Perhaps a few less doubles and a couple more walks. OBP goes up a bit and SLG goes down a bit, but not much. vr, Xei
by xeifrank @ Athletics Nation on Jan 3, 2008 2:56 PM PST reply actions
Goof
sorry, I messed up on that. Let me restate this post. :)
Converting Swishers 2008 ZIPS from Oakland to Chicago-AL park we get...
Singles drop from 77 to 74
Doubles drop from 31 to 29
Triples stay at 1
HRs jump from 27 to 33
Walks jump from 88 to 92
Average rises 1 point.
OBP rises 5 points
SLG rises 32 points.
vr, Xei
by xeifrank @ Athletics Nation on Jan 3, 2008 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
Gio is pretty good
A somewhat underrated prospect, De Los santos is awesome as well.
What i don't like about the deal, is that it seems to me that it means Carlos Gonzalez might make the team, i don't think he is ready yet, and i don't want to waste one year of his service time while we are not contending.
Now Swisher in Ozzie's team?, its gonna be hilarious.
OF
Buck in LF
Denorfia / Kotsay in CF
Denorfia / Sweeney in RF
Won't be the best OF but it can keep Gonzalez in Sac for awhile.
Cust in the OF
would make it possible to bench Kotsay and play Buck in RF.
Unless he completely tears it up in ST ...
there's no way Gonzalez gets the call until late enough that service time isn't in play.
Another player gone from the main page's
banner...there's a huge gap now between Crosby and Finger's #34
Your'e right. That's eerie!
What about when they trade Street! I say put Ellis in there and Cust and Harden. They're not going anwhere. I'm very sad about Swish. Good Luck, Nick! Nice interview Blez! I still hate the White Sox and will miss Swish's swagger. I still say the A's won't suck and will surprise in 'o8. Go A's!
by A'sfansince1970 on Jan 3, 2008 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
Yeech
Buncha nobodies in green and gold = a lot less of my money being spent at the Coliseum ... I'll go back to paying big league money when a big league team takes the field..
by codedfreaq on Jan 3, 2008 6:42 PM PST reply actions
Great info. Thanks KW
KW played football and baseball at Mt. Pleasant H.S. in San Jose. We kicked his butt in football in 81' and I think BB got him on this one.
by BMWK100 on Jan 3, 2008 6:53 PM PST reply actions
Five things I learned today:
- Billy Beane will trade anybody if the return package is good enough.
- The A's are probably going to be really bad next year.
- The future looks bright for the A's.
- Turkey bacon is vastly inferior to regular bacon.
- If you have to have turkey bacon, Butterball spanks the Jennie-O trash.
For what it's worth...
I have to agree with points 1 thru 4. As to point 5, I cannot speak to that , but given your earlier points, I will take your word for it.
Oscar Meyer makes the best turkey bacon.
it's delicious, seriously. just don't overcook it :)
"F" Turkey Bacon
It's real Bacon or bust. Seriously whats the point of turkey bacon. Just to eat bacon for the sole sake of eating bacon?
by methodrampage on Jan 3, 2008 8:51 PM PST up reply actions
Try Trader Joe's
It's the only Turkey Bacon I will eat.
It doesn't try to taste like real bacon, but it's good.
what? Bonds?
From Slusser's article at sfgate.com:
"With his outgoing personality and energetic style of play, Swisher was one of the team's most marketable players. The A's are almost assured of a sub .500 season, which isn't going to attract fans, either. That's why there remains some rumbling that Oakland hasn't entirely abandoned the idea of signing Barry Bonds, if he could be had at a bargain price. Despite Bonds' legal problems, he'd create interest around the club and might help ticket sales.
"I wouldn't be surprised," Chavez said. "If he's in uniform next year, there's a 90 percent chance it will be with the Oakland A's.
"It will be old, broken-down guys - me, Kotsay and Barry - and a bunch of 19-year-olds."
Chavy is so funny.
woo hoo!
you, me, and mikeA
...will be the only ones in the stands.
Add one more!
Hell, if they lower beer prices I may go with the 81 game package. That A's - Rays tilt may have huge draft implications.
when I eat Coliseum nachos and beer ...
... that has huge draft implications.
too tired to scramble for foul balls
after the third
the tarps will all be configured ...
... so that foul balls roll around, roulette-like, to the few open/occupied seats.
More likely
they'll be configured to return the balls to the field, so that the team can reuse them.
God, it's refreshing to have a guy
who doesn't just spout off the same canned platitudes as every other player.
I'd better not say that... he'll probably be traded tomorrow, for all I know.
Billy's logic seems pretty damned sound...
By trading their best hitter and best pitcher for nine prospects, Beane and assistant GM David Forst have replenished a farm system that had grown thin in recent years.
"I got off the plane from the winter meetings, I said to David, 'Who are we kidding?'" Beane said. "We can't let hope be our strategy here. That's what we're doing. ... We can't waste another year. If this needs to be done, it needs to be done."
The A's will likely take their lumps this season after contending for most of the past decade. Oakland had eight straight winning seasons from 1999-2006, making the playoffs five times, including a trip to the AL Championship Series in 2006.
But when injuries hit Rich Harden, Eric Chavez, Bobby Crosby, Huston Street, Mark Kotsay and many other A's last season, the team finished just 76-86.
After looking at the other teams in the power-packed American League, Beane didn't see much chance at a different result this season.
From ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...
Kind of hard to argue with BB's long-term assessment of an injury-laden, underperforming team.
This sure as hell ain't fun, but it's necessary. I'll be curious to see what follows, and I think something will given BB's rationale for the trades so far.
Kenny Williams: A Man Without A Plan
"I did not plan on paying this type of price, but I also did not plan on getting this type of player," Williams said.
Billy Beane: A man without a plan
Billy Beane went into the offseason believing his Oakland Athletics could compete in the AL West again if they just stayed healthier than last year.
Six weeks before spring training opens, the general manager has changed his stance and is beginning a rebuilding project in Oakland.
Anyone can take comments out of context and distort them.
Yeah, well not me...I was only trying...
to distend his comments, you know, contort them for comic effect.
Put those two together and you get, uh...you get...uhh...something funnier than what you wrote.
Quick thoughts
I don't like the reason why the A's are in this position, but recognize that these trades are necessary.
While I still feel queasy about the Haren trade, because it's tough to get excited about trading one of the best starters in baseball, I think I like the Swisher deal.
Bottom line, the question is whether Nick Swisher will become a great player. If the answer is no, and I think it is, then you have to like the trade, even considering the obvious gamble of trading for prospects. The team, as noted, was going to stink. Now the team is going to stink more, but at a certain point, who cares?
The late 90s version of the A's was built on a bunch of young stars coming up in rapid succession, giving the team a cheap base of solid players to build around. They don't have that now, and haven't for several years.
This is Beane's chance to dismantle a mediocre team and hopefully create a sustainably good one in two or three years. It isn't fun, and won't be fun, and don't ask me to pay money to attend very many of the games this season.
Obviously, if the prospects don't pan out, the trades will be bad ones. But that's always true. I just know that the team couldn't keep doing what it was doing, because mediocrity was the only realistic outcome.
And grover, by the way, I don't care about acquiring a shortstop yet. Bobby Crosby is irritating, but he's a perfectly good defensive shortstop for next season. When the team is trying to win games, then we'll need to trade for a shortstop or sign a free agent. Until then, it doesn't matter.
Is Donnie Murphy a perfectly good
defensive SS?
Probably a perfectly mediocre SS
The consensus here is that he isn't all that, but statistically he was right in the middle of the pack last season.
He's still young, he plays acceptable defense, and he put up some good numbers in the minors. Given that we're in full rebuilding mode, it's worth giving him some playing time to see what we have.
Recall during the last dump the target was 2008!
Haren, Swisher, Barton were to be the core of the next team.
What is Lew going to do with all the Cash they have dumped? Swisher was cheap--$400k last year -just above minimum.
