Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: SB Nation NBA Power Rankings for Week 2

You're the GM! Oakland Edition

Billy Beane has gone on a walkabout and you need to step in as the new GM.

 

Here’s the situation.

Star-divide

Beane left in the middle of a two year re-build and it’s up to you to figure out exactly where the team is in the process. I understand if we can’t compete with the Angels in 2009, the plan Beane sold me a year ago stated 2011 as the goal for contention. But I am sick and tired of the losing seasons and I don’t think our fan base can handle a third sub-.500 year. So your goal for 2009 is a minimum of 81 wins and I don’t care what you do just so long as you don’t short circuit the long range goal of contention by 2011.

 

I’m going to do you a favor and bump the player payroll to $70 million for 2009. Keep in mind, that $70 million covers everything from big league salaries to draft bonuses and international signings. Beane worked the 2008 season with a $60 million budget. He spent $48 million on the big league team, $6.5 million on the draft and another $5 million on the international market. The projected 2009 payroll stands at $38 million and that includes all the arbitration eligible cases. So you’ve got $32 million and a free hand to run the team. (I do want to see a budget for the draft and the international market. What are your intentions in these areas?)

 

Make trades, sign free agents, do whatever you like just make sure you build a team that’ll win at least 81 regular season games in 2009.

 

Have at it.

Special thanks to John Sickels at Minor League Ball for starting this concept over at his site. Sorry Mr. Sickels, I just didn't have the patience to wait for you to cover the A's!

5 recs  |  Comment 417 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Something to feed my insomnia.

So, let me preface this by saying I tried to come up with my own ideas independent of the sweeping improvements suggested by NSJ here. The math might be a bit fuzzy, and the deals a bit unrealistic, but it’s meant more to foster debate than anything.

Step One: Cut a hole in the box er, Identifying a Trade Partner

When looking around the Majors, and knowing our dearest Mr. Beane, it’s obvious that we aren’t about to go throw millions of dollars at free agents. Ain’t gonna happen. No sir, no way, no how. Not a sound investment, not Lew’s way, none of that. So, when looking at our team, the obvious weakness is a power bat. Now, who has a power bat that they’re looking to unload?

Think…

The Marlins? It’s been explored before that Dan Uggla is a possibility to be traded this winter, but we have nothing that would match up with the Marlins, let alone would be worth trading for a 29 year old 2B just entering his last 3 years of arbitration. No good value.

The Brewers? As it’s been explored many times, they will be in a dire need of pitching and have JJ Hardy as a very tradeable asset, as they have Alcides Escobar waiting in the wings. But, I’m trying to present new ideas here – this isn’t an idea that’s fostering anything new.

So, who’s a team looking to shave about 20 million in payroll, that could match up well with us? Los Tigres – the Detroit Tigers, if you’re disinclined to Spanish. Their needs: a closer, a shortstop, tons of money. They have too many assets to throw in the towel, but something needs to be done. A shakeup of massive proportion is in order, so it seems to me that we match up well with them…AND the Brewers. A little presto change-o, a few too many drinks at the winter meetings and we end up with a deal that looks like this:

A’s Receive
Magglio Ordonez (Detroit)
Daniel Worth, SS (Detroit)
Taylor Green, 3B (Milwaukee)

Tigers Receive
Huston Street (Oakland)
Vince Mazzaro (Oakland)
Ryan Sweeney (Oakland)
JJ Hardy (Milwaukee)

Brewers Receive
Justin Duchscherer, Oakland
Jeremy Bonderman, Detroit

Why this works: The Tigers are looking to do something very tricky: unload salary while reloading for the playoffs. In dumping both Bonderman and Ordonez, they shed $30.5 MM in salary next season alone. Hardy more than adequately fills their gap at shortstop, and it gives them the shortstop and blockbuster deal they require to deal Ordonez, discussed here. They also pick up a closer (Street) for a reasonable price, a valuable outfield piece (Sweeney) that can compete for the 3rd outfield spot behind Granderson and (presumably) Thames, and Mazzaro who will give them an arm for the future. Sounds like enough to deal Ordonez and Bonderman, if you ask me.

Milwaukee loves this deal because they trade something they don’t need (Hardy) and one of their top prospects (Green) for two arms that can keep their rotation (more or less) afloat next year, when they lose two true aces in Sabathia and Sheets. This is the closest they can get to replacing them. This team is built to WIN NOW, and thus they need a rotation to back them into the playoffs for a few more years, for their turn at the annual crapshoot.

But, most importantly, why do we do this deal? Simple: we get the best player in the entire trade (Ordonez) and we pick up two decent to good prospects at positions we NEED (ss and 3b). Worth is good enough to come up and battle with Pennington for a job behind Bobby, unless he can be jettisoned – then he will be a spring training invite that gets a long look. 2010 might be more realistic. Green was rumored to be the PTBNL in the Sabathia deal, with the Indians later deciding to accept OF Michael Brantley instead.

We pick up a power bat that costs us nothing of long term value (sans Mazzaro, but he’s expendable given our depth at pitching). Ordonez, for the remainder of his contract, will provide us with a spark from the middle of the lineup that Cust has never had next to him in our lineup. He does NOT hinder the development of one of our major young guns (aka Barton), he does NOT bring with him excess steroid baggage, and he’s still damn good – when healthy. Let him play out his three years, and someone should be ready by then (I’m assuming his option years vest this year with him starting 135 games or getting 540 PAs).

So, we pick up our bomber, our power bat, under contract for 3 more years. We net about $7-8 MM in salary for 2009 (Ordonez’s $18MM – (Street’s $5MM + Duke’s $5MM+Sweeney’s $740k)), leaving an operating budget of around $46 MM – and an obvious hole in the rotation. So we move on to step two.

Step Two: Filling the gaping hole (that’s what she said) in the rotation
Ok so I thought long and hard (read: 3 minutes) about whether or not it would be worth it to let our plethora of arms duke it out to replace Duke in the rotation. Well, I came to the conclusion that it probably isn’t a wise idea. Counting on two of the set of G. Gonzalez, Outman, Braden, Anderson and Cahill to be ready to go out of Spring Training next year seems completely unwise. So that’s why I say we overpay for two years of Oliver Perez (2 years, $28 MM – 09: $13MM). We have to overpay to get him to not take longer deals, and to bribe him to pitch in front of 8,000 fans per start. Boo, hiss, I know, it was a low blow, but hey – it’s the truth. Plus, this quote from Mr. Asterisk has always stuck with me. (Editor’s note: I think Boras is full of it when he says Perez can get 5 at 15 per, which is why I say this offer to him is a reach).

Step Three: The Kids Aren’t Are (?!) Alright
So now you just let the kids play. You go to battle in 2009 with an opening lineup of:

1) Buck, LF
2) Suzuki, C
3) Ordonez, RF
4) Cust, DH
5) Barton, 1B
6) Crosby, SS
7) Gonzalez, CF
8) Ellis, 2B
9) Baisley, 3B

…or some permutation thereof.

Rotation consists of Smith, Eveland, Gallagher, Perez and one of [Gonzalez, Outman, Anderson, Cahill, Braden]. ’Pen is Devine, Ziggy, Casilla, Brown, Blevins and Braden/Outman. Bench is Cunningham, Bowen, Davis, and two of [Petit/Denorfia/Pennington/Worth/Rule V pick] battling it out for the last roster spots.

This is a team I would go to battle with, and I have no doubt that 81 wins is within the realm of probability.

——————

Finances:

A’s Salary (before transactions): $38 MM
LESS $10.7 MM (Street+Duchscherer+Sweeney)
PLUS $18 MM (Ordonez)
PLUS $13 MM (Perez)
EQUALS $58.3 MM spent

Target budget: $70 MM

I would then allocate $8 MM to the draft, with a goal to sign each of our first 25 picks in the draft. I would spend $3 MM in International Scouting, as well.

58.3 MM + $11 MM = $69.3 MM

The remainder can be used for acquisitions, to explain inaccuracies in my accounting, or just not used at all. Maybe the marketing department could use it…

(Note: I’d originally scheduled O. Perez to get 2/21, but after reading the article that figure seemed low. Would anyone know what he is probably going to command on the market? I know, boo, Boras client, yadda yadda.)

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 4:52 AM PDT reply actions   2 recs

Thank you and congragulations for being the 1st to take up my challenge

The only thing I disagree with is your signing of Perez, as it is unrealistic to expect a 26 year old lefty SP represented by Scott Boras to sign a 2 year deal in this market. Oliver Perez will get a minimum 4 year guaranteed deal.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

For some reason, Duke/Street/Mazzarro/Sweeney seems like WILDLY overpaying

for Maggs and 2 prospects.