BUT--Kendall, Piazza, Loaiza, Haren, Scutaro, Bradley, Kennedy and even Melhuse ($800k) were salary dump worht about $40 M
Salary
Has anyone put together an updated list of what the 2008 salaries will be now that these players are all gone?
by daverxa on Jan 4, 2008 9:12 AM PST up reply actions
The current payroll
is at around $52 million. The trades of Haren and Swisher did not actually knock it down by that much-- about $7 million total.
I say around because the team has a boatload of arbitration players and our estimates of their salaries are guesswork at best until salary figures get submitted.
The job isn't done until the A's get a new SS
Bobby Crosby is not a perfectly good defensive SS for next season because the SOB hasn't played a full season in 3 years. Those who do not play cannot be called good players.
Players strongly implies playing.
But next season doesn't matter
Ideally, I would have liked to pick up a great shortstop prospect in one of these trades. But my biggest concern is adding talent for future seasons. That's what the A's have been missing in recent years.
It really doesn't matter who plays shortstop next season, as long as they can field. Crosby has no value at this point. Perhaps he will if he manages a healthy season. I'm not betting on it.
We disagree only on the urgency of the matter. There's no reason to worry about Crosby, or Murphy, playing shortstop this season because 2008 doesn't matter.
As has been noted, the A's have other trading chips, so they may yield a promising shortstop in return. Or Beane could just wait and sign a free agent. It's not like the A's won't have the money.
+1
Next year, we should figure out who of the Murphy/Crosby duo is a better player. If not, we could try to find an Adam Everett type defensive wiz for our next good team.
Adding talent for the sake of "talent"
is pointless.
How many corner OF/1B bats do the A's need?
At the end of last season the A's had Swisher and Buck locked up through 2012 and Barton through 2013. Where was the short term or long term need for a RF, LF or 1B? The position players Beane acquiered are most likely going to play those positions. With so much emphasis being placed on quality defense are we now willing to accept a CF canidate who maybe will be average with the glove? And if we are suddenly willing to accept average defense in CF why not stick Swisher or Buck out there and find a corner OFer?
What about the pitching?
Greg Smith is a Dallas Braden clone, basically. And if you really like Dana Eveland I assure you Beane could have acquired him without parting with Dan Haren. The prospects Beane got from Arizona rank Gonzo, Anderson, Carter and then MAYBE Eveland although an equal arguement could be made for Cunningham in the 4th slot. Smith was the weakest of the bunch.
Now, Anderson is the real prize arm in the AZ bunch but he's 2 years away. Gio Gonzalez is another nice arm and he could see Oakland by mid-season. DSL looks to be 2.5-3 years away.
Billt Beane has traded two of his best players and he still has not addressed the primary weaknesses in the organization. If he does so in the future I'll feel better. Until then, he's basically spinning his wheels.
One thing no one seems to have pointed out,
at least not yet, is that the team has plenty of cash available at this point to sign a free agent solution at either CF or SS when the need arises-- or trade for someone else's salary dump.
It's much more important to produce "star power" (i.e. players who are several wins above average) than it is to produce an in-house solution at literally every position. The A's have plenty of money to sign league-average options at both of those positions.
This was the year to sign a FA CF
Didn't happen.
Next year offers Furcal and Renteria at SS.
The key is the FA class of 2010
and right now it's too hard to say exactly who's going to be available then.
I disagree with the fundamental premise.
Billt<sic> Beane has traded two of his best players and he still has not addressed the primary weaknesses in the organization.
The primary weakness of the organization was not the lack of talent at the SS and CF positions.
The primary weakness of the organization was the lack of talent across all positions at every level. That has been addressed.
I disagree with that
Yes the organization was weak in several areas but the big league team has to take precident.
Swisher was weak?
Haren was over-rated?
Buck and Barton aren't going to pan out?
Those are the guys that the new prospects are really challenging.
Beane controlled Swisher, Buck and Barton through 2012. That gave him 4 years to draft/acquire their replacements.
3B and Catcher are weak at every level in the farm system but Beane didn't go after anyone who could fill those holes. There are a couple SS prospects who could help but they are far from sure things and may end up as nothing more then back-ups. (Yes, I'm thinking of Petit in particular.)
Hell, not a single middle infielder came over in these deals. Crosby sucks. Ellis is a FA after 2008. If Melillo doesn't bounce back or MoneyPenny doesn't break out, who's next? Murphy can't play both spots!
Just step back and think about the starting rotation. Let's accept that regardless of Beane's course of action the pitching was going to have issues in 2008. But Haren, Blanton and Gaudin are all under control through 2010. The A's could have used 2008 to sift through Meyer and DiNardo and Knox and Madsen and Braden and try to find a usable SP. Bailey and Simmons will be in AA, with just a little luck one of those two could have been ready by 2009.
Has Beane added talent to the organization? Yes he has. But he's added it in spots where the organization was already strong.
And what about 2011 ...
when Haren and Blanton would be gone?
What about 2013 when every single player on our 2007 roster is gone?
See -- that's the thing -- there was never any chance that Swisher or Haren were going to stay with the A's through their contract years. There's little chance that Blanton, Barton or Buck will be with the team through the full course of their arbi years.
The team needs to be constantly reloading. It can't draft enough talent to restock fast enough. It has to use the only fungible asset it has -- players.
I'm not unsympathetic to the lack of talent in certain areas. Like I said, although I'd be sad to lose him, I think a Street-Lillibridge trade would be a very smart move.
I'm not too concerned about the lack of an obvious 2nd or 3rd base solution. They, like closers, can generally be made or found.
To steal from monkeyball
What?!
That was a bad arguement, in every way, shape and form. It condems the A's to drafting no one worthy of playing in the big leagues for the next 3-4 years or ever signing a FA worth a damn.
If the A's couldn't replace Haren by 2011 it means every pitching prospect in the system sucks and the next two drafts were complete disasters. That means everyone from Beane on down would deserve to lose their jobs.
No it doesn't ...
It means that by 2011 the A's will need 5 new starting pitchers. Hopefully we already had a couple of them in the minors -- but we certainly don't have 5. Before the trades, we had three pitchers that I believe have a good chance of being worthwhile Major Leaguers.
That's not enough.
Anyone we draft between now and then very likely won't be ready in time.
Now we have at least six.
A successful draft will, on average, bring about 2 Major Leaguers into the system. (granted some drafts can be much, much better -- but that's the result of good luck combining with good scouting, we shouldn't expect more than an average of 2). The players it brings in will be under team control for six years. 6 x 2 = 12. That's only half a Major League roster. We certainly are not going to pay for the other half of the roster ... so they have to come from somewhere.
Sorry, but no
To even say that the A's will need 5 new SP in 2011 means the following:
The A's were unwilling/unable to keep 1 of Gaudin, Blanton or Haren. (Since we're playing the Haren-is-still-here angle.)
Simmons and Bailey have bombed.
Cahill, H.A. Rodriguez, Lansford, Italiano, Mazzaro have all failed to develope into successful AA pitchers. (Meaning no chance for one of them to jump ala Buck from AA to the Show.) Since all those guys stand to start 2008 no lower then High-A we can safely surmise they've all gone bust too.
Every college arm taken in the 2007 draft has flopped.
Any high round college SP in the 2008 draft (assuming there are some) would have struggled in their 2+ years in the farm system.
That is a disaster of Pittsburgian proportions. Such a result could have only one possible result... the complete dismantling of the A's front office.
Not to mention you've completely disallowed any SP to be signed as free agent for the next 3 years.
(If you assume the FO is that incompetent then why would you dare to assume the guys they just traded for are worth a damn?)
Simmons, Cahill and Rodriguez ...
are the three that I mentioned ...
Haren and Blanton will both be rather old to be good bets to give good value on a multi-year contract. Gaudin will likely either be too successful (read: expensive) or too injured by that point. I wouldn't count on keeping them. Also, if we have them replaced, that's money that could be invested in harder to fill holes -- like SS or CF.