The Tigers are making out like absolute bandits there.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Holy crap is that a bad trade for Oakland

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not going to get in a numbers debate with you

but I wrote this from 3-5 am. And it’s predicated on the idea that we need a big bat. And Detroit NEEDS to trade him, but will only trade him if they’re blown away. You can’t get equal value from free agents, except for ManRam, but he won’t sign a 3 year, $51 MM deal (essentially what Ordonez has). I know, Brewers make out like bandits, but I didn’t feel like going through their system even further to decipher what other prospects we’d need to get back. Besides, to pick up an elite RH power bat for three years in this market is impossible, yet hamstringing our payroll to sign an Adam Dunn or Pat Burrell in their 30’s makes no sense for this club.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK, fine

I’m just saying, if that’s the cure, I’ll stick with the disease. Grover’s instructions were to avoid damaging the future competitiveness of the team, and expending the three best trading chips the team has on one aging, defensively deficient slugger seems like a far worse idea than expending the open payroll on one. I’d far rather have the prospects that Duke and Street can bring back, plus Burrell or Dunn, than JUST Ordonez.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

When comparing prospects to players

its almost like apples and oranges. To extract ANY value from Duke, you’ll either a) have to sign him to an extension or b) trade him midseason, which I don’t think will happen if the A’s hang onto him. He’s entering his year 6 of arbitration, and chances are he walks as a FA after the season OR signs to stay with the team for a 3-5 year stretch…neither of which will net you prospects.

I think its a foregone conclusion that Devine has pretty much paved Street’s way out of Oakland. So if you deal him this offseason, his return alone isn’t enough. The teams that match up with us (aka they need a closer) are pretty much the same rehashed names: the Cardinals, the Angels, the Rays, the Indians and maybe the Cubs. We don’t really match up well with any of those trades (except maybe the Angels, who Billy refuses to trade with) to extract good prospects for just Street, and to combine Duke and Street and get prospects back pretty much blows 81 wins out of the realm of possibility in 2009.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Addendum

Him leaving as a FA at the end of the season will net us picks, but (and I haven’t done the research) he will probably end up being type B.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Based on his performance as a starter this year

I’m virtually certain that he will end up as Type A next year unless he has a catastrophically bad or catastrophically injured season. AJ Burnett, who is similarly injury prone, is #3 on the Elias list this year (you can find it at tigers-thoughts.blogspot.com).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Duke's 2008 was a lot like Burnett's 2007

Better numbers, similar durability, same W-L. His 2009 will have to be similar to Burnett’s 2008, or at least somewhat close. Looking at the list, you’re right, he will probably qualify as a Type A. For some reason, I thought Elias rankings were based on THREE years, which is why I thought he’d be type b.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They used to be ...

changed it a couple of years ago …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nonsense

The A’s match up plenty well with the Cardinals’ arsenal of 3B prospects, the Rays’ corps of SP prospects, and, if you want to go there, the Angels’ depth at shortstop. As for Duke, I must have missed the memo which said teams couldn’t trade players in their final season before free agency anymore.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry you missed the TPS report

yeah.

But realistically, if the team hangs on to Duke with a goal of 81 wins this season, then there is little (to no) incentive to trade him midyear and still shoot for that goal. Is it impossible? No. But I think it becomes less likely, although some of our younger arms may be more seasoned and “primed,” if you will, to take over Duke’s spot in the rotation by then.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know if his proposal hurts the long term goal

What if Duke gets hurt again and the A’s can’t trade him at midseason as you’d obviously prefer?

Street is a legit trade chip but Ordonez isn’t exactly chopped liver.

I’m not a Ryan Sweeney fan, I think the A’s should sell high on him while they have the chance. I like Mazzaro, but he’s another guy who could be at peak value (in terms of trade value) and the A’s have the arms to spare. Trading Mazzaro to help land help for the left side of the infield is a fair deal.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is it that helpful?

Most people don’t seem to be that high on Green, and Worth looks positively Pennington-esque (without even the plus skill of strike-zone judgment). Remember when we were discussing “roster filler” over on the other thread? Worth is roster filler. Green isn’t, precisely, but it’s important to note that Cleveland just picked Michael Brantley over him as the Sabathia PTBNL despite lacking a competent third baseman and having Grady Sizemore blocking center field.

The A’s should easily be able to obtain two similar or better prospects for just Street, which reduces the Ordonez deal to at best Duke, Mazzaro and Sweeney for him. That’s too much, especially if Detroit is not paying any salary.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not judging any of the deals

Well, I’m trying not to.

All I’m saying in this case is that the package being offered up from the A’s side does not, IMO, do serious harm to the long term goal of contention in 2011. I don’t see Sweeney or Duke or Street as pieces to that puzzle. Yes we’d want something in return for their departures but I’m going to leave those arguements to other folks.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Opportunity cost is as much a cost as any other

and the lost opportunity to acquire an upgrade at another position is a real drawback to making this sort of move.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you're grossly overrating Duke's trade value

I think he might actually have the least trade value of the four guys the A’s would give up in this deal.

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, keep him and take the picks, then...

We ARE trying to win in 2009 in this thread.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with Mike V.

Seems like a steep price to me for basically one proven bat. And Oliver Perez does not do anything for me, personally.Also, ask yourself this question:

What’s worse…..Cust in left or Ordonez in right? Yikes!

by mrod on Oct 15, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd have to agree with grover ...

You’re not paying Perez enough for that to be considered an overpaid bribe. You’d need another 2-3 million and would probably just ultimately drive up his price tag for a team willing to invest in him for the long run.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah.

The Perez thing is unrealistic, but I was predicting an underinflated market for his services this offseason due to all the Sabathia/Sheets hype, with Dempster also hitting the market. I could be very, very wrong (and probably am), but the idea, really then, is to find a better-than-replacement level pitcher to plug in for 2-3 years.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your trade proposal makes sense to me

I don’t think it’s giving up too much for Ordonez and the prospects (although Worth looks like Cliff Pennington Redux). I think the only piece people would complain about is Duke, but Duke is a health risk, and I think the A’s can survive without him. Street, obviously, is going to be shopped around. I like Sweeney a lot, but Ordonez is just too good to pass him up, and Mazzaro might end up being good but you’ve got all these pitching prospects and you’ve gotta do something with some of them.

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like it

If the Brewers/Tigers deal could somehow be reworked so the A’s got Hardy instead of Worth, then I would LOVE the deal. But even now, I would still probably do it. Also, you have Ellis in your lineup but don’t mention re-signing him.

I do disagree with Perez. Perez has been a personal favorite (I advocated trading for him when he was struggling on the Pirates) but his K’s and age will probably excite people into a 4-5 year deal. Plus I think counting on two of Outman, Braden, Gio is gonna be something we’ll have to do eventually. Cahill. Anderson, and Simmons are at AAA and ready by midyear anyways.

So if we don’t sign Perez, what can we do? How about signing Giambi and Ellis? At 13 mil, that’s a bit of a stretch, but if the recent economy gives owners pause, maybe it could work.
Buck LF
Hardy SS
Giambi 1b
Ordonez RF
Cust DH
Ellis 2b
Cargo/Cunningham CF
Suzuki C
Barton 3b (Give him the year to learn it and suffer the Braun-like defense if need be)

That’s a lineup I’d do battle with.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Oct 13, 2008 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was anticipating this kind of question

and I don’t think there’s a way we land Ordonez without getting the Tigers Hardy. The reason is simple: Detroit still has a contending team. While they need to shed salary, there’s no way they dump their best player (and most tradeable asset) without getting something of great value in return – ie, a young SS and a young Closer. Perhaps I underrate Sweeney, but I wouldn’t have posted it if it didn’t make sense in my cranium.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, and about Ellis

well, that was an oversight on my part. Put him down for $7 MM for ’09, cancel the “Perez-ish” acquisition and plug Cahill into the rotation.

Makes 81 wins seem much less possible, but it’s a move in the right direction.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Relying on Cahill and Anderson to be ready "at midseason" is insane

Not only is it expecting a lot for pitchers who did not dominate AA to be reasonable options in MLB 6 months of baseball later, it’s a great way to guarantee that you waste their service time on years where they are barely better than the alternatives (if they are, in fact, better at all) while cheerfully giving away chunks of their prime to franchises with more money.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You might be unpleasantly surprised, then, PT

I have a feeling we’ll see one or the other by mid-season 2009.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree, and I also think they'll do pretty well.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Anderson had an MLE of about 4.90 this year

Cahill at 4.50. You think three more months in the minors is going to put them to the point of being the best available alternative? Those are #4-#5 starter numbers.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes. Both because they're young and talented and capable of rapid improvement

and because none of the guys ahead of them are really durable world beaters. Eveland might have the highest VORP of the current starters.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've said it before and I'll say it again

If they are the best available option in mid-2009, the A’s situation is completely hopeless. Might as well give up and become Red Sox fans.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why wouldn't you become a Rays fan?

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not commenting one way or the other about the wisdom,

just that I think the A’s feel those guys are close to being ready.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I will eat crow if I'm wrong.

I see 0% chance that Anderson or Cahill is in the rotation at mid-season ’09.

For one thing, I highly doubt they’ll be ready, but there’s plenty of other logical reasons: b.) limiting their innings at their tender age, c.) not wasting an option on a 21-year-old when they inevitably need to be sent down later in the year after struggling, and d.) unnecessarily adding guys to the 40-man roster a year and a half early.

If three of the top seven (the five projected starters, plus Gio and Outman) get hurt, the next logical guy, in the front office’s POV, has to be Mazzaro…because he’s a year older, a level higher at this point, and most importantly, because he’ll be in his Rule 5 protection year. So adding him to the 40-man a few months early has no roster “cost”.

That’s EIGHT guys you’d see starting before Cahill/Anderson, not to mention Saarloos and DiNardo if they need an innings eater/one-start sacrificial lamb.

Zero chance of Anderson/Cahill by mid-season.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 13, 2008 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Unless one is among the "best five" options

See Street, see Buck.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If the team is in contention, at least ...

if the team isn’t in contention, those other factors (and depending on how obviously the best option the player was) would likely take precedent …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would put Simmons in the "more ready" camp as well

although in his case, the Rule 5/roster limit issue doesn’t apply, because he has the same Rule 5 protection year (Nov. 2010) as Anderson and Cahill do.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't see him improving as much in 2009 as Anderson or Cahill.

Or for that matter, ever.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

...so?

It’s precisely the point that he’s not likely to improve THAT much, hence will be less damaged by being thrown into the fire than guys who still have a lot to work on to reach their full potential.

A team’s willingness to rush prospects to fill organizational need should be INVERSELY related to their quality, not positively related to it. No one gives a crap if you promote Brian Bocock from A ball and squander his service time and options, because it’s f***ing Brian Bocock.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So by mid-2009 he's likely to be worse than Anderson or Cahill

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

you're missing PT's point

he may be worse than those guys, but the marginal advantage of throwing Anderson or Cahill in is less than the disadvantage (losing a year at the end of their prime)…

Look how the CGon gamble failed. He was the third worst batter on the team (behind Barton). If he does pan out, we just traded a year of his prime for this terrible season.

by ohmangoAs on Oct 13, 2008 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OTOH

we found out that CGon can play CF at a very good level in the majors, and it’s not a foregone conclusion that the A’s lost a year of his prime either. He could be in AAA for enough time next year to make 2008 and 2009 add up to only one full year of service time.

Though I don’t disagree with the general principle espoused.

by jakarta on Oct 13, 2008 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Defensively.

With the bat, he was (statistically) horrendous last year.

That said, he hits friggin ROCKETS when he actually makes contact.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and eventually they have to play in the Bigs right?

I mean I guess you keep him down there if we aren’t competitive so as to keep his cost controlled years. But it’s not like CarGon was sucking at AAA. He was hitting it pretty well. From a development standpoint, the A’s should have promoted him.

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 14, 2008 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He wasn't hitting it at a level which suggested that he would be a plus player in MLB

just as Cahill and Anderson are not pitching at a level which suggests that they would be plus players in MLB.

It’s not a pejorative; I can’t figure out why so many people have this weird misconception that players who will probably be good eventually must, by definition, be good already.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

For some reason i was thinking he was better in AAA

than he actually was this year. I just checked his stats, and he definitely did need more minor league seasoning. He’s had all of ~200 ABs at AAA. If he did have suggestive MLB success from his AAA stats though, I think that calling him up would have been the right decision, to further his progress. You can’t adjust to MLB without playing in it, but it should be when the stats predict that they will succeed, just as you suggested.

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 14, 2008 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The thing is, and this will support PT's overall, point, Gonzalez wasn't supposed to be up then

I think the only reason Gonzalez was called up when he was is because of injuries/poor performance (I’m looking at you, Travis). If the outfielders were doing what they were supposed to do, Gonzalez gets that seasoning. But the A’s pretty much had to call him up, and that was indicative of a desperate, bad situation.

And that’s PaulThomas’ entire point! It’s not that Cahill or Anderson won’t be good enough to be acceptable if called up. It’s that if the A’s HAVE to call them up it’ll mean a lot of bad shit has happened to guys who currently are ahead of them.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't believe that any more than I believe

that by mid-2009 Andy Sonnanstine will be worse than Wade Davis. Or that Hiroki Kuroda will be worse than Clayton Kershaw. Etc etc.

In fact, I’d venture a guess that he’s almost certain to be a better MLB pitcher than Cahill as of mid-next year.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i don't understand this cahill/anderson next year thing

instead of stating why it’s a terrible idea for the 50th time i’ll just +1 pt and nsj.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 14, 2008 3:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hmm

I don’t think Ordonez is really going to end up being any better than Sweeney. Sure he’ll contribute more next year but we’re building for 2010-11 for a ‘ship. I’m gonna go ahead and put my faith in Ry to anchor the OF for awhile.

by MaineAthletic on Oct 13, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So a right handed power bat

in the middle of the lineup, hitting probably around .280 with ~820 OPS and hitting 25-35 home runs (all this projecting a moderate decline) is going to be worth less in 2010-2011 than Ryan Sweeney? Really?!

I beg to differ.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

(slightly OT):

I was pleased to see Forst declined to interview with Seattle. Im happy to let him play GM when Beane goes on his walkabouts

by oakinboston on Oct 13, 2008 9:01 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

First, I’ll say that there are like 3 of us (myself, monkeyball, and I forget who else) that are behind this idea. It probably won’t work, so I’m going to just come out and say it straight away:

Convert Daric Barton to third base this offseason. I don’t care what the front office says, I’m not convinced that Chavez plays third for the A’s again. If he comes back healthy, I think it’s 1B/Dh for him the rest of the way.

So, assuming that Dale successfully switches corners on the diamond, we move forward.

Free Agents
1. Rafael Furcal – 2 years, $24M (2nd year option based on PAs). I believe Furcal will sign a short term deal to prove that he’s healthy so he can go for a 4-5 year megabucks contract after that.
2. Mark Ellis – 1 year, $8M. Same as with Furcal, only Ellis needs to prove his health even more than Furcal. I’m not convinced that Patterson is the answer, even for next year, at second base. Everything that Ellis lacked with the bat this year (which was rather fluky) he more than makes up with by flashing the leather.
(MAYBE) 3. Jason Giambi – 2 years, $20M. Lets be serious. There’s not gonna be an Adam Dunn or Mark Teixeiria signing, even though Dunn is undervalued. I don’t see the team handing out any 5-6-7 year big dollar contracts. I just don’t. Giambi would fit the bill, not cost a ton, and not block any prospects. Still, I don’t see a high chance of this happening. I’ll project lineups both with and without.

Trades
1. Huston Street/Bobby Crosby to Detroit for Magglio Ordonez. I think this trade just works for everybody. Detroit needs to jettison salary, add a bullpen arm, and “replace” Edgar Renteria. They accomplish all three of those tasks with this deal, while WE (hi PT!) deal from a strength – the bullpen – and create a spot for Furcal. There aren’t many teams able to absorb an 18M/15M/15M contract, which puts us (tee-hee!) in a somewhat favorable position.

So, that’s it. It’s not a huge wild fantasy baseball type of scheme, and I think it’s fairly realistic. There’s always the possiblity of signing Jason Giambi, but frankly I don’t know if he’ll take the kind of deal that I’d want him to and somebody out there will probably give him more than I’d want to give him anyway.

Projected Roster/Lineup

1. Furcal, SS
2. Buck, LF
3. Ordonez, RF
4. Cust, DH
5. Chavez, 1B (If Giambi is signed, Chavez/Giambi rotate at 1B and mix in time at DH to give Cust time off)
6. Suzuki, C
7. Ellis, 2B
8. Barton, 3B
9. Gonzalez, CF

OF Sweeney
OF Cunningham
IF Hannahan
IF Pennington or Petit
C Bowen

1. Duchscherer
2. Gallagher
3. Smith
4. Eveland
5. Braden/Outman

CL – Devine
SU – Casilla
SU – Embree
MR – Blevins
MR – Outman/Braden
MR – Ziggy

The outfield can be juggled around, whether Sweeney starts in CF and CarGo in AAA, or if Davis’ defense is good enough to justify his subpar hitting as a starting CF, or whatever. The pieces are in place and can be manipulated as deemed necessary.

Salary

$38M
+ $18M – Ordonez
+ $12M – Furcal
- $5.25M – Crosby
- ~$5M – Street
potential +$10M – Giambi

So, without Giambi the team is at $57.75M, leaving a healthy 12.25M to spend on the draft, minor leagues, and international signings. Since I’m doubtful that there’s another Inoa hanging around, there should be plenty of dollars available.

Signing Giambi changes that whole situation, leaving a paltry $2.25M. I really don’t think that it’l happen, unless Uncle Lew decides that $80M is acceptable for an organizational budget.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 9:21 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Your bullpen has Embree

I do not like this plan at all.