Based solely on draft position, there is something like a 10-15% chance that any of the non-Simmons pitchers will ever make a single appearance in the Majors. I wouldn't count on too much from them in 2011.
Like I said, I think we can count on filling 3 of those spots from within. We still need two more. I think we can agree the team is better off if it doesn't have to try to find the next Esteban Loaiza or Mark Redman.
Again...
WHAT?!?!
Blanton and Haren will be 30 when the 2011 season starts. You're telling me that a 30 year old pitcher isn't worth a 4 year plus 5th year team option deal? I'd agree with you if you were balking at 5+ years gauranteed, but come on!
What about this scenario? Sign Blanton to a 4+1 deal now, giving the A's control through 2012. Or sign Haren to a 4+1 extension after 2009, skipping his option year altogether. Then you'd have the option of deciding if a 34 year old Haren is worth the option year.
Pick a plan, add Simmons, Cahill and Rodriguez and you're looking for a 5th SP in 2011!
Your Doomsday scenario is ridiculous. It in no way justifies either of these trades.
I don't have any great desire ...
to lock up a 30-34 year old Blanton or Haren at market rates. There's a ton of risk and no reward.
But, sure, we could do it. But to what end? The team as currently constituted probably wasn't good enough to really contend. The minor league system was fairly barren and the team was more likely to get worse before it got better. So what's the point of keeping it together?
The fundamental problem was that there wasn't enough cumulative talent at any level of the system. The sky wasn't going to fall, true -- but it also wasn't going to see any new flags flying in it.
So axe every pitcher over the age of 30?
There's your problem, you're prematurely getting rid of talented players.
For the A's to succeed they will need to take their shots at retaining some of their talent beyond their 6th season. The only other option to strive for long term success would be to invest heavily in scouting and developement and that includes going above slot on draft picks and pursuing the top young talent in Latin America. The A's have taken some steps in that direction but they have not fully committed themselves to that path.
You can't half-ass that approach, it will lead to talent shortfalls that the team would not be able to buy their way out from.
No, just every pitcher that requires market rate
I agree that we can and should keep some players. I just believe that they should almost invariably be position players.
And you're still ignoring the fact that these team was not talented enough to contend and had no reason to expect that to change, given the current farm system.
Contend in 2008?
It would have been a long shot even if the A's had brought in Bonds. Too much depended on Harden, Chavez etc.
That doesn't mean 2009 was a wash-out as well. Beane could have made smaller moves that coupled with freeing himself from bad contracts would have enabled him to consider a run in 2009. Beane could have gone for a reload vs. a rebuild.
I think you're a little dogmatic in choosing to only hold on to position player over the age of 30, a 33 year old Dan Haren will probably be pitching quite well.
I wouldn't bet on it.
A 33 year old Danny Haren may still be pitching well. Or he may have blown out his shoulder and be rehabbing. He might also have lost a couple MPHs from his fastball and is still a decent pitcher, but no longer the #2 we'd be paying for. I think there's probably at least a 50% chance that he'll be at least a league average pitcher at that point -- nothing better than that.
Why wouldn't 2009 be a washout? Where would you have expected the team to improve in any meaningful way? Except for Gaudin, there's no upside in the rotation. I wouldn't bet on Duke or Calero getting healthier as they get older, so the 'pen is going to be comparable at best. Chavez could get healthy ... or he could keep getting worse. Ellis would be gone, so 2b would likely be substantially worse.
Your left with a basically average team and $20m or so to fill holes at 2b, ss and cf. That's not enough money to buy the talent necessary to turn that team into a contender.
Haren
Or he could get hit by a bus. Maybe an asteroid lands on his head.
Devo, not every pitcher over the age of 30 turns into monkeypoo.
But enough about how well Haren will be pitching 3 years from now, odds are he won't be pitching for Oakland so on to more important things!
OK... 2009.
Guessing arby rewards 2 years in advance is not my strength, but let's say $16.5 million for Blanton/Gaudin/Street/Cust. Haren and Swisher were locked up for $10.8 million. Options on Embree and Harden = $10 million. Figure $2.5 million for Duke? The rest of the roster probably costs $10 million.
So basically $50 million commited in 2009 with holes at 2B, CF and a need to replace the SS. What do you want to call this hypothetical 2009 payroll... $80 million?
Well, you've brought up Petit a lot, we could plug him in at 2B and not lose any defense. The bat is a possible issue but we should know one way or another after 2008. And if his bat is good enough to play 2B, he could move over (if necessary) to SS when Crosby goes away. Buck, Barton and Suzuki should all be over their growing pains by 2009.
CF is an issue but as I've said, I'm not opposed to a reload trade. Let's use my favorite, Blanton to the Mets for Gomez and Mulvey. Mulvey should be ready for the bigs by 2009 and we've just shaved another $5 million in payroll. Certainly one of Mulvey, Simmons or Bailey should be ready by 2009.
So... CF is covered, 2B is covered and the A's have somewhere between $25-35 million available to spend.
There are a lot of question marks here. Does Chavez get healthy? How about Buck? Hey, this is far from a sure thing but the potential was there.
Actually, back to Haren
Something was bugging me. At first I thought it was me saying 3 years when I meant to say 6 years (when Haren's 33) but then I realized you'd defeated your own arguement.
Under my proposed extension, when Haren is 33 he'll be entering the option portion of his contract. So there's a 50% chance he'll be a league average pitcher, nothign more. There's got to be at least a 20% chance that he'll be better then that. So that leaves a 30% chance he sucks. (Hey, lets keep the choices simple!) So a 1 year deal, based on 2010 dollars for a #2 SP, with inflation that figure will probably be fairly close to what it costs to buy a league avergae SP on the FA market.
So essentially there's a 70% chance that in the last year of the extension the A's will at least break even.
Honestly devo, how much better do the odds need to be before you're willing to take a chance?
My percentages were based on the assumption ...
that he was still pitching well when he hits free agency in three years, so that we would want to re-sign him. That's far from a sure thing in and of itself.
And what is market rate for a pitcher?
Given the rate at which pitcher salaries are escalating what is market rate now, for a good pitcher, not a mediocre one granted, ends up looking like a bargain in a year.
In 2006, when Roy Oswalt signed his new deal with the Astros, many here criticised the Astros for it. Within a few months, it started looking like a bargain.
What!?
The absolute last thing any team should do (especially a small market one) is sign guys to long-term contracts (4 years is long-term, in my book).
It's easy and fun to plug in things like, "Gaudin will be in the A's rotation until 2011, when he'll be 31, just hitting his peak." But the best strategy in baseball is to not get ahead of yourself. Roster flexibility is the single best thing a low payroll team can have.
For a fun experiment, put yourself in 2003 shoes. Would you want to lock up Mulder? Zito? Chavez? Foulke? By 2008, that's looking pretty bad, and only one of those guys is over 30.
If it were up to me, everyone would be signed to a one-year deal.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 7:02 PM PST up reply actions
Not going there
Devo wants to jump ahead 4 years, you want me to backtrack 4 years. No reason to split my focus like that.
And as for 4 year deals, sorry, 29 year old quality FA's are going to be looking for more then 3 years. You can sign Loaiza for 3 years gauranteed but a Blanton or Haren get 4 years. If not from Oakland, then from someone else.
Unless you're willing to pay more per year, of course. Say Haren (just as an example) was looking for a 4 year/$60 million deal. I'm fairly sure a 3 year/$60 million offer would get due consideration.
Other teams sign guys for 4+ years...
If other teams jumped off a bridge...
Best thing for the A's to do - not dip into the free agent market excessively (if at all).
How many 4-year contracts have the Indians given out to free agents? And how many have the Royals?
And who wins more games?
The 2003 and 2006 A's teams both made the playoffs, and they had a total of 4 players in common (5 if you include Crosby, who didn't have an AB in either playoff series).