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If he walks, replace him with Jeff Gray. I'm not sure what the plan with him is.

If he’s a Type B and gets a pick, let him go. If not, pick up his option and see if somebody wants a ZOGM 94MPH LEFTY! for their bullpen.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Question

What if the Barton-to-3B conversion doesn’t take?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

HEY! YOU! OUT OF MY FANTASY LAND!

If it doesn’t work, I guess Chavez gets run out there for the first 6 innings of the season until he gets hurt and we’re stuck with Baisley while Chavez is out for the year because the team was stupid.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hannahan belongs on the same sinking boat as Embree

Apart from that, you have earned major points for getting rid of Crosby.

I could certainly live with the rest of it. I hope Casilla pulls his head out of his arse. We want to pre-injury Casilla back. Not the post-injury one.

With Furcal and Ordonez in there, there would certainly be much improved run production for us.

I myself would take Ordonez over an Adam Dunn type any day of the week due to the fact that he puts the ball in play 100 times more than Dunn and of course hits for the high average.

With a tail wind and lots of luck, I could see 88-90 wins out of this.

The SP is of course the weak link but there’s not much we can do until the prospects mature. Gallagher is pretty good but I am not sold on Smith, he needs more velocity. I think Outman has more potential than Nibbles.

May The Red Sox and all their fans get food poisoning and all collectively crap their pants

by Trainman on Oct 13, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like how 20 crummy at-bats at the end of the season has suddenly transformed Cunningham

from ZOMG TOP PROSPECT to a bench player.

Not that I’m accusing you specifically of this (for all I know, you always thought he was a bench player), just that AN in general is putting FAR too much emphasis on his tiny MLB sample either way.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

FWIW

I had him losing a ST battle with Buck for the LF job.

But I don’t really see him as a bench player.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The specifics I wasn't really hammering on.

If Cunningham wins a job in ST, start CarGo in AAA and Sweeney in CF.

Basically, some combination of Maggs/Buck/Sweeney/Cargo/Cunningham/Davis break camp on the big league club. I’m thinking Davis potentially gets a spot at the end of the roster just because of his plus-plus defense and the fact that whoever of the young guys doesn’t make it will benefit more from constant AAA at bats and not sitting on the MLB bench.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, like I said, I was making a general point rather than targeting you specifically

Personally I think he could probably use another half season of AAA time.

I’m just saying that his performance in very limited MLB action should be, at most, a minor factor in people’s evaluation of his skills.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The funny thing is that I'm probably putting too much emphasis on his tiny MLB sample

Because I really, really liked what I saw, at least offensively. His tiny MLB sample actually improved my opinion of him because he showed me he’s a lot closer than I thought, even if he’s not quite ready yet.

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No way Street+Crosby lands Ordonez. NO WAY. They’d be better sticking with Franklyn Gutierrez at SS.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It all depends on how much they really need to shed salary

And the market for an aging expensive Mags.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Oct 13, 2008 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

watch the market

for an “aging, expensive” manny. there’s no way you get manny for 3/51. Given the market, Magg’s contract, even IF the option years vest (which they probably will) is a steal.

by noava22 on Oct 13, 2008 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's how bad Crosby is

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Oct 13, 2008 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gutierrez is probably the best defensive RF in the league.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My joke was expecting

Gutierrez to be playing SS; I know he’s a great RFer.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Oct 15, 2008 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Step 1. Sign Furcal ($12-14m, whatever) ...

Step 2. Budget $7m for the draft, $4m for LA.
Step 3. Receive bonus for being so far under budget.
Step 4. Take long vacation.
Step 5. Return from long vacation in July to work on adding a bit of talent to “surprisingly” competetive team.
Step 6. Make reservations at Disneyland.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 9:52 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

No Disneyland for you

Not while Bobby Crosby is still on the books.

On a serious note, how long of a deal do you sign Furcal to?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

2 years, $25m or 5 years, $45m, his choice ...

I’d like the shorter one structured in this manner:
Year 1: $10m
Year 2: $15m team option with a buyout of $7m if he makes at least 400 PA in year 1

If anyone wants to pay BoCro’s salary, they can have him for a case of Sierra Nevada Anniversary Ale, which can be purchased on the cheap at Costco. They may not still have it in stock by the time the playoffs are over, though, so I’ll accept a case of Celebration Ale if the timing is right.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll take a 6-pack of Dead Guy Ale

It’s a great beer and a fitting name.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like Dead Guy ... but I'd still insist on a case ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well that's my starting point ...

I suppose I can buy the other 18 with the fat bonus you’re paying me …

What did you think of the contracts?

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure they're going to fly

Furcal is playing, so he’s got some leverage there.

My guess is it’ll take a 3 year deal, maybe 3rd year as an option. Call it $13 million annual with a $4 million kicker if the option is declined.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 14, 2008 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah ... Furcal sure was lucky the Dodgers made the playoffs ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i'd do the deal for free

GIVING a whole keg of the teams choice. I’m sorry Bobby, but water sucks.

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 18, 2008 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm now asking for 4 bombers of Stone Imperial Russian Stout ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 18, 2008 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

5 years, $45 for Furcal would be so incredibly terrible

Easily Beane’s worst decision as GM, and in a year or two it would compete with the Zito, Soriano, and Young contracts as the worst in baseball.

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's preposterous ...

$9m per for a player who was guaranteed to be injured and out for the next five years would be better than Zito’s contract.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

It’s funny because it’s true.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually you are wrong

This would not be Beane’s worst decision as a GM because it is Devo’s and also Mikev’s. They are the GMs above who wanted this FA signing. Is Furcal better than any SS we have right now, YES, does he have the ability to stay healthy for most of the 5 years, Maybe. So they are taking a chance, although you could just opt to stay with and resign Crosby for 4 more years.

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Oct 13, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm pretty sure I said 2/24 and not 5/45.

No way in hell I’d offer him 5/45 unless the last three years were all options. team options. With little to no buyout.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, that's preposterous.

Nothing compares with the Zito contract. Zito is essentially about a $15M-$16M handicap that the Giants will have to compete with for the next 5 years.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You have to compare the teams, too.

Furcal at 5/45 for the Giants wouldn’t be nearly as big of a deal as it would be for the A’s. Coming that much money to an ok shortstop who is getting up in years and who just had a pretty serious injury is a huge risk.

Zito’s contract isn’t going to strain the Giants financially, and I think he can still be a useful pitcher. Furcal’s could screw up the A’s entire plan for half of a decade.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The difference between the A's and Giants sustainable payrolls is more or less eaten up

by the Zito contract. Between now and 2014, both teams are in the same fiscal boat.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you're probably right

But the way I read this is that a Furcal contract would basically do the same to the A’s what the Zito contract has done to the Giants. Would the Furcal contract be worse? Maybe I’m guilty of hyperbole. But I think it would be an awfully bad contract.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, but Zito isn't signed for 5 / 45 by the Giants

More like $94.5M / 5. That’s $18.9M per year, for the next 5 years. The Giants might be bigger payroll than the A’s, but they aren’t the Yankees, or even the Mets / RS / Cubs / Dodgers / Angels.

The highest they’ve gone in payroll is around $90M. Zito might end up taking up about 20% of their payroll for the next 5 years, while pitching like a 5th, or maybe 4th starter. He’s effectively about a $15M handicap for the next 5 years.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Oct 13, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i dont see A's signing a 10+mill/yr player

that would shatter their largest FA deal ever to loaiza at 3yr/20mill or so

by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 13, 2008 10:12 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

ya but at least Furcal is GOOD...

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 13, 2008 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and expensive

beane will stick with his golden boy crosby for 1 more yr, buy some time for internal development of pennington/cardenas etc

by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 13, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Um, Chavez?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wasn't an FA

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 13, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's splitting hairs in a major way

If you’re using precedent, you’d better find a better reason to distinguish off a counterexample than “because I said so.” The fact is, the team has made long-term, high-$$ commitments before.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

To be fair

He said FA deal in the original post, not largest contract in general. But I agree with you that they’re one in the same basically.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Oct 13, 2008 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Except historically, the A's DO extend their own players

to large contracts (Chavez, Dye) compared to spending that kind of money on free agents (none).

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think your math is wrong

The team has $16 million in guarantees, about $12 million in arbitration for Cust, Bowen, Duke and Street, and $7.6 million in league minimums for the rest of the team. So something like MikeV’s Giambi plan is more plausible, because you have almost $5 million for the draft/IFAs instead of only $2 million.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 11:30 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I'll check my math

But I remember padding heavy on the arby cases just in case. $12 million sounds a little low for Street/Duke/Cust.

Yeah, I think that’s where we differ.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think Cust gets more

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bowen should never get one.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My shot

Sign Furcal 3 years 40 mil (12-14-14)
Trade Ryan Sweeney for Adrian Beltre
Send Crosby and 4 mil to the Tigers for Scott Sizemore
Send Street somewhere for some minor league 3B (Wed Hoges?)
Resign Ellis for 2 years 15 mil (7-8)

Lineup:
1. Furcal SS
2. Buck RF
3. Cunningham LF
4. Cust DH
5. Beltre 3B
6. Suzuki C
7. Ellis 2B
8. Barton 1B
9. Gonzalez CF

Bench
OF Denorfia
IF Hannahan
IF Petit
C Bowen
CP Eric Chavez

Rotation
1. Duke
2. Gallagher
3. Eveland
4. Braden
5. Smith/Outman

Pen
Devine
Ziggy
Outman/Smith
Casilla
Blevins
Carigan

Salaries: I dunno, whatever it is now PT says 36 so I’ll roll with that.
36 +12 +12 +7 – 1 – 4 = 62 million. Stick the rest in draft/int signings (6/2 I guess)

 

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops

by iamawesomer on Oct 13, 2008 12:12 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

That's the best team defensively

that anyone has suggested.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Oct 13, 2008 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Replace Petit with Pennington and you have to have the option of Davis making the club so I would put Cunningham in AAA next year.

This way your outfield has Gonzalez – CF, Buck – RF, Denorfia -LF and Davis on the bench. I think that Denorfia has proven that he should have a chance at a full time job in the spring since he is now completely healthy and did great in AAA this year.
Also not sure of Carignan goes from AA this spring. He is close but maybe not quite there yet.

Question, how long to we have Beltre for ?

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Oct 13, 2008 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Only 1 year on Beltre

But we’re likely to get two draft picks when he leaves.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops

by iamawesomer on Oct 13, 2008 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also the option of re-signing him

He’s likely to be undervalued by the market because so much of his value is in defense (see, eg, Pedro Feliz— league average 3B making $4 million a year).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hope not

I’m also not sure why you think it wouldn’t happen (which side would have problems?)

The Mariners are not going to be competing soon and they get Sweeney for 4-5 years. Looking at their OF right now its Ichiro, Raul Ibanez is not an OF defensively, Wlad looked awful, and Reed is like Sweeney except he sucks. They only have Beltre for one more year at like league average salary, so they can’t expect a huge haul in return. Sweeney’s value > comp picks in my opinion.

The A’s have a large surplus of OF and need a 3B.

Sounds pretty win-win to me.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops

by iamawesomer on Oct 13, 2008 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

For the A's, though, you're getting a good player for 2009,

and then when you most expect to compete, 2010-2013, you have neither. Seems like too little to get for Sweeney to add a player you only keep for one season.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What if he likes it in Oakland and signs an extension?

Also, you get at least one draft pick, with a fairly good (60% or so) chance at two.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't bet on any FA taking anything other than the highest offer.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was responding to the "likes it in Oakland and signs an extension" comment

That may happen, but I wouldn’t make a trade with that in mind.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The A's would have an 8-11 month exclusive negotiation period ...

to hammer out an extension before any other bidders can get involved … if BB wants it to happen, there’s a very good chance it could happen.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like your ideas

and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What if we sent Street to the Mets for a 3b/SS prospect?

do they have anything of interest? Daniel Murphy looks good, but he should be starting in the majors next year for the Mets, correct?

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 13, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cunningham in the 3-hole?

He’ll be sent down to AAA before he plays 150 games in the 3-hole.

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

by brenarlo on Oct 13, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Mets don't have jack

The only noteworthy prospect they have is Fernando Martinez and I think we have our share of toolsy outfielders already.

Now if they want to trade us David Wright or something then sure, I’d be down to send Street to the Mets. Along with whatever the hell else they want.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops

by iamawesomer on Oct 13, 2008 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ya i wish that too, but i doubt the front office wants to alienate fans anymore

by trading Wright when they’ve had such bad end-of-season stretches. If he’s not untouchable, he’s going to cost Duke, Street, CarGon, and probably Mazzaro.

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 13, 2008 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would instacall if Minaya proposed that

That’s a terrible trade for the Mets. Wright is signed for the next 5 years for 62 mil or so, he’s worth at least 20 mil per on the open market, and that’s on the low end.

When I say anything I mean like Cahill + C Gonzalez + Carter + Street, and I still don’t think they’d bite.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops

by iamawesomer on Oct 13, 2008 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops

by iamawesomer on Oct 13, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed on both fronts

I’m trying to think where he ranks on the “most trade value” chart, and it’s crazy high— almost certainly in the top 5 in baseball.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Mets are trying Murphy at 2b.

How they view him is going to depend on how well, or how badly, he does at 2b this winter.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think Sweeney lands you Beltre

Than again, I’m not a fan of Sweeney so I could be wrong.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not a fan of Sweeney either

hence I’d like to ship him out ASAP while his BA still is quite shiny.

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops

by iamawesomer on Oct 13, 2008 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The BA shouldn't get worse any time soon

Right NOW, Sweeney is a league-average corner OF. I just don’t understand how people don’t think he’ll get any better at all.

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's a question of mechanics

How is he going to get better? Suddenly develop great plate awareness that he didn’t have before? He’s not going to hit for power with that awkward swing of his, and he’s never been a guy who consistently hit for a .330 average. Maybe he can stand really close to the plate and get hit by some pitches?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ZR needs to watch him more

He’s just not a CFer, IMO.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The problem with watching

Is that the eyes don’t really notice that he’s catching the same number of balls as other good CFs, because he might not look as natural doing it.

I never really saw the problem with Sweeney in center, even though Gonzalez and Davis are obviously better defenders.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ZR, and RZR, and plus minus, and UZR

are all based on “watching” and “the eyes”. That’s one of their selling points. The only thing is that they attempt to do this in a systematic way.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's not really true

The only “watching” (and by that I mean "subjective") components are determining the zones and, I guess, the trajectory. It’s wholly different from the biases that come from lying eyes.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, like I said

the play by play metrics like ZR, UZR, RZR, plus minus do the watching in a systematic way, principally via zones.

Without that watching by human scouts from STATS or BIS, the raw underlying data for those systems would not be there.

And one of their selling points is that the data is obtained by humans watching actual plays in actual games in an attempt at a systematic, objective way.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

But that's different

Take, for example, Jeter.

If you just watch him, you see him do things that look impressive and think he’s “Mr. Yankee” and the best shortstop on the team.

If you enter more concrete observations into a defensive metric, however, you realize those “impressive” plays should have been easy, and conclude that he is one of the worst defensive SS in baseball.

What thejd is talking about is the “ooo, that was a good play” or “ooo, that looked ugly” effect and why that is different from the actual metrics.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Although lately he's been doing better, actually

Last time I checked, he and Michael Young were near the top of the RZR standings!

Weird, huh.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol varianceaments

Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops

by iamawesomer on Oct 14, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jeter is more or less average in RZR this year

but with low OOZ. Michael Young is much more impressive and was actually pretty close to average last year, too.

Defensive stats are based on small sample sizes, though, so they are always going to be more prone from year to year swings. The SSs we’re looking at have roughly half as many chances in a year as they have plate appearances.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I just find it amusing that his defense "improved" at the same time as his offense fell off

In the case of Jeter, it’s more the oddity of him apparently improving on defense in his mid-30s, which is when most good defenders start slipping.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you look at his

numbers over the years, he’s fluctuated between average, or a tad below average, occasionally, to among the worst in MLB. He isn’t 20 runs below average every season.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Which is exactly what you'd expact ...

give the small sample size …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There were a few offseason articles...

that said that Jeter spent a ton of time focusing on improving his lateral quickness and becoming a better defender this offseason.

Now, you could chalk up that up to the usual “I’m in the best shape of my life” rhetoric, but Jeter implied that it was the kind of work he done extensively before.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 14, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

if he's done it before

why should he improve from it now? if it’s already in his workout regimen, why would it all of a sudden improve his defense now? are you saying he stopped working on lateral quickness, then started it up again? if he did, he’s an idiot for not doing those exercises if he knew his defense was suffering. if that wasn’t the root of crappy defense, then why would adding it in again change anything?

Color me skeptical, but i never believe athletes when they say they are doing some new workout routine that helps them. They are professional athletes for pete’s sake. They should be working out a lot as it is, and as such it would be hard for them to improve their physical capabilities much more. This reminds me of when Swish started his functional training regimen of chopping wood and doing mountain man stuff. I’m pretty sure it didn’t help him all that much, but whatever.

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 14, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

An important typo

I meant to write “he implied it was the type of defensive work/training he HADN’T done extensively before.”

Sorry. :)

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 14, 2008 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

makes more sense

but if that type of training really did improve his defense that much, then i say jeter is an idiot. he should have been doing that exercise long ago. but whatever, thats just one man’s opinion. maybe time constraints or coaches influenced him not to. i just have a hard time believing that at his advanced age he suddenly figured out how to become more athletic.