Small market baseball teams should have the employee-turnover rate of a fast-food restaurant.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 7:27 PM PST up reply actions
1 apiece
Indians signed Hafner to a 4 year deal (while gauranteeing a pre-existing option year). Interesting footnote, the Indians would love to keep C.C. beyond 2008, think he'll settle for a 3 year deal? Better yet, think the Indians will risk insulting him by offering a 3 year deal when the going market rate is at least 4 years?
Royals signed Meche to a 5 year deal.
That should read "4+ year contracts"
And Hafner's homegrown, FWIW. Like almost all of Cleveland's talent, becuase Shapiro, like Beane, realizes that free agency is inefficient.
And Cleveland's eager to keep CC around past 2008 because they've reached their peak. They're in win-now mode. If the A's won 96 and the Indians won 76 last year, CC would be in the desert and Danny would still be in Oakland.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions
Oh really?
So a team could give a player a 10 year deal just so long as he was homegrown.
I don't think you slipped up when you asked the question, I think you didn't know the answer ahead of time and ended up serving a meatball over the plate. KC has signed 1 FA to a 4+ year deal and THAT is the reason they've sucked for a decade? Somehow, I think the problem is bigger then Gil Meche.
Yeah, but
your whole thing revolves around locking in 3/5 of your rotation for the next 4 years, while doing nothing significant to restock the farm system. Having a plethora of prospects in a loaded minor league system is a much better way to ensure long term success than counting on guys like Gaudin (with one full year as a starter) and Haren (a stud, but he led the league in pitches thrown last year) to continue to perform like this for the long haul. Mulder sure looked good in 2003. 4 years later... not so much.
Plus, Hafner for 4 years is a bargain. Hitters like that could easily command 6-7. And my point was that some teams (like KC) waste a whole lot of money. The $19 million they spend on Meche/Guillen could better be spent rebuilding the farm system. Like the 2003/2004 Tribe. They didn't sign many free agents while they were rebuilding. So now, while the A's are rebuilding, they shouldn't be signing any longterm deals.
I was wrong to compare the Royals to the Indians. I should've compared the Royals to the 2003 Indians. When the A's get to the point that they can contend immediately, as well as in the future, then you can start locking guys up.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 8:25 PM PST up reply actions
<sigh>
your whole thing revolves around locking in 3/5 of your rotation for the next 4 years, while doing nothing significant to restock the farm system.
Not a word of truth to be found. I quit reading your post after that.
...
Going into 2008 with Haren, Blanton and Gaudin in the top 3 spots was a solid enough grouping to build around.
I took "build around" to mean, "rely on long term." You've indicated that it would be stupid to try and contend next season, and I agree. So why "build around" these guys if you're not going to rely on them for 3-5 years? And the best way to restock the farm system is to sell off a few of those guys now, while their value is so high because of their contracts.
Now try to read the rest of the post.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 8:52 PM PST up reply actions
The problem lies in counting to 4
Gaudin, Haren and Blanton do not see FA for 3 more years, not 4.
Do nothing significant to restock the farm? In this very thread I suggested spending more in Latin America and in the draft, specifically, going over slot rec to sign more talent. I've also said, in this very thread, that I was not opposed to a "reload" trade. I even suggested one such trade, a deal that would hurt in 2008 but could be expected to pay full dividends as early as 2009.
I do believe those suggestions work towards restocking the farm system. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Ok, 3.
3 years isn't a long enough window to keep these guys. The opportunity cost is outstanding. If 2008 is conceded to mediocrity, then it becomes 2 years (2009-2010) of meaningful production out of those 3 starters. And you're relying on them to produce the whole time. No room for injuries, or anything.
So that's like giving up all of the prospects that could've been gained in 2007 trades for the 2009 and 2010 versions of Haren, Blanton, and Gaudin. Then letting them leave with nothing but a draft pick to show for it.
So trade them, and increase Latin American scouting. The two roads aren't mutually exclusive.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 9:15 PM PST up reply actions
No chance?
I certainly don't expect the A's to have a core of stars that stick together for 10+ years, but in the last decade they managed their constant reloading while keeping Tejada, Giambi and Zito for all 6+ years before they hit free agency, Hudson for 5+, Mulder for 4+, and of course Chavez for 9 years and counting.
The promise of the new stadium (repeated ad nauseum by Wolff, Beane, and many on this blog) was that it would allow the A's to keep their best players for at least a little longer. And Swisher's contract, which included his first two years of potential free agency, seemed like the first step in that direction.
But instead we've moved in the opposite direction, with Swisher and Haren gone after only 3 years each in Oakland, and you're suggesting that we should expect more of the same in years to come, even though Buck and Barton will just be starting their arbitration years when the "mallpark" opens.
I have no problem with trading established players from a mediocre team for top prospects and the hope of a truly dominant team some time in the future. And as I've said, I actually like this particular trade (though not the Haren one). But if the sell-off is to be repeated just a couple of years in the future, with the same reasoning, it raises the specter of an endless series of "Five-Year Plans" with the promised future never arriving.
You're right ...
I probably (almost certainly) overstate the case ...
does it raise that specter?
Why would you suspect that?
I myself actually am taking Beane at his public word (for a change) when he says that he realized this team was headed for struggle and mediocrity in the near-term and worse in the medium-term due to the paucity of the farm system, and that a re-build/loand/trench/what-have-you was necessary in this instance.
I'm honestly curious as to why you would suggest that (I have some hypotheses and similar suspicions, but I don't want to impute [or dispute] arguments that you don't actually hold).
(And, off-topic, are you going to the Jay Farrar show 2/27 @ GAMH?)
I mostly agree
I'm not suggesting that Beane is lying about the motivation in the present case. And the current plan might well pan out a couple of years down the line - there are an awful lot of good prospects in the system now.
But that doesn't mean (as one particularly tendentious poster keeps insisting) that money had nothing to do with the decision - for any team that's teetering on that edge of contending/rebuilding, how much they're willing to spend on payroll certainly affects their ability to "go for it now," and hence their choice of which direction to take. That is, rebuilding might be the right choice for the A's, but for a team in exactly the same situation but with deeper pockets, the right choice might instead be (as someone else suggested today) to sign Bonds and Andruw Jones and try to compete in 2008.
Looking to the future, I'm not convinced that the equation is going to change that much, even with a new stadium. There will be a small bump in revenues (attendance will only go up a small amount, though probably at significantly higher prices), but not enough to move the A's into the high-revenue tier. The real windfall will be from the surrounding development, which for a variety of reasons will certainly be controlled by a corporate entity separate from the team, though also owned by Wolff and Fisher.
So if enough of the current prospects pan out the A's might well be fielding championship teams in 2011-2012. But there's also a very real chance that they won't, in which case the 2011 off-season will just be another repeat of 2005 and 2008. Again, I'm not predicting that this will happen, but I think it's more likely than some people are willing to admit.
(Didn't know about that show. Probably not this time, though.)
I don't think the cycle is that simple ...
With the prospects we can acquire for current talent and a couple of quality drafts, we should be able to reprise the run the larger cycle that started in about 1998 and ran through 2007. The team should be contending again by about 2010. They should be able to contend for 6 to 8 years from there, peaking from about 2012 to 2014, at which point it will be '2005' and they should be able to squeeze a couple of more good years out of a declining team before starting over.
Your crystal ball
is considerably less cloudy than mine. I do think that what you suggest is pretty much exactly what Beane is hoping for, but it's still a best case scenario.
To expand on my other point a bit, though it's not something that ownership could exactly plan out, I also don't think that the "contention cycle" aligning so neatly (from their point of view) with the "stadium cycle" is entirely happenstance.
Obviously there are no guarantees ...
the prospects may not sufficiently pan out for the initial ascent to happen. If that's the case, once it becomes clear, your next retooling/rebuilding cycle begins early.
It's not ideal, I'll grant'ya. But what other option is there?
that's about what I thought/think
I'd actually be pretty sanguine about the prospect of Beane going all Logan's Run for the foreseeable future and foreswearing expensive FA signings. One of the things I like most about Beane (because it aligns with my own personality) is that he's at heart a stingy cheapskate: loath to pay any more than he has to to for anything, to pay market rate for anything, or to buy anything at all that he doesn't have to -- yet is also willing to engage in occasional impulse buys for trinkets that set his heart a-flutter. It may not be the best way to build and maintain a roster, but it's how I would. (Of course, I could just be projecting.)
I also wouldn't be especially surprised to see the "tomorrow never comes" (sounds like a Bond movie ... or a bondage movie) scenario play out, as it would make a lot of sense from a certain business angle.
My double-secret-probation conspiracy theory, though, is that part of the motivation for Beane to clear the decks is that Wolffisher already have the team on the market, and are going to either abandon the Fremont plan or will maintain some small, risk-mitigated interest in the surrounding development even as they sell the team.
And I think you're absolutely right about the separate-entity/develop-revenues-outside-of-the-traditional-franchise-model structure.
Err
But that doesn't mean (as one particularly tendentious poster keeps insisting) that money had nothing to do with the decision - for any team that's teetering on that edge of contending/rebuilding, how much they're willing to spend on payroll certainly affects their ability to "go for it now," and hence their choice of which direction to take. That is, rebuilding might be the right choice for the A's, but for a team in exactly the same situation but with deeper pockets, the right choice might instead be (as someone else suggested today) to sign Bonds and Andruw Jones and try to compete in 2008.
I don't disagree with any of this. The argument that I've crusaded against is the notion that the A's traded Haren and Swisher at least in part so that the ownership could pocket the (miniscule by baseball standards) salaries they were owed. That's not even close to the same thing.
A team certainly has to ask itself whether it can buy its way out of a dilemma through the free agent market-- and the answer will certainly be different for Pittsburgh and the Yanks. But even a high-payroll team like the Giants can find itself in a situation where the talent deficit is so severe that the team needs to sell off the pieces and trade proven players for prospects. This can be the correct move even for players that are not making tons of money-- if Arizona had offered SF the Haren package for Tim Lincecum, I'm convinced it would have been the right move to accept even though he's making the league minimum.
Trade Lincecum for the Haren package
and you've just traded a high ceiling pitcher who is ALREADY a good pitcher, who is cheap and under control for the next 6 years for a bunch prospects, the best of whom are still pretty far from reaching the majors.
Players like Tim Lincecum cannot be bought in FA, no matter how much money a team has and is willing to throw around.
Brett Anderson is nice, he is also only in A+.
Players like Chris Carter, Aaron Cunningham, Dana Eveland, Greg Smith, can be bought as FA with money.
Even a Carlos Gonzales type can be bought with money.
Money
Sorry to break this to you, but the only green and gold in Oakland is on the uniforms.
Um, what?
Players like Lincecum can most certainly be bought in free agency for money. Not all the time, mind you, but making a blanket statement like that is ridiculous. And in point of fact, one of them will probably be buyable for money next offseason.
Lincecum is a nice young pitcher. He's also an injury risk and a guy who hasn't proven that he can post league-leading numbers yet. Does that make him a bad player? No, but it does make him less valuable than Haren, IMHO.
Even more to the point, pitchers like Lincecum can certainly be drafted-- and the Giants are quite good at that, while they're pretty miserable at drafting guys like Carter or Cunningham, forget Gonzalez.
Every young pitcher is an injury risk
Phil Hughes is much more of an injury risk than Tim Lincecum, just to use an example. Felix Hernandez is more of an injury risk than Tim Lincecum. Fautino De Los Santos is certainly more of an injury risk than Tim Lincecum, for no other reason than his miniscule total amount of professional innings.
He is also much younger than Haren. Young players improve. Also, his K rate is certainly league leading.
"Even more to the point, pitchers like Lincecum can certainly be drafted-- and the Giants are quite good at that, while they're pretty miserable at drafting guys like Carter or Cunningham, forget Gonzalez."
So, why don't the Giants have 4-5 Tim Lincecums then? Because it is actually not so easy to draft guys like him, maybe?
They don't have 4-5 right now
They do have two, however (the other being Matt Cain), which is at least suggestive of an ability to develop quality pitching... and they have multiple minor-leaguers in the same class, headlined by the top draft picks of last offseason, Alderson and Bumgarner.
I'm not saying that every pitcher they touch turns to gold (although Jason Schmidt might disagree with me), but sometimes you have to deal from strength to fill weakness.
Alderson and Bumgarner are nice
but at this point, given that they have barely started their pro careers, you can hardly project them to replace Cain or Lincecum.
But, my point is that while Chris Carter, Aaron Cunningham are nice, guys like that are easier to acquire as FAs than a Tim Lincecum, especially for a team with a healthy payroll. Even if you can get a Tim Lincecum as an FA, you will be competing in a mad scrum with many other MLB teams for him.
the scenario where profit-taking those salaries
... would make some sense, I think, is the one I outlined above -- if Wolffisher (or, more likely, Fisher) is actively looking to cash in his franchise-appreciation ROI soon (which transaction wouldn't likely hit for 2-3 years at the earliest), then right now would be the time to squeeze the most operational profits out of the team.
If Wolffisher are genuinely in for the long haul, then I agree that immediate profit-taking probably doesn't make much sense as a primary strategy -- though that doesn't mean that they're not doing it. (As FSU said, a million here, a million there, and you're talking serious money.) Given the cheapskate manner in which they run the rest of the franchise (downmarketing the team, tarping seats, closing concession stands, eliminating reduced-price access) it would make sense.
So far as I can tell, you haven't mustered a real argument against the idea that Wolffisher are taking profits and/or are motivated by same, except for calling the idea itself stupid and saying that Lew and John are too rich to be motivated by 7-8-digit figures.
That argument doesn't make a lot of sense
Teams in the cellars, without good contracts that add value, are worth less than teams that are highly successful and have players signed to deals that are long-term credits to the organization. Why would you sell a team that's at low ebb?
The only way that makes sense is if... shockingly enough... the trading of those contracts was designed to actually increase the future value of the team by increasing the value of the minor league system. Which is, of course, precisely the way every mainstream analyst looks at these trades.
There really isn't much else to say here. We have no evidence that they AREN'T taking profits, but we also have no evidence that they ARE. Where I come from, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The only thing we can do is read the motives of the principals-- and I simply find it impossible to believe that a capable businessman would be imbecilic enough to believe that destructively looting his own business would be a good idea. People who are selling Walgreens do not smash up the storefront and haul off all the goods before putting the property up for sale.
what an odd bunch of assumptions you have
A's are in the cellar? You apparently subscribe to the Rattoesque theory that the A's finished behind the Rangers this year and will do so again.
Yes, Beane traded 2 valuable, sensible contracts -- in part because the sensibility of the contracts was what added value to the players attached to them. And he didn't, as you imply, loot the shelves and smash the windows (when did you turn into FSU?) with these deals -- he swapped those valuable players/contracts for more individual players than he gave up, players who are exponentially cheaper than the players he gave up, players who could ultimately outperform the players he gave up, and players who could be used as trading chips for better players down the line or immediately.
All of which are points that you yourself made ... the previous paragraphs before your own bizarre analogy.
My argument is that Beane has appreciably enriched the medium-term and long-term value of the franchise while significantly decreasing the franchise's cost commitments. I'm not going to make an analogy, because that's pretty darn simply put. (While I'm on the subject, though, you really should have chosen a business that, unlike Walgreens, is franchised rather than a chain.)
You also seem to assume that any potential buyer would be an idiot who couldn't see the structural medium and long-term values that Beane's put in place.
I'll now, once and for all, commit to not reading or responding to any more of your posts; and I'll join FSU in asking that you do the same to mine.
Look, this is very simple
Either the trades were made in order to increase the future value of the franchise by increasing the total number of games it's going to win; or they were made in spite of the fact that they will cost the franchise wins in order to enrich the ownership in the short term. Those are really the only two possible explanations here. If it's the former, I really don't see what his or anyone's problem is. And I've given a whole bunch of reasons as to why I think it's not the latter, among them the "bizarre" analogy above. You even seem to believe the same thing.
I can't force you to respond to what I write, but I'm not going to stop responding to stuff you post just because you're giving me the "silent treatment." There are other people on the site. Maybe one of them will join the discussion. If not, I guess I'll get to enjoy having the last word.
Oh no you don't Thomas Paul -
I'm getting the last word right...now!
-Cindi
P.S. Unless you count my name as a word - then that was the last word. Well until this P.S. obviously.
P.P.S. Do you know why Mandi "text messaged" me a few minutes ago? Never mind.
You are forgetting things like
stadiums; things like revenue sharing.
"The only thing we can do is read the motives of the principals-- and I simply find it impossible to believe that a capable businessman would be imbecilic enough to believe that destructively looting his own business would be a good idea."
Jeffrey Loria, Nuttings, David Glass, etc.
I'm not really convinced
that Loria cares a whit about the value of the Marlins. They're such a lucrative money-making enterprise as they are... why give it up? The entire value of the franchise at present is in the ability to cream off revenue sharing monies while not spending anything on the team...
I suppose it might be the case (not convinced, though) that the A's would make more money by adopting the same strategy, but it's a strategy which requires the complete writing off of a fanbase. It's like Cortes burning the boats... once you do it, there's no turning back. This was easy for the Marlins, who never had a fanbase to begin with.
Look at what the Nuttings have done
Look at what David Glass did for years in KC; he never did a Loria either; doesn't mean that he was losing money; now that he has changed his plans, he is finally starting to spend money.
...
But he's added it in spots where the organization was already strong.
There's no such thing as having too much minor league pitching. Swisher wasn't traded because he was, "weak." By all accounts, there was never an intention of trading him. Kenny Williams had to offer well more than he wanted, to the point that Billy simply couldn't say no.
Cheap pitching is the most valuable commodity in baseball. If you have an excess of ML-ready, quality pitchers, you can get back just about anything you want, including an ML-ready SS. The minor leagues are about producing general talent, even if that talent goes off and plays for another team.
If you have a potential stud pitcher in your system, (say, Phil Hughes), he'll be able to net you a decent player at any position you need.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 6:40 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly - grover, isn't it reasonable
to think that if you have "too much" of a key commodity, it can get you what you need when you need it? That's why you get the best players available, especially if they're at important positions.
As I've said many, many times
Should Beane trade some of his newbies for a SS or a CF then I will be placated. Until he does... and it hasn't happened yet... he's done little to improve the team long term.
If he trades Street or Blanton to acquire the players the A's NEED most, then I will again raise the question as to why he traded Haren and Swisher.
The A's had a stud pitcher in their rotation
And they had him under contract for 3 more years.
Beane acquired maybe 2 major league ready pitchers in these deals, Eveland and Smith. Smith I've covered, Eveland is a wildcard who was no better then 4th on Beane's wish list to AZ. I believe Eveland could have been had in a deal that did not involve Dan Haren, but that is neither here nor there.
Anderson... 2 years away.
DSL... at least 2 years away.
Gio... most likely destined for AAA, at least half a season away.
Going into 2008 with Haren, Blanton and Gaudin in the top 3 spots was a solid enough grouping to build around. The A's have a gaping hole at the top of their rotation BECAUSE they traded Haren.
For how long?
How long can you build around Gaudin, Blanton, and Haren? Full seasons from those three resulted in 76 wins last year. With Gaudin's injuries/the general volatlity of pitchers, your best bet is to use talent that you weren't good enough with to acquire talent that may one day be good enough.
And a major part of the reason Haren was so valuable was because of his contract. He got Bedard/Santana-level return (or at least what they're expected to get), and not even the biggest Haren fan would take him over either of those guys in terms of overall talent. Every year his contract gets shorter, and every year his value goes down. Keep in mind, the A's didn't just get pitching. They got 2 of the top hitting prospects in Arizona's deep organization.
Also,
DSL... at least 2 years away.
My office building's had DSL since 2002.
/lame joke
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 7:16 PM PST up reply actions
I've gone over all this
multiple times, in this very thread.
The A's did not lose 86 games because of Swisher, Haren, Blanton and Gaudin. They lost 86 games because other players sucked.
THE A'S DID NOT REPLACE ANY OF THOSE SUCKY PLAYERS WHEN THEY TRADED HAREN AND SWISHER!
ok...
SO HOW DO YOU REPLACE THE SUCKY PLAYERS?
Throwing money at Jose Guillen? Blackmailing Andrew Freidman into a Crosby-Brignac straight-up trade?
Reducing the overall quality and quantity of talent in a trade package by concentrating on one guy, rather than reaching for the best available players?
They replaced a guy like Stewart with a guy like Gonzalez. They replaced Kendall in house with Suzuki.
But the A's aren't at the point of picking out specific needs. They're at the point of stockpiling as much talent as possible.
These moves aren't intended to make the A's a contender in 2008. They're intended to reload the farm system. It is possible to turn around and trade these guys again later on.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 7:38 PM PST up reply actions
Alright
I'm about 1 post away from losing my fucking temper.
These moves aren't intended to make the A's a contender in 2008.
No shit. Good thing I never suggested that Beane should make trades that would make the 2008 A's contenders. What a stupid, fucked up idea that would have been!
It is possible to turn around and trade these guys again later on.
For the last time, should that happen I'll be placated. I've said this at least a half dozen times. The next person to imply that I'm not aware of this little tidbit is a complete and total idiot because I can't say this any plainer then I already have. I've also said, repeatedly, that trade hasn't happened yet.
None of the guys Beane acquired can play SS.
None of the guys Beane has acquired project as a long term CF. None of them. So says BA. So says BP. So says (as of 2007) Sickels. That doesn't mean it absolutely won't happen, just that your betting long odds that it will happen.
Oh...
I thought you legitimately believed the A's were just about set, this is a long thread, dude. But this farm system's now gettin close to loaded. And I don't even think it's a question that Beane's got more moves coming.
By spring training 08, I'll bet you a dollar that the A's have increased minor league depth at every single position over what they had in September 2007.
And I do think he's addressed a need so far this offseason. They had no pitching depth at all before the Haren/Swisher trades. They had a decent major league rotation, led by an ace, and nobody in the minors (maybe Cahill, or Simmons, but nothing special like an Anderson or DLS). Now, you'd be hard pressed to find a farm system with more quality arms than the A's.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 8:35 PM PST up reply actions
You need to read more
Drop $5 a month on Baseball Prospectus, Baseball America runs about $12 a month. Buy Sickel's prospect book
BP gave Anderson and Cahill the exact same 4-star grade. Sickels gives Anderson a B+, Simmons a B, Rodriguez a B, Bailey a B- and Cahill a B-. No one's really sure why Cahill is so low, he's rated equal pitchers (in terms of stuff, performance and age) higher grades.
DLS earned a B+ and a 5-star, respectively.
Basically, your bit about the woeful state of the A's pitching depth prior to these deals is... exaggerated.
Oh, I subscribe to BP
And Baseball America. But having 1 potential #2 guy like Cahill isn't depth. Nor is having a few more guys who perfect-world project to middle of the rotation starters, or the bullpen.
Having multiple guys who project to #2 status is depth. How many Jason Windsors and Dallas Bradens can you have? Because that's what Cahill is likely to become. Same with Anderson. Same with most pitching prospects. But if you put together 7 or 8 B- to B+ level pitching prospects, then it becomes likely that you'll catch a few solid major leaguers down the road.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 8:59 PM PST up reply actions
So you subscibe to BP
Do you read it?
Because I can't figure out how you can read BP and say something like this:
They had a decent major league rotation, led by an ace, and nobody in the minors (maybe Cahill, or Simmons, but nothing special like an Anderson or DLS).
BP gave Anderson and Cahill the very same grade!!!
Anderson's more special.
Because we have the same first name.
(Honestly, that was a typo. It should've said "Gio or DLS.)
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
You're having a lot of typos tonight
Gio's a B+, 4-star prospect as well.
Well, back to my previous point...
Now they have 4 B+ pitching prospects. Not just one.
Ok, you got me, I shouldn't have used the term "special." But chances are one of these 4 guys will be an A's regular come 2010. The odds would be stacked well against 1 guy becoming a regular.
Before the trades, the A's had 5 pitchers that BP rated at least 3 stars. Now, they have 8, plus Smith and Eveland. They doubled their number of quality pitching prospects.
That's a huge difference.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 9:25 PM PST up reply actions
You've made too many slip ups tonight
Doubling 5 does not equal 8.
Add in Eveland and Smith = 10.
I figure they're every bit as quality as Blevins or Bailey.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 9:34 PM PST up reply actions
My problem with your stance, grover
(and it's still a lot better than Crosby's), is that you're saying "well if Beane does that in the future I'll be placated". So let's assume that Beane intends to use his resources - a surplus of good young pitching talent - to address the SS or CF need next Winter, to be ready for a run at contention in 2009. Why be critical now, just because we're in the middle of a series of moves you'll be fine with when it's all said and done? What's the point of a stance that says, "He hasn't done all of it yet (and it's not too late yet) so I'm critical because right now, at this very point in time, it's unfinished business"? If we keep Crosby and put a lame CF out there in 2009-10, then be critical.
Because you've forgotten option B
Beane trades Blanton or Street for a SS or CF.
Which I would have a serious freaking problem with. If Beane can trade Blanton for a legit CF prospect and a replacement arm why did he need to move Swisher and Haren as well?
A lot of people have been saying what a great job Beane has done adding talent to the farm system. And he says, I've admitted that myself. But he hasn't filled the pre-existing holes, he's merely filled the new holes he dug while trading Haren and Swisher.
How does all this new talent help the A's win a couple years down the road?
To this point, it's been a lot of busy work and I've got no problem calling Beane on that.
And another thing
The surplus of good young pitching you're talking about? Beane had Cahill, Simmons, Bailey and Rodriguez in the organization already.
Of the new guys, Smith is nothing special while Anderson and DSL are 2 years away. Gio is a plus but Eveland is a real wildcard. He could end up washing out, being great or meh. Odds are at least one of Anderson, DSL or Gio will flop and I won't even try to guess which one it will be. Basically, your surplus is more myth then reality. Sure, technically you've got more arms but how many will be standing in a year?
Hey, I wish it were otherwise but if you manage a 50% attrition rate with your pitching prospects you take it and smile.
Exactly my point
Beane had Cahill, Simmons, Bailey and Rodriguez in the organization already.
How many of them will be standing in a year?
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
That's exactly the point -
Beane had 4 very promising young pitchers in the system, but knowing the attrition rate, he really needs more like 8 to be "loaded". With 4, you hope to get 2 out of it for yourself, with nothing to spare. With 8, you can hope 4 are actually good - meaning you actually have enough to deal for what you need elsewhere.
Forgetting, of course
The huge new gaping hole you have from trading Haren in the first place. Beane has basically added one new arm that he didn't have before he traded Haren. 1 newbie replaces Haren, another newbie is your wonderful surplus.
Which you then trade for a SS because you need a new SS.
So surplus go bye-bye.
I think what probably happened
is that Beane set out hoping to trade Blanton for less, but found that the gap between Haren and Blanton was wider than he expected - because for whatever reason, teams were just not excited about Blanton. So it became "Haren or stand pat on dealing starters" and Beane felt that standing pat just wasn't a viable option.
Now could he have dealt Swisher and, say, Street and sufficiently rebuilt for years to come? Given the Swisher deal, you wonder. But still probably not - only Haren could net you as much as we got from Arizona and short of that kind of haul, the farm system was going to stay too barren to put the A's in a position of strength. I don't like it, but if the haul for Blanton just wasn't there...
That's another thing I disagree with
The idea that Blanton can't bring in a sufficient haul.
Beane traded Haren for the largest haul possible, not a deal that could help him in more specific areas.
He was bowled over by Williams to deal Swisher.
Beane's been swinging for homeruns every time but there are times when you don't need to hit a homerun to win the game.
Minaya offered a package of Gomez plus 3 pitching prospects to the Twins for Sanatana. Minnesota wants Gomez and Martinez, plus the pitchers.
We know that Minaya has been interested in Blanton in the past. Here's a situation where Beane could have swooped in and flipped Blanton for a smaller package then it would cost the Mets to land Sanatana. It would have been a solid double.
Now imagine 2009 with Haren and Swisher on board, a new CF and a replacement arm for Blanton. Key need filled, pitching staff armed and a lot less risk involved.
Sometime a double will win the game.
As I think you know,
I would be much happier if the A's had dealt Blanton for just a decent haul, dealt Swisher for Gio, DLS, and Sweeney, and kept Haren. But the notion that the best offer for Blanton was worth taking (especially at the time, when the Swisher deal hadn't surfaced) is shaky. And the Haren deal - like any deal - was "now or maybe never". I still think Haren is the kind of guy you build around, but that doesn't mean that in real time, Beane didn't make smart decisions to act when and as he did. We'll see. I'm sold on the second deal, "still bummed but philosophical about the wisdom" on the first.
All that is reasonable
Except for the part where Beane had to trade Haren when he did. What, Arizona was going to walk away if the deal didn't get done that day? I don't buy that story for a minute.
Speaking of timing, did you notice that Williams came calling for Swisher at approximately the same time the Haren deal went down? Matter of fact, according to who's timeline you believe, Williams made contact with Beane before the Haren deal went down. If Beane knew he had an angle on Gio and DSL it helps explain why he didn't push for more arms from AZ.
When AZ had kittens about parting with
Young or Upton then Gonzo was next on the list. Matter o' fact, AZ came to the Winter Meetings willing to part with Gonzalez to land a pitcher.
I'll say this, grover -
IF Kenny Williams indicated before the Haren deal that he'd part with Gio and DLS to get Swisher, and
IF Arizona was interested in Blanton for just Carlos Gonzalez and Brett Anderson (maybe add Street to add some of the other four players)
then I absolutely think Beane should have dealt Blanton and Swisher, rebuilt/loaded with Gio, DLS, B. Anderson, and Carlos Gonzalez, and held onto Haren - maybe even extended him into his 30s.
But I don't know the first IF to be true, and I seriously doubt the second one to be true - and that's the problem.
Wow, we need a new thread for this
It's becoming impossible to tell who's replying to whom.
In any event, Arizona was not particularly interested in Blanton-- so the notion that they would give up their top pitching AND hitting prospect for him seems ludicrous to me. There's no way that deal was on the table. If they were willing to offer anything, I'd suspect it was more on the order of Eveland-Smith-Carter for Blanton.
This is my point, actually -
I don't think we could have gotten what we needed for Blanton (a potentially legit hitter and a special young arm), which is precisely why Beane felt he had to deal Haren - even if he set out to deal Blanton and keep Haren in his "Plan A".
Safeguard your computer folks!
PT is right about AZ and Blanton. Byrnes wanted to go after a #1 type SP and that ain't Blanton's job description. They were really only interested in paying full price for Haren.
Sometime before Opening Day
Blanton's getting dealt. Between Minaya, Colletti, Hendry, Krivsky, Bavasi... et al, somebody's going to blink and pull the trigger on a deal that they're on the fence on now.
Once a starter on one of Blanton's potential teams goes down in Spring Training, Blanton becomes far more valuable.
Especially if Santana and/or Bedard are off the market. I think it's smart for Beane to wait and see. His best offer is (probably) yet to come. He's been offered homers. I think he's waiting for a Grand Slam (one that I presume will include an ML-ready starter and an infield prospect).
For the record, I do feel that the Haren trade was a Grand Slam return.
If Billy feels Chavy's back is on
a permanent downward turn, he might take LaRoche and Hu for Blanton and let the young arms he has fill the rotation over the coming years. And call Carlos Reyes to start Opening Day 2008 for nostalgia's sake.
Good lord
Blanton for Hu and LaRoche? I'd do that in a second. Throw in Chavvy while you're at it and add in another arm/outfielder (or don't, either way). Wishful thinking.
Here's hoping for a Brad Penny injury on March 10th, just to make the Dodgers extra-desperate.
The Dodgers and Blanton
It has been said that the Dodgers and Blanton are not a good fit anymore because they have the following in their SP rotation at the moment:
Penny, Lowe, Billingsley, Schmidt, Kuroda, and Loaiza
(and that doesn't include Kuo who, if healthy, could still crack that rotation if someone else is unhealthy).
The only other team that makes sense for both sides is the Rockies as I have mentioned prior if the Dodgers decide not to make a deal.
But I don't see how LaRoche is available unless they have completely written him off already. I'm not sure that the Dodgers would want to trade Hu either with Furcal only under contract through 2008. That seems to me that Hu won't be available as Hu will be much cheaper and maybe not that much worse, if at all than Furcal.
Any deal for Hu should include a pitcher and another IF who could be available and with Blake Dewitt that gets that as Travis Denker is another 2B for the Dodgers to have in their pipeline. And James McDonald is like the Dodgers 3rd or 4th (or maybe 5th by some) best rated P prospect, yet still had phenomenal numbers last year and could be ready by 2009 as well.
Otherwise, BB could go with a deal with the Rockies of which that deal could be very comparable in talent, albeit the SS I previously mentioned, Chris Nelson, probably won't be ready until 2010 unless he makes huge strides in 2008, but the talent would be equivalent.
Travis Denker
was dealt to the Giants as the PTBNL in the Mark Sweeney trade.
Except the Dodgers have moved on
They signed Kuroda, Schimidt is coming back and the front end has Penny, Lowe and Billingsley. Loaiza's in reserve and they think Kershaw is a year away.
How does Blanton fit into all that?
Maybe if Beane was willing to take on the last two years of Schmidt as part of a salary dump....
Not that the Dodgers are strapped for cash.
I don't see what the problem is here
Instead of Haren, you have someone to replace Haren and a surplus to trade for a shortstop. And probably someone else as well, given the going rate for top pitching prospects these days.
...so you have a better team.
Where's the beef?
Assuming any of the new pitchers
will end up actually being as good as Haren, which is far from sure - or even likely - and certainly won't happen before 2010. Add to that Haren's incredibly cheap contract, secured for 3 years and proven health/durability, and I think there's a legitimate beef available to those inclined towards carnivorism.
The A's now have EIGHT guys
who I could see becoming better than Haren. Cahill, Rodriguez, Bailey, Italiano, Leon, Anderson, Gio and DLS. Oh, and Gaudin if you want to include him. If at least one of them does not turn into a staff ace, something is seriously wrong with the A's pitcher development program. I'm not saying they all have the same odds-- clearly Italiano is not nearly as strong a prospect as Cahill-- but the potential is there.
Add in a whole pile of guys with the talent to become mid-rotation starters (Simmons, Madsen, Mazzaro, Eveland, Smith, Banwart, Lansford) and the A's should have pitching out the wazoo in a year or two.
As I've said, the question of whether the A's should have rebuilt is a separate question from whether they're executing the rebuild in the right way. I have no problem with the execution, is all I'm saying (right now).
Well the thing to remember
Is that you're asking for at least one of the pitching prospects to be as good in 2010 as Dan Haren is going to be in 2010.
The Dbacks acquired Haren mainly because they're in win-now mode. The 2008 version of Haren promises to be pretty good. But it's tough to predict what a pitcher will be doing in 3 years.
It really comes down to the fact that the 2008 team wasn't going to be a contender. So Beane had to decide if the 2009/2010 seasons out of Haren would be worth more than the 6 prospects he got back (like the 2009/2010 versions of Carlos Gonzalez and Brett Anderson).
As good as Haren looks, I still think it'd be foolish to bank on him being the same pitcher in 2010 that he was in 2007. It's possible, but not so possible that it's worth giving up the package AZ sent over. The guy did lead the league in pitches thrown last year.
Mark Mulder, anyone?
Nonsense
Haren will be 29 through most of the 2010 season, expecting a collapse based on his age is ridiculous. Put away the voodoo doll, black magic is cheating, and Haren will probably stay healthy.
Mulder got hurt, he went on the DL and everything before the A's traded him. Did Haren go on the DL this year? No. So really, comparing the two pitchers is more spiteful then informative. Why not compare him to Hudson, a pitcher who's managed to stay healthy and productive? Does it lessen the pain to think that Haren is going to fall apart now that he's left Oakland?
Horse puckey.
Haren is a damn good pitcher and AZ is lucky to have him. Don't slight what he did for this team with your spite.
Huddy had constant oblique problems in Oakland
Mulder hit the DL, like, twice, with back problems. It's really common for a pitcher to break down before age 30. I agree, the 2007 version of Haren was excellent. The 2008 version should be, too. But even if he doesn't get hurt, he could still lose effectiveness. I like Haren as much as anybody, but remember the 2002 Zito? Now, Zito's only 29 and he's not even close to the same pitcher he was when he was 25. I'm not expecting a collapse. But he's not gonna run a 137 ERA+ out there every year.
No pitcher will "probably" stay healthy for the next 3 years. If your plan is to be successful 2-5 years from now, I don't think you should be relying so heavily on a pitcher who has already logged 780 innings at the MLB level.
I don't dislike Haren at all. The point here is that we shouldn't assume that 2009 and 2010 will be just like 2007 was for him.
Please don't go off saying I'm rooting for Haren to get hurt, or that I dislike him. It's simply a matter of saying that no team, anywhere, with any pitcher, can say confidently, "We're going to lock him into the rotation for 200+ innings a year for the next 3 years." Pitchers don't do that as often as we'd like.
Yes, poo happens
Especially with pitchers. But barring injury there is little reason to suspect a serious deterioration in Haren's skills in the next 3 years. With his mechanics and build he's as bullet proof a SP you can find. Which does not make him a sure thing but you pays your dues and takes your chances. He's one of the best bets out there to hold up over the next 3 years.
And Hudson, aside for one DL trip his first year in Atlanta, has been healthy and effective as a Brave. Mulder has been an absolute disaster in St. Louis.
So why do you prefer to compare Haren to Mulder instead of a successful pitcher?
"Greg Smith is a Dallas Braden clone"
Please don't tell me he wears his hat like that.
by BWH on Jan 4, 2008 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
Neyer links to this post
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...
Infinity loop
Maybe the SOX are thinking Swisher at 1B
Angels Discussing Konerko?
Just got a solid tip that the Angels and White Sox are discussing a possible Paul Konerko deal. That's all I've got for the moment; no idea how serious these talks may be.
I do recall the Angels' making an offer to Konerko in the winter of 2005-06. Konerko does have a limited no-trade clause to consider.
and
More On Konerko Talks
A few more tidbits. Some names being bandied about include Ervin Santana, Howie Kendrick, and Chone Figgins. Of course, all three would not be in the deal. The Sox also seek relief help.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/
The LAA - already a pain in the ass - would improve the heart of the lineup...
3 - VLAD (RF)
4 - Konerko (1B)
5 - Anderson (DH)
6 - Hunter (CF)
7 - Matthews (LF)
What happens to Kotchman in this scenario?
Is he just chopped liver?
Please, LAA, please trade Howie Kendrick for Paul Konerko. I'd accept it straight-up-- but if you feel like throwing in a couple of prospects too, be my guest.
maybe konerko at DH
and kotchman at 1b? even if that's not the initial plan, that could be the case after anderson sucks for a couple months.
Vlad is supposed to DH
in order to preserve his bat in the lineup. They don't think he can play the field everyday and stay healthy anymore.
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.