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 14, 2008 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There are only so many hours in a day

And an athlete can only train so much, before more training becomes counterproductive.

Much of the time, adding a new training method, requires an athlete to cut back on some other training. Who knows, Jeter might have sacrificed working on other aspects in order to work on his D.

And it’s not unreasonable that he figured out how to become more athletic. Baseball isn’t exactly a sport that places a premium on being the most athletic and fit that a player can be. Not like some other sports.

 He might not have had a trainer that introduced a good method to improve his athleticism in the past. Or maybe, when he was younger, he just never bothered with such things.

None of this indicates idiocy.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I get what you're saying,

but I disagree that Jeter is a good example.

If you actually watch him, and disregard all the talk and hype about him, both positive and negative, and then, say compare him with his opposite number that night; his weaknesses, his lack of range, and his few strengths, strong arm, good at getting to popups, are pretty evident.

What I’m trying to say here, maybe none too clearly, is that the Play by play metrics rely on data that is obtained basically by “watching”. Just “watching” in a manner that is an attempt at being systematic and objective.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And that is a limitation ...

hopefully in the next few years they will develop a camera or sensor based system to determine zones, ball speed, arc, etc, etc …

Regardless, while the data is imperfect, the fundamental difference between the two manners of observation is that the traditional one emphasizes the extreme plays, while the modern one emphasizes the bigger picture, which is much more important.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, whether it's done by "watching" or "metrics,"

a rating system should see that as a CFer, Sweeney does not get especially good reads off the bat, and does not close in on balls especially well.

I don’t care how flashy someone is, but I do care how many balls they get to compared to how many they should get to.

Kotsay, Gonzalez, R. Davis: Excellent.
R. Sweeney, Swisher: Just not.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 14, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Now that was a totally self contradictory post ...

Sweeney got to 93% of the balls he should have as a CFer this year … that’s more or less average.

But, no, the system shouldn’t really care if he gets good reads or closes well or does seven back flips along the way — the system should care about the result.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I remember Sweeney tends to play very deep in center

Could it be that that’s actually a better position to take, and so even though some number of balls that we think he “should” get, he doesn’t— but he makes up for it with more catches deeper in the park?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's the better position to take...

if he charges on balls better than he goes back on them.

I’d say defensive positioning in the OF can’t really be one-size-fits-all. All depends on what skills a guy has and which ones he doesn’t.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 14, 2008 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's a limitation IF there is empirical evidence

that a sensor system would result in more accurate results.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Oct 15, 2008 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If wishes were horses

we’d all be eating steaks edition.

1. Sign CC (6 years 120 Million)

Give him the Inoa treatment. Lay out the ball club’s long term plans and sell him on coming back home and hope it deters him from taking the Yankees 7 yr – 160 million dollar offer.

2. 3 way trade with Cubbies

Cubs get:
Brian Roberts

Orioles Get:
Dallas Braden
Andrew Brown or Santiago Casilla
Tyler Colvin
Ronny Cedeno

A’s get:
Mark DeRosa
And Cash (a million divided by the Orioles and Cubbies)

Caveat: We get Derosa to sign a two year extension at a rate similar to his existing contract.

3. Trade w/ Brew Crew

Brewers get:
Greg Smith
Huston Street

A’s get:
Alcides Escobar
Taylor Green
Cody Scarpetta

The thought here is that the Brewers lose both CC and Sheets to free Agency and need a grinder, low cost, young SP. And of course a closer, or at least a Set up Man (if they choose to keep going with Torres).

LINEUP
1. Sweeney – RF
2. DeRosa – 3B
3. Suzuki – C
4. Cust – DH
5. Cunningham – LF
6. Barton – 1B
7. Escobar – SS
8. Gonzalez – CF
9. Petit – 2B

Still lacks power, but DeRosa at the top adds a bit, and of course OBP. Also by not signing someone like Giambi, we don’t create a logjam for whenever Doolittle or Carter is hopefully ready.

ROTATION
CC
Duke
Eveland
Gallagher
Outman

BP
Devine (closer)
Ziegler
Blevins
Casilla/Brown
Embree
G. Gon (long man)

BENCH
Pennington/Crosby
Crosby
Rajai/Buck
Bowen

I’m leaving a spot open here for Chavvy. If he somehow gets touched by an Angel (the Roma Downey kind, not Maicer Izturis), and he can play 3B, DeRosa plays 2B, and Petit moves to the bench or AAA (if we decide to keep Pennington as a backup). Or if Barton is absolutely brutal in ST, he starts in AAA, Pennington/Crosby plays 2B, and DeRosa plays 1B. I firmly believe that I am not smooth enough to ever get any team to take on Crosby. I wish I was.

I should mention, while I think DeRosa is old as dirt, I always thought he was a gamer, and I think his ability to play 1B, 2B, 3B, RF, LF will help when injuries hit, and when some young kids are ready to be called up.

MATH
Using PTs estimate of 36:
36+20(CC)+5(DeRosa)-5(Street)+3(Embree, not sure if Grover accounted for this or not, so I’ll just play it safe)+1(from Cubbies/Orioles)=58 Million…The other guys moving around should about cancel each other out, or at least I hope so, because I don’t feel like calculating those small contracts.

Finally, use the remaining 12 mill pretty evenly on the Draft and International signings. We lose our 2nd round pick (I think) because we sign CC, so we can either save some money there or use it to overpay someone with signability issues in the 1st. I prefer going with the latter.

by sourstuff on Oct 13, 2008 1:17 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

That Brewers deal won't happen.

"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."

by lenscrafters on Oct 13, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

CC is going to sign for more than that ...

definitely in dollars and probably in years, too …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In general, I think these exercises are kind of ridiculous

Like, I can suggest general things – see if Adrian Beltre can be had for a reasonable price, stick Gregorio Petit at shortstop and see if he can’t turn into an acceptable major league hitter (cos his gloves pretty darn good), look for a high upside arm in Rule 5 (not like, say, Jay Marshall or Fernando Hernandez. Take someone who throws hard and see if you can’t luck yourself into a pitcher.) Deal Street for a package of prospects, re-sign Ellis. Those kind of things.

But trying to be specific about it (I want prospect X, Y, and Z from Milwaukee) and offering up contract deals (Furcal for X dollars at X years) and composing hypothetical trades is hopelessly, hopelessly unrealistic.

RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.

by walk off bunt on Oct 13, 2008 1:59 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It's also a baseball blog, where you talk about baseball.

What the hell else is there to do in the offseason?

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, hell

I’m not saying don’t do this kind of exercise. I just think they’re generally gone about the wrong way.

I think it’s more interesting to discuss a potentially good move (say, acquiring Adrian Beltre) and discussing what that might cost, rather than just going pell-mell into things by saying I’d deal Ryan Sweeney for Adrian Beltre when I have literally no clue if that’s in any way possible.

Or, I guess I should say, I think this type of exercise is limiting. Why hypothetically and arbitrarily construct a set of four or five moves when you can hyothesize four or five possibilities for every move you’d like to see the team make?

I just think “I think we should go for a third baseman, here are a few third basemen that’d be interesting fits for us, here’s what it would possibly cost” is a better conversation jumpoff point than “I’d trade Vince Mazzaro and Sean Doolittle for Adrian Beltre, what do you guys think” is.

RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.

by walk off bunt on Oct 13, 2008 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We've done those threads, too

This is a put-your-$$$-where-your-mouth-is thread.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ah, well,

Fair enough.

RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.

by walk off bunt on Oct 13, 2008 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think it's pretty ridiculous that we all spend all of this time discussing baseball ...

but that doesn’t stop me from doing it …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah...

and some of us just “lurk” and read this stuff, we don’t even post. But, we love baseball and like to tinker with our teams roster.

"RIP: UserID: 553"

by Masaryk on Oct 14, 2008 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, please

Devo, you’re a smart guy. That’s a disingenuous response and you know it.

RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.

by walk off bunt on Oct 14, 2008 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My wife has the same response as Devo's to my AN time

Mrs. Jeans, however, is not the least bit disingenuous when she tells me how ridiculous I am. Sad but true.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 14, 2008 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think so ...

we’re here, posting because we find it interesting and/or entertaining … we apparently find this topic sufficiently interesting and/or entertaining to post 300+ comments about it, thus, whether the exercise itself is ridiculous or not, the diary was a success. Congratulations, grover, on a successful diary.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thank you

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 14, 2008 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're welcome ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

While we're on the subject

Thank you devo for “you’re.”

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're welcome ...

you’ll rarely catch any you’re/your type mistakes from me …

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cardinal Fan Here

I was doing some work looking for a good 2B for the Cardinals. Mark Ellis turned out to be one of the unluckiest hitters based upon THT’s PrOPS minus OPS with the best glove in the MLB. With our heavy ground ball pitching staff seems like a good fit.

                PrOps/OPS/PrOps minus OPS
Ellis,Mark – .798/.694/-0.104
          
                    RZR/OOZ
Ellis, Mark – .897/31 (highest RZR in MLB by 2B and SS)

Do you expect Ellis to stay with the A’s? Since this is first trip to FA I expect him to sign a multi-year contract with someone. He is a Type B FA so that will not hurt his signability being 32 will though. Does a 3 yr/$21mil contact seem about right?

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 13, 2008 3:31 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

3/21 may be a tad low, he made 7M this year.

If I had to guess right now I’d say that he signs a 1 year deal with Oakland to prove he’s healthy and then go after the 3/30 deal in the 2009 offseason.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, he made $5M this year

As for whether it “sounds right”… I assume you mean factually, not morally, yes? 3/21 sounds like it might happen to me. He SHOULD be getting about $12-15M a year based on his actual baseball ability, and that’s after discounting for injury risk.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Labrum issue in his shoulder

He had it surgically repaired recently. Theoretically he should be ready to go by Spring Training.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He made 5MM this year, I believe.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 13, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I understand if we can’t compete with the Angels in 2009, the plan Beane sold me a year ago stated 2011 as the goal for contention. But I am sick and tired of the losing seasons and I don’t think our fan base can handle a third sub-.500 year.

i don’t understand, who are you in this hypothetical?
why should i care if you are sick and tired?

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 13, 2008 4:52 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Details, details

The perspective is a strange combination of fan/author/ownership.

You gonna have a go or what?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Best I've got today:

Open up the wallet and take a chance on Furcal to stabilize SS: offer 1-4 years, $10-12/year depending on length of contract. The A’s could well afford to spend $40/4 years to get a solid SS without having to trade away their young talent. Re-sign Ellis.

Offer the Padres a chance to really rebuild by acquiring Street, a young starter (could be Smith, Eveland, or Braden) a promising OFer (could be Buck as sell-low or Sweeney as a sell-high), and the potential “Petco triples machine” Eric Patterson (as a throw in), for Chase Headley. Additions or subtractions can be made to make the deal fair for both sides.

Move Eric Chavez to 1B and Cust to DH.

In other words, I really have no idea.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 5:21 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

If I may make a suggestion

I don’t see Street enticing the Padres very much because they can always bring back Hoffman and their track record of finding bullpen arms on the cheap is pretty damn good. Maybe your deal could be trading Street for prospects, some or all of them heading towards SD with the rest of the proposed package to pry Headley loose.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess I'm thinking they may be looking for longer term solutions

(2010) at closer and set up (having lost Linebrink) but probably a pitcher under control longer would be more appealing. Maybe Carignan or Demel would interest them? I fear the real answer is Devine, but I wouldn’t let go of him.

What deal could you see for Headley?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow

I’d have to quit drinking to think about that one

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I doubt the Padres are concerned about a closer, when they have 42 other holes to fill.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd give up Devine if the price was right

The injury issues worry me. Not that he isn’t great when he takes the field, but he could easily become the relief version of Rich Harden.

Which is, it must be noted, still fabulous value for one season of Mark Kotsay’s rotting corpse.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you mean

Mark Kotsay, Starting 1B, ALCS Game 2

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're right.

That is far, far nuttier than the prospect of him merely playing first base.

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 14, 2008 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why not let Devine go?

Let’s assume that right now Devine is the more attractive piece. Given Street’s career that shouldn’t be the case. So why not keep Street, let him build his value back up and worse case scenario is you keep him another year (or so) as Demel and Carignan continue to develope?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 14, 2008 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Devine's perceived value has more to gain than does Street's

Street has a few years of “proven closer” on his resume. Sure, he’s stumbled…but there’s only so much “value building” that Street can do by the July ‘09 deadline. He pretty much is what he is – either teams will believe that he regained his form in September and they’ll want him, or their permanently soured on him. But a few months probably won’t change that much.

Devine’s perceived value could skyrocket to Soria levels if he can be a “proven, shut-down closer” for the next 1-2 years at 400K. He hasn’t done that yet.

(Mind you, I’m not saying that’s logical, just that that’s the way the trade market/perceived value system seems to work with relievers). By my logic, he should be most value now, with 5 remaining cost-controlled seasons. But MLB teams seem to value proven experience in the role of closer more than I would.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 14, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Freese for Huston Street

What do you guys thinking of Trading David Freese (STL) for Huston Street.

For you guys that don’t know I will tell you a little bit more about Freese

http://firstinning.com/players/David-Freese-a

He put up a line of .306/.361/.550/911 in the PCL league this year while playing stellar defense at third. He did this with also skipping AA and going straight to AAA. He projects to be a /.257/.300./.439 hitter in his first year in the MLB.

While the A’s need a solid 3B with the line of .242/.318/.369/.686 for worst in the MLB.

Freese fills in your 3B hole while Street fills in our closer hole. Now other players/prospects would come along with Freese most likely.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 13, 2008 5:54 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Depends on the other players involved

but Freese has been the target of quite a few ANers.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How about RHP Deryk Hooker?

Even just for the name.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Freese is a guy who's name has popped up around here.

I think Freese/Street is a solid basis of a deal but, as you said, more would have to come from St. Louis. I’m not up to speed on the Cards’ system but a SS prospect would be nice, a decent low minor SP would also work. If you want to throw some names out I’ll be happy to go over them.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We have nothing we could give up in the SS position

Now we do have depth both in OF and RHP

I figure we would have to give up two more prospects like say

Jon Jay – http://firstinning.com/players/Jonathan-Jay-a/

He is a plus defender that can play all 3 positions

Than a solid relief prospect would be

Fernando Salas – http://firstinning.com/players/Fernando-Salas-a/

He sports an excellent 100k/16BB in 77 IP as the closer for Springfield

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 13, 2008 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just curious - what's the word on Freese's defense at 3B?

It was unclear a year ago whether he could stick at 3B or whether a move to 1B was in his future.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

His defense really was never a question

In 2007 he was rated the best defensive 3B in California League. He is a third basemen. Allen Craig is the one they were not sure he would stick at third.

We are just in a serious 3B log jam. We got Glaus, Freese, Craig, and Wallace

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 13, 2008 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We can help!

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 13, 2008 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How much better is Freese than Jeff Baisley?

BB-Pro has Freese at a .271 MLEqA this year at age 25, Baisley at .266 at the same age. Neither has a much better peak, Freese .273, Baisley .271.

minorleaguesplits.com has Freese MLE OPS at .764, Baisley at .732.

I’m not excited that Freese is better than Baisley plus Street. I’d want two B-ish prospects back for Street. Sickels gave Freese a C+ and Baisley a C. At best I’d take Freese in addition to a real B prospect, like Bryan Anderson, but I’d probably pass on that too.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Those Sickels grades were last year, correct?

My guess is Freese will earn a higher grade in the new book. Baisley’s biggest issue is not staying healthy. He had a decent little half season in AAA last year but to be honest at this point I’d pay more for an equaly talented player with a track record of durability.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 14, 2008 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not interested in the bullpen arm

Here’s an idea that was floated a while back, I’d like your take on it.

Street for Freese+C Bryan Anderson

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 14, 2008 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Should be

The bigger problem with that deal is that Anderson is probably ALSO going to be ready next year… and for that matter, so is Landon Powell… at which point, what do you do with them?

I think I’d rather take Jay (or if a package can be constructed properly, Rasmus) even though he’s an outfielder, because the position is much less settled.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not suggesting they trade Suzuki and make Powell the opening day starter

just that trading for another MLB-ready catcher when you already have one and a chance at a second is, perhaps, not the best use of available resources.

I have to admit, I’d like Anderson a little better if he was more of the Mike Napoli type than the poor-man’s-Joe-Mauer type. As it is both he and Suzuki are guys whose offensive value is mostly based off their batting average.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If that's where the value in the StL system is, though

assuming there’s no Rasmus deal built, that is -

Just go ahead and pull the trigger. Better to have too many MLB ready players than not enough, right.

Besides, after Barton converts to third base, Powell can just play first.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think his O will carry the position

I expect a Mike Napoli-type of line out of Powell if he gets fully healthy, but apart from fluky years where his batting average varies upward (like Napoli’s 2008), that’s not enough to make him a sufficient hitter for first base.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

get out of my fantasy world please.

Powell is still a switch hitter with huge pop in his bat and an above average eye in that world.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He's still all of those things

He just isn’t someone who projects to hit for a high average anymore (if he ever did).

The difference between a low-average .780 OPS with great catcher defense and a low-average .780 OPS with average (or worse) 1B defense is enormous— 30 runs or so.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wait, you're using batting average as a reason why he won't be good?

I mean, .250/.350/.430 isn’t good for a first baseman anyways, but still…

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

batting average as a single part of the picture is an entirely valid stat to consider ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was thinking more like .230/.330/.450

The point of using batting average is that just saying “a .780 OPS” could be anywhere from Russell Branyan to Ichiro.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No way you'd rather have Jay than Bryan Anderson

Bryan Anderson is one of the 10 best catching prospects in baseball.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 14, 2008 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I stand corrected.

I didn’t know The Federalist was a CFer, to be honest. That obviously makes him much more attractive.

If his sudden ‘08 power surge portends future slg., I’d have to agree with you. I’d say your ranking might be a bit aggressive but I’ll defer to your strong knowledge on the subject.

That nickname you gave him bumps him up at least a half-letter grade in my book.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 14, 2008 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's a little aggressive...

I looked at the list that someone put up over at minorleagueball and found that there were only four guys I would clearly, obviously rank over him (Fowler, Maybin, McCutcheon, and Rasmus). So he’s somewhere between 5th and 20th…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We have another CFer

We also have Daryl Jones who is the most athletic player in the Cardinal organization. I would rank him about Jay and below Rasmus in potential level. 2008 was a break out season for him which got him our Minor League of the Year Award.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 14, 2008 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

All the more reason to trade one of them, then

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 15, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't expect the Cardinals to sell so short on Anderson

His value is only going to go up from this point on. He is still one of the youngest players in the PCL (AAA) league. I would like to see him at some point come up as as Yadi’s backup for awhile just to strengthen his Defensive side of the game.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 14, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And the idea that Anderson's "readiness" is a trade deterrent is wierd to me.

His power has been non-existent, and he’s 21 years old!

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with him being in AAA for another 18 months even. He could work on becoming a better signal caller, on hitting for more power, or improving his defense.

It’s not like this is some one-dimensional 27-year-old DH who already rakes. He plays the most demanding position in the game. There’s plenty for him to work on in AAA.

If he was acquired by the A’s, he’d go to Sacramento and spend next year there. Powell is made of glass and can’t play more than half the games anyway. Powell could do some DHing to keep him healthy/fresh.

The bigger picture is acquiring assets, regardless of their redundancy. They can always be flipped later, as long as they’re young (which Anderson is).

Anderson projects to be a better starting catcher than at least 10 of the current ones in the league. That means that either him or Suzuki eventually become a great trade chip.

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 14, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just curious

Does anyone over there feel an irresistible urge to refer to Jay as “The Federalist”?

Or is that just me?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're out of control

:)

"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ

by notsellingjeans on Oct 13, 2008 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No doubt

There have been eight uses of the word “federalist” on AN recently, and the last three were all by me.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like the Cards system

A lot of sleeper types. Salas, Motte, Reifer, Todd, Dew, Hill. Just a few that spring to mind.

by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 13, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bit of a reliever fetish, have we?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Guilty

Although I believe I’ve seen you over at minorleagueball extolling the virtues of Sam Demel once or twice…

by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 14, 2008 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, but I only have him graded at a B-...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like the Cards...but I generally detest their current rotation...

Carp is amazing when healthy, and Wainright is pretty solid too, but then its a bunch of retreads. I’d much rather have the A’s situation of young’ns tryin to fulfill their promise than ‘grizzled veterans’, especially when it comes to that damned Lohse deal.

Anyway, I would definitely take a Freese/Street concoction as it could be a bit of a win-win situation.

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 13, 2008 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ugh...

I mean to say…

The Cardinals have adopted a “scrap heap” approach for the last few years…

to make up for their crap minor league system. Carpenter, Kip Wells, Ponson, Mike Maroth… etc etc.. Endless numbers of scrap heap pick ups just to see which ones would stick.

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 13, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

True

The Scrap Heap method can suck at times but it is cheap and occasionally works. We got Wellmeyer off scrap heap and he was our best pitcher this year.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 14, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not to mention Ludwick

Sigh…

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Oct 15, 2008 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not just Ludwick our starting OF

Ludwick, Ankiel, and Schumaker all at one point had to pass through waivers to be on the team. Which turned out to be the best OF in baseball this year off the scrap heap.

I expect Ankiel or Schumaker to be traded this offseason. Ankiel has pure power and power arm. Schumaker is a good defensive player, great against righties, and is cost controlled for the next couple years.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 15, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

pass BoCro through waivers! maybe he'll have an unusually lucky/good year!

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 15, 2008 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And Carpenter, for that matter.

Except, to be fair, nobody expected him to go down the first game of the ’07 season and be effectively out for 2+ years… maybe his career.

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 18, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That contract definitely seemed like a good idea at the time

I don’t think the Lohse deal even seems like a good idea NOW, much less years from now.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 18, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fire BB now and I'll get us a middle of the order thumper and SS

Now would be the perfect time for me to take over for BB because I don’t have a particular fondness for any of our top 40 right now and I wouldn’t mind heartless trading any of them away to get Harden back.
Oh, wait, bias showing….

First thing I do is fire my marketing and customer service department, whether it’s within my powers or not.

Then, in true "how he’d do that, he’s a f*cking genus" fashion, I make a trade with the Rockies for Santa Clara native Troy Tulowitzki. I give’em any starter they want (IMO we’ve got four guys of the same skill set and an oft injured A.S.) with Crosby (replacement glove man) and Barton (who I sell as a replacement for Helton). I also point to the fact that they have plenty of bombers and not enough pitching which is why they need only a glove man at SS.

Next, now that I’ve lost my 1B (which is a lot easier to replace than a SS) I offer Teixeira a 10 year $200M deal (with 11 and 12 year buy outs and options) and tell’em take it or leave it. He might get more for less years, but this deal he can retire on. If he takes it, I now have my No. 3-4 hitter for the next decade and a proven AL West stud. If not, I go short term with Pinstripe G for a 8-10M one year (with a second year option/buyout) and set my sights really high on a future run at Albert. Like I said, 1Bs are a lot easier to come by.

Since Chavez is too big a question mark for me, I offer Casey Blake a one year deal for $5M-6M with a second her buy out/option). I seriously doubt a 35 year old is going to get more than that and his HR total this year would have been second with the bunch I’ve got now. If Chavez does come back, I use him to spell Big Headed G or I platoon him with Blake until one forces me to get rid of the other.

If Tex signs this gives me:

LF Buck
RF Sweeney
1B Tex
DH Cust
SS Tulowitzki
CF Gonzo
C Suzuki
3B Blake
2B Pennington

If he doesn’t sign, I replace him with Raging G and use that money to lock up CC, who with a health Duke give me a better one-two punch than any in the West. Either way I’ve now got an offense that will at least give my kids some runs to play with for the next two to ten years.

Whatever I do, I definitely fix my hole at Short first and go get my one true middle of the line up threat (every good team’s got at least one!)

"Baseball is like a church. Many attend, but few understand." - Wes Westrum

by oaklandfan40 on Oct 13, 2008 6:13 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

If you really want to pull off a Fuckin-A deal for Tulo

I think you’re going to have to take all of Helton’s contract in the process, plus give up some good talent.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 14, 2008 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My version

Step One: Sign Dunn (5 / 80). Yes he’ll be expensive but he’ll also be undervalued.

Step Two: Trade Street for Freese and change.

Step Three: Sign Furcal (2/24).

Step Four: Salary dump Crosby on someone for some minor prospects.

Step Five: Re-sign Ellis to whatever he wants ($7M in 2009).

SS Furcal
RF Buck (or Cunningham / Sweeney)
LF Dunn
DH Cust
C Suzuki
1B Barton
2B Ellis
CF Cargon
3B Freese (or Chavez)

Pitching is all the same, except Devine to closer and Ziggler back to late and close double play multi inning work.

Salary:
$38M
+ $16M – Dunn
+ $12M – Furcal
+ $7M – Ellis
- $5.25M – Crosby
- ~$5M – Street

= $63M

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Oct 13, 2008 6:29 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I am sorry but I do not want to see

350 plus K’s from two players on the same team. I know people want Dunn and I know he hits home runs but he would be in the real league and I just can’t see a lot more production with all those K’s.

I am open to someone explaining how those two would make for that many more runs crossing the plate.

Enlighten me please.

May The Red Sox and all their fans get food poisoning and all collectively crap their pants

by Trainman on Oct 13, 2008 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sorry but I do not want to see

500 plus GO from two players on the same team. I know Ryan Sweeney is very pretty and his ground singles bring oohs and aahs from the crowd, but his and Crosby’s ground outs drive me crazy. I hate ground outs. They’re wimpy….effeminate even.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Possibly Canadian?

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jason Kendall Syndrome

'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 13, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jason Bay and Justin Morneau beg to differ...

(I know you’re joking, I just find it amusing that two of the more renowned Canadian baseball players are defensively indifferent sluggers.)

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's time to seperate the wheat from the chafe

the men from the boys
the strangely effeminate from the possibly Canadian

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Larry Walker

would like to have a word with you. Privately.

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 13, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs