You're the GM! Oakland Edition

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

Well, if it happens, rest assured that I will be dissenting forcefully

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 6:27 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

Franklyn Gutierrez is a right fielder for Cleveland

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 2:54 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

We're talking Bobby Crosby, let's not push it

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 13, 2008 5:15 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 a 12 pack of Arrogant Bastard Ale

by mrod on Oct 18, 2008 5:42 PM 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

2/24 is a lot better

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 9:07 AM 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 pegged it at 5 for Street, 4 for Duke, 2 for Cust, 1 for Bowen

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 6:31 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

I actually don't think that he will... but frankly, I really don't care to use "0.8" instead

Not worth the effort.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 10:30 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 think that Tigers/Brewers/A's deal is more likely than Sweeney for Beltre.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 12:53 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

Ibanez is a Free Agent.

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Oct 13, 2008 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well then it looks like they could use Sweeney even more then.

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 7:00 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

What makes you think Oakland won't give him the highest offer?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 10:30 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

ya you're right, so throw in cahill...i guess my point is I love Wright, but we ain't gettin him

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 13, 2008 7:49 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

I'd rather have him in CF than a corner. At least he's a less weak hitter for that position, and ZR thinks he's OK there.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 9:45 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

I meant 5. I'm feeling like crap and my mind is playing tricks on me.

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cot's said he only made $5 mil this year

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/oakland-athletics.html

Also, What were his injury problems this year?

by FlimtotheFlam 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

HAY GUYS, DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY MARK ELLIS MADE?!?!

:-X

by mikev on Oct 13, 2008 3:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Uhhh...

5 million. Can’t you read?

:)

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 13, 2008 11:03 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

haha baller

by ohmangoAs on Oct 13, 2008 9:48 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, 1B

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 13, 2008 11:04 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

Deryk? Really? No. That annoys me.

But the Hooker part is cool.

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 9:01 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

Also if you wanted to look around our system quickly

Than I would recommend http://www.futureredbirds.net/ for more in depth than just by the numbers

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 13, 2008 6:19 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

Is Freese gonna be ready next year?

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 8:10 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 dunno, I'm a huge Landon Powell fan, but how likely is it that he sticks at C?

He seems about due for another knee rebuild anyway.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 9:21 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

If that's his projected line, I hope he remains an above average defensive C!

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 1:05 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

In my mind, Jay should probably be considered one of the top 10 CF prospects in baseball

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 3:33 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

Above Jay

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

I'm pretty sure I heard someone do that recently actually

Maybe it was you?

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 9:02 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

Were the other five by Sarah Palin?

by thejd44 on Oct 13, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought she was more Whig.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

John McCain should be more Whig

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, he did say he might need a hair transplant.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 1:20 AM 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

The Cardinals have adopted a "scrap heap

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 13, 2008 11:08 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

It works until the GM gives Lohse a long-term deal

by thejd44 on Oct 15, 2008 9:42 AM 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

It's from the movie, Dodgeball ...

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

by devo on Oct 13, 2008 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I know.

Larry hates that movie.

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 14, 2008 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Walks + HRs

Your attitude is the reason Dunn is undervalued, which is why he’d be a great fit with us.

How about before I explain why he’d provide a LOT more runs that Sweeney you explain why he wouldn’t. My argument centers around strikeouts not being that bad and HRs being really good.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 13, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn's overall career BA / OBP / SLG is

247 .381 .518. Dunn’s career BA / OBP / SLG vs the “real league”, is 246 .362 .530. A bit more power, a bit less OBP. Pretty much the same.

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

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 2:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the expensive-but-undervalued part

Is that like quality cheapness?

The monster at the end of this blog.

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

More like getting a porsche on sale

Yes you still paid $80K for a car, but it’s normally worth $120…

Considering every single one of our outfielders has significant question marks, I think signing a truly elite corner outfielder will help us for now (and in 2010-2012) since expecting Buck to have a 2007 year, sweeney to do something productive other than hit singles, and CarGon to suddenly have things click is pushing it.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunn

A middle of the order of Dunn, Cust and Giambi would look pretty imposing. Yes, the defense would suffer with two of three of them in the field but it would instantly transform the A’s into a team with 3 legitimate power threats. I recall a post on AN earlier this year that discussed how home runs generally correlate with wins, whereas stolen bases don’t seem to correlate with wins at all.

by SA on Oct 14, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My only problem with Giambi

Is that I still think Barton will be good. I don’t think any of us want Giambi around for 5 years (like Dunn is in my scenario), so all Giambi does is make next year’s team better and prevent Barton from progressing.

If we’re going to throw in the towel on Barton (or move him to 3B), Giambi makes a ton of sense. I just don’t think either of those things are happening.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Playing a year in AAA at age 23 is "throwing in the towel"?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

But it’s also a step in the wrong direction for no good reason (unless you think we’re a WS contender in 2009).

Unless you are throwing in the towel (or doing the 3B move) there is no reason to take that step. Barton has proven he can handle AAA. MLB figured him out after an awesome September in 2007 and he has to work through it.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would suggest that, regardless ...

attempting to make the 3b move for half a season or so would be a good idea. If by some miracle it works, JACKPOT, if not … well, we just earned an extra year of service time out of him. I’m not worried about his performance this year. Lack of power aside, his problem this year was a BABIP that looks pretty unlucky. Some are concerned that his LD% was driven by (according to their observations) particularly soft LDs, but I’m not too concerned about it at this point.

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

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed... I'm very much in favor of Barton-to-3B

(nevermoor: see the MonMorMinMus thread for the week for more on this)

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the Barton to 3B idea, too, but has there actually been talk of this happening

Or is this a creation of all of us here? If it’s completely unrealistic, why are we talking about it as a possibility?

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm waiting for someone from the A's to actually SAY "it's completely unrealistic"

before I consider it completely unrealistic. There’s no logical reason why Barton should not be an acceptable third baseman. He doesn’t have a terrible arm, he’s not horribly slow at charging balls, and other than that the skills for first and third are basically the same, the 3B just handles more balls.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but he DOES have lapses in concentration.

That’s how he made so many errors at first base this season.

So the sheer volume of difficult action he’d get at 3b might exacerbate that concentration problem.

It also could be another issue where his (perceived) immaturity creates a problem. If he constantly bitches about playing third and doesn’t have a good attitude about it, he’ll never be good at it.

"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 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That third point is, IMO, no longer an issue.

I have no basis for saying it though. It’s a “hunch” :D

I think he finally realized this year that he can’t get by on raw skill like he did in the minors. I think he started listening to coaches and working harder at defense, which is why he got noticeably better as the year went on.’

I also think that’s why he’d be able to become at least an average defensive third baseman, if not better.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that they should consider it

But if they aren’t considering it at all – and I haven’t heard anything to suggest they are – why are we acting as if it might happen? I hope it does, but I’m just not sure the A’s have that in the plans at all.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The last time I remember a whole bunch of fans wanting something that "wasn't being considered"

was Gaudin being given a chance to start before the 07 season.

That worked out pretty well.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Duke starting - ditto

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 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read it. I don't think it'll work.

I think we need to just keep on keeping on to see if Barton can adjust to the league’s adjustments.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How did he prove he can handle AAA?

Was it his sterling .800 OPS season in a hitter’s league? Unfortunately, that translates into a .650 OPS in Oakland, which is…exactly what he did.

"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 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I say to hell with a 81 win season this year

I trade Duke and Street and Greg Smith and Dana Eveland and Mazzaro and H-Rod and cash and Rickey Henderson and Luca Brasi and whoever else you need to to the Brewers to get Alcides Escobar and Mat Gamel.

Then I sit back and wait until 2011 when we come out of nowhere and win a bajillion games like the Rays only we probably won’t get the East Coast Bias so people won’t really know anything about us until we’re up 2-0 in the ALCS.

by NateHST on Oct 13, 2008 7:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I recommend this strategy. No half-ass rebuilding. Only full asses for this guy!

I’m not sure on the particulars of that deal though.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 13, 2008 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damn the Torpedos & Sign Teixeira

Our payroll would still be under 70 million, but 25% would be allocated to one player. We have plenty of widgets to trade for other widgets. This nickel & dime stuff has gotten old and we are up our collective eyeballs in potential. We need a centerpiece. We need a foundation. There are a hundred other analogies that come to mind, but we need a First Baseman who we can plug into the position & not worry about him. We need a player who is entering their prime. We need Tex.

by alpine26 on Oct 13, 2008 10:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So not worth it

You’re paying $20 million for 3 or 4 marginal wins. That’s a massive overpay even by free agent standards. Hell, even if your first baseman is replacement level, it’s almost impossible for Teixeira to be worth what he’s reportedly demanding.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 13, 2008 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reality Stinks

In reality, Beane will probably sign a middling veteran along the likes of Brown or M. Sweeney & pray that one of our outfielders has a breakout season in 09. I want Beane to do something out of his M.O. for the past year. Would a player like Teixeira put more butts / customers in the seats at the Coliseum? I suppose patience is a virtue & we will have to have plenty of it for the next two years. When the dust settles, we will have a potent team. It’s just hard to wait.

by alpine26 on Oct 14, 2008 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt Teixeira would make any appreciable difference in fan attendance not related to increased winning

Also, let me make clear, I’m not opposed to signing big-ticket FAs, I’m opposed to signing big-ticket FAs who aren’t particularly great. If you offered me a chance to sign Carlos Beltran for $20 million per I’d jump at the offer.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It helps if they play a premium position, too

It’s far easier to find a scrap-heap 1b who emerges as above-average (Carlos Pena,etc.) than it is to find a CF or SS who does.

That’s an argument toward not throwing huge years/dollars at a 1b/DH. In theory, it should be the easiest position to fill externally on the cheap.

"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 6:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At the same time

Our “easy to fill” positions have provided pretty craptastic performance for a long time. Our last good 1B year was from Giambi. Our last good corner OF year was from 2007 Buck, and before that pre-DFA Bradley. Our last good 3B year was pre-shoulder Chavez.

You’re right that they are easier to fill, but it would be nice to actually fill them for a change.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

.280/.374/.433 doesn't cut it for you?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

.358/.449/.632 would cut it for me.

nevermoor: +1.

by alpine26 on Oct 14, 2008 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whose line is that?

I might very well have missed someone

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hatteberg, 2002

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

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

Fair enough

It isn’t craptastic but it was 6 years ago so I think my point remains.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please explain to the Blog Audience

PT: Can you explain why Teixeira would only be worth 3-4 “marginal” wins? What do you mean by marginal?
Teixeira offers very few poor at bats, makes everyone around him better, shows excellent consistency from both sides, has gold glove defense & great health. What’s there not to like? Some of these qualities cannot be quantified on a stat sheet. As our good friend Brian Sabean would say, He’s a gamer.

by alpine26 on Oct 14, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not worth 25 million dollars to win 4 more games.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be if you had a strong supporting cast

We will never reach the promised land of another World Series Title. We will forever be known as contenders, a squeaky wheel that rears its head every 3 years. Not.
I am all in favor of what Beane is trying to do. Build from the ground up & retain control of player contracts at reasonable salaries. Like I said before, its hard to wait & the temptation of landing a big name free agent would be very impulsive.

by alpine26 on Oct 14, 2008 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like the Giants did with Zito?

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Giants blew their Wad of $

And now have to pay Zito for another 5 years. They rolled the dice & so far have lost.
There’s no chance we would ever sign a player like Teixeira. There are at least 3 teams who are willing to pay him $20 million a year or more.
IMO, a big free agent signing by the A’s would shake things up. On a smaller but I think better scale, the Inoa free agent signing was a huge step forward. We have some big holes to fill. Do we accept what we have or do we try to shake things up?

by alpine26 on Oct 14, 2008 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't even know what point you're trying to make now.

First you asked why Tex would be worth 3-4 wins, said a few good things about him, and then said that there’s no way we would sign him.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

See you later

I am not a regular poster on A’s Nation. Once in a while I get the time to post & see how my favorite team is doing. I am not going to post anymore. If I was Beane, I would go after Teixeira. It’s a pipedream that will not happen.
IMO, Regular posters who spend hours on this blog appear to try to intimidate the newbies & people who throw out ideas that are not the norm. I know my thoughts are not consistent. I have been a fan of the A’s since Catfish Hunter’s perfect game & I only wish them the best.

by alpine26 on Oct 14, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's no need to leave.

I’m just trying to figure out what you’re getting at, that’s all. You appeared heavily in favor of signing Tex, but mentioned that there’s no chance the team would do it.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take a stab

“Marginal” means “more than the person being replaced” not “low quality.”

As for the 3-4, PT is calculating Tex’s offensive and defensive value relative to the person he is replacing. Each of these is measured in runs (runs created and runs saved). The number of runs difference is then converted into wins.

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

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

Thanks

by alpine26 on Oct 14, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Teixeira does not make everyone around him better

No one makes anyone around them better. Hitters are discrete entities; they do not telepathically influence other hitters to raise their performance.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

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

MANNY DOES!

Just ask Jeff Kent!

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The notion of Team Chemistry is a misnomer?

Your disparaging statement puts the whole notion of team chemistry as a fallacy? What makes the individual components / players play together as a team in a team sport?
Obviously, cast aside factors such as $ in professional sports. There’s no relation? Player X does not have an effect on Player Z? The sum of the parts does not equal the whole? What about college & high school sports?

by alpine26 on Oct 14, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball is not really a team sport ...

aside from the interactions of the pitcher and catcher and, from time to time, the interactions of middle infielders with each other or the catcher, okay, defense in general, teamwork is pretty much non-existent in baseball.

Mounds of research has shown that neither the players in the lineup, nor the particular runners on based have any meaningful impact on the performance of the hitter.

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

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it (probably) works in football

Because playing football hard hurts, so if your team sucks why should you bother (receivers avoid the middle, linemen take plays off).

In baseball, however, there is no incentive to hold back during your at bats. Maybe you don’t run the bases as hard, but that really isn’t going to effect your team very often.

Winning teams appear to have chemistry, even when they hate each other, because they are playing good baseball. Losing teams appear to have crappy chemistry (and to have “given up”) even when they all get along because there just isn’t much you can do with the bases always empty.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Players who gets on base tend to make the guys who hit behind them better

But this isn’t what alpine26 was talking about, so it’s fair that you didn’t say it in your response. It’s also, I don’t think, any form of telepathy that causes it.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It appears that he is comparing Tex to the average ...

and assuming 2008 was a bit of a fluke.

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

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just a thought..

Anyone know what the hell happened to Morgan Ensberg?

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 13, 2008 11:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Age, possibly.

But I’ve been wanting Beane to try to get him on the cheap for a couple years now. I’m not sure about his glove at third, but if Beane can woo Ensberg with a minor league deal I’d love to see him compete for the 3B job in spring training.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have you LOOKED at how bad he was this year?

The guy has a giant fork sticking out of his back. He is so far beyond “done,” he’s charred. Etc etc.

No.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some Astros fans say a shoulder injury

has permanently messed up his swing, and sapped his power.

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

by rfloh on Oct 14, 2008 2:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wondered about that.

I couldn’t figure out why the Astros were benching a guy with 100 walks and decent power in 2006, but this was Phil Garner we’re talking about. I still think he’d be at least worth a look, given his track record.

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 14, 2008 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because he hit for a low average and struck out some

I think getting benched was mostly because the Astros aren’t (weren’t) smart enough to realize he was a good hitter.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Walks for for Nancies.

"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 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one wants to say it....

I am going with “Fun now! More fun later” mentality with these initiatives:

- They’ll be competitive (w/ .500 as the main goal)
- They’ll be entertaining (read: draw fans and excite fanbase now and later)
- They’ll play primarily for the future (mixing in the youngin’s with some old timers)

So I’ll chime in with this scenario:

- Switch Daric Louganis to 3B as someone suggested
- Eric “The Back” Chavy get switched to DH/1B full time
- Resign our 2nd base Unicorn for 1 year + 1 option
- Throw “Bones” Crosby into a pit (along with Hanabanana)
- Sign Furcal 2 Years + 1 option for SS

And….

Sign Barry, yes Mr. HGH Bonds himself as 1B/DH splitting with Chavy for 1 year.

You get a lineup of (now → future):

1. Furcal, SS → Future stud SS
2. Sweeny, RF → Sweeny
3. Bonds/Chavez, DH → Spartacust / Barton
4. SpartaCust, LF → Buck / Spartacust
5. Chavez, 1B → Chris Carter
6. Suzuki, C → Suzuki / Future stud C
7. Unicorn, 2B → Cardenas
8. Barton, 3B → Future 3B Stud / Barton
9. Gonzalez, CF → Gonzalez / Cunningham

SP1 – Duke → Gallagher
SP2 – Gallagher → Cahill
SP3 – *Eveland / *Nibbler → Anderson
SP4 – Gio → Simmons
SP5 – Mazzaro / Outman → Gio / Future stud P

9th – Devine
8th – Ziegler / *Street
7th – Brown / Casillas / Blevins / Outman
4th – Hennessey / Carreria (claimed off of Giants waivers as reclamation projects)

You would get a very “entertaining” lineup at a very discounted rate, not have to trade anyone significant away (i would still endorse trading Mazarro / Sweeny / Duke / Street / Crosby / Nibbles / Eveland for a high level SS / 3B / C / P prospect for the future ). I would invest the rest into the draft, international signings, and/or a SAN JOSE! YES SJ! Baseball stadium. :)

"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."

"any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us."

by ST on Oct 14, 2008 12:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Isn't Bonds going to be in court next year?

Those pipe dreams are long gone, I think. :(

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 14, 2008 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Go hard after Gordon

I like the Furcal idea, though I am really unsure what numbers will get it done. We’ve seen some big numbers for people like Magglio, who had health question marks but still received contracts for top dollar.

The problem with next year, is that the starting rotation is probably the worst it will be igoing forward for the next several years. We have so many good pitchers coming through the pipeline, but we won’t be seeing much return next year. If we want to maximize 2009 wins, we probably hold on to Street, at least until the trade deadline, and go with the dominant bullpen strategy. But as GM, I certainly am looking for value from Street in a trade, probably more prospects unless there is an impact player to be had in return (doubtful).

3B I am fine with counting on a Chavez/Baisley/Hannahan combo in the off-season. If in Feb it is clear that Chavez won’t be ready, then you keep a Baisley/Hannahan platoon, if Chavez looks like he may be ready, then you plan on DFAing Hannahan during Spring Training. I’m fine with it, because I don’t want to spend my ammo going after an average 3B replacement. HOWEVER…

I do kick the tires on Beltre, though doubting that the Mariners want to dump him to us.

What I really want to do is go hard after Alex Gordon. Look, Kansas City is unlikely to be really good during Gordon’s next few years, it is in their interests to do a Haren type trade for him if they have the testicular fortitude to do it. I’d be willing to offer one of Anderson/Cahill for him, along with Doolittle and any of CArgon/Cunningham/Sweeney, and maybe even sweeten the pot more. I know that grover has made a case for Zimmerman, and I’ll kick the tires on him too, but I’d rather have Gordon, and I have the impression that Wash will want to extract the same kind of package for him as we would need to get Gordon.

by jakarta on Oct 14, 2008 10:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow. That's a lot to give up.

Gordon is promising, sure, but Haren was already dominant. Gordon hasn’t posted an 800 OPS yet.

I’d give up some value for him – and I do like the idea of getting him – but not Cahill/Doolittle/Cargon.

Mazzaro / Sweeney / H-Rod, though, would be painful but worth it in my opinion.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes. a lot.

if thought Mazzaro/Sweeney/H-rod would do it, I’d do it and then go directly to Vegas to see if my luck held.

We’d need to overpay to get Gordon, but here’s the thing, we are in the position to overpay right now. Cust/Denorfia/Buck/Davis give us plenty of opportunity to trade one of these guys without hurting the production of next year’s OF. We’re almost certainly going to trade one of Cunningham.CGon.Sweeney anyway. If you want to make it Sweeney for sure, fine, but the Royals need OFs and a 1B, Moustakas looks very good in the minors, and if the Royals wanted to trade him to us instead, that’d be another way to go. But we’d need to dangle a couple of possible starting position players to the Royals, need for need.

And as to the pitchers, everybody wants to trade Mazzaro right now, as he feels like found money, and we love the idea of having Anderson and Cahill together as future studs. But even the best pitching prospects sometimes take several years to figure it out, or they get injured. Hughes, Bailey, Buchholtz, and even King Felix have struggled to be as good (or provide as much value as they would have in their prospect valuation primes) as everybody thought they’d be when they were at their prospect primes.

In short, I believe the perceived value of Cahill or Anderson is super high right now, and the gap in perceived value between them and Mazzaro might be bigger than the real differences between their expected career variances.

by jakarta on Oct 14, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It might just be that I'm risk averse

But if I’m giving up MLB-ready high-ceiling talent as part of a package (say, CarGon) I want to make sure that the guy I’m getting is better enough to justify the additional pieces.

I worry that in your deal CarGon is the same (or better) than Gordon by 2010 and they also have Cahillerson and Doolittle. This is because Gordon hasn’t shown elite MLB performance, only elite projections.

Trading one of our two best prospects, one of our few best positional prospects, and a guy who was the biggest part of the Haren trade for a promising (but not yet dominant) guy just seems like too much.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, I understand

though I was imagining Sweeney/Cunningham instead of CarGon, and if they wanted CarGon only, fine, but then no Cahill/Anderson. I didn’t state that clearly though, and the pushback is making me see the need to be a bit more nuanced in the way I phrase it.

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

Chavez

I would just get on with it, and move Chavvy to 1B next season. I mean seriously, what are the odds that he’ll stick at 3B after stapling him together over the past 2-3 years… plus, Sean Doolittle and Chris Carter will be ready by 2011.

I think we should look to trade Daric Barton + Ryan Sweeney + Vin Mazzaro for a quality 3B. Does that give my Zimmerman? Does Cahill/Anderson need to be in the equation? Anderson/Cahill/Carter are my untouchables, but everyone else is game – IMO.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 14, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Nevermoor

If you’re going to give up Anderson / Cahill + Doolittle + Patrol Craft / Cunningham / Sweeney, I’d try to go after bigger game than Gordon.

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

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

That may be as much as Minnesota got for Johan.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

bigger game, like whom?

and the thing is, I don’t know what the internal evaluation of each of our guys is, I’m assuming that we are not just offering the Royals to pick the one they want, but are using a bait and switch negotiating technique to push one over the others, or hold back one we really like.

by jakarta on Oct 14, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like Chase Headley?

Or…buuuuuahaha…Mike Moustakas!

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 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The A's have about as much chance of landing Mike Moustakas as I do

and I don’t even own a baseball team.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hence the buuuuuuahaha

Trickery and witchcraft are involved. And possibly blackmail.

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 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, here's the thing.

Compare your package of Anderson / Cahill + Doolittle + Patrol Craft / Cunningham / Sweeney, with some of the recent trades that have happened: Haren, Bedard, Cabrera, Santana, Sabathia.

You are giving up one elite prospect, and 2 other pretty decent prospects in return. I definitely would want to get up an elite player in return, not someone with questions about his offense AND whether he can stay at his position defensively.

Many years of pre FA control are nice, but not all that great, if the guy you are controlling is only a decent player. The A’s also control the prospects that you are giving up for many years.

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

by rfloh on Oct 15, 2008 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

God, Gordon is SO overrated

I don’t get it. He sucks at defense. He’s not particularly great at offense. He’s going to end up at first base… like every other high-level hitting prospect the A’s have, seemingly.

I wouldn’t even consider trading one of Anderson or Cahill for him straight up. The package you’ve listed… it’s so far out of bounds as to where (if I was Beane) I’d send any GM who offered it to me a bill for wasting my time.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

seriously?

You wouldn’t trade Anderson or Cahill for Gordon straight up?
seriously?

Even pitching prospects who are in the top 30 of BA rankings suffer heavy attrition issues. Many take their lumps are have to figure it out over several seasons, many get injured, many become good but not great.

No single pitching prospect who is not in the David Price 2008, Felix /Kazmir2005, Becket 2002 category can be counted on to be a front of the rotation starter.

Look Anderson and Cahill are our two top prospects, clearly. But either you are overestimating their probabilistic value, or you just don’t like Alex Gordon.

by jakarta on Oct 14, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're wildly overvaluing Alex Gordon.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

awesome

no really, if we can grab someone better, with several years pre FA at SS/3B with all of our prospect depth, let’s do it.

If we can nab him Gordon for spare parts, let’s do it.

by jakarta on Oct 14, 2008 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say spare parts.

But you’re talking about Anderson or Cahill, Doolittle, and Cargo/Sweeney/Cunningham for him.

Like said before, I wouldn’t even trade one of Anderson or Cahill for him straight up, let alone add two of the other proposed guys into the mix.

by mikev on Oct 14, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

1) I guess I have a hard-on for Gordon

2) We have so many young players whose stock is up right now, there are a ton of guys who we are in a good position to sell high on.

3) we’re not going to get as much for Barton/Sweeney/Mazzaro/Braden(or Smith or Eveland) as many people here are assuming

by jakarta on Oct 14, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the point we're after here is that in effect

acquiring Gordon is like getting a 1B who is several years pre FA. A 1B who has yet to post an OPS over 800 is a lot less appealing than the stud 3B everyone portrays Gordon as.

Seriously, check out his defensive stats over at The Hardball Times. His RZR was .692 with 23 out of zone plays in 1180 innings; by comparison, Hannahan posted a .759 with 43 in 983 innings. I don’t have access to the +/- system, which is superior, because I’m very cheap, but I would imagine it too is not high on Gordon.

I still think he’ll be a fine hitter, but at 1B his bat is a lot less valuable, and certainly not worth that kind of package.

by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 14, 2008 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and...

if my scouts tell me he shouldn’t be playing 3B, then of course he is not worth the effort. Though I see 800 OPS as his floor, not his ceiling or median outcome.

(Oakland corners should be amongst the leaders in out of zone plays, with all that extra foul ground)

by jakarta on Oct 14, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Alex Gordon is eventually an .800 OPS first baseman, which is to say, league average

I’m not shipping out a guy with a chance to be an ace (much less multiple high-upside prospects) to fill out my roster with a league average 1B bat, particularly when you consider that the system already has multiple guys who may be league average or better 1B’s.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 14, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and...

if that’s who he really is, then I completely agree with your opposition.

by jakarta on Oct 14, 2008 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What happened to Gordon, anyway?

When he was coming up I remember reading about how great his defense was, now he’s not much of a hitter and all I ever hear is that he’s brutal with the glove.

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 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not much of a hitter is pushing it

His OPS numbers are .725 and .783 in two seasons. He’s definitely young enough to continue improving, and it wouldn’t take much more to be very good for a 3B.

If his defense sucks – and I have no opinion either way – that would be a major problem, but I don’t think he’ll be offensively deficient. I also don’t think he’ll ever be David Wright. That’s why I’m saying I’d be willing to trade some real prospects for him, but not a ton.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 14, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great prospects often turn into average players ...

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

by devo on Oct 14, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

forget the Royals, could we trade for Cuddyer?

I know the Twins need a 3b, but they are talking about trading for Beltre.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 15, 2008 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cuddyer is a league average player with an awful contract

I wouldn’t even claim him on waivers.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 15, 2008 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

uhhhh

Who do you like and why don’t you list them? Seriously. I’m tired of these responses w/ no rebuttal. How about, “Cuddyer is terrible. I wouldn’t claim him on waivers. On the other hand, I would try to get someone similar to Cuddyer… but in a position of need. Troy Glaus”.

I’ve been pretty quiet about the way things seem" to be going down hill @ AN, but the snotty-ness has gotten waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too “know-it-all”-ish around here for the last year+. Out of Control. It turns quality people away. I think you are part of the problem and it’s starting to rub off on other Quality AN Posters. Could you at least work on it. I’m sure Blez would appreciate it.

Thanks for reading (and listening?),

CF

by Colorado Fan on Oct 16, 2008 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are inventing a tone which does not exist

And by definition, “I wouldn’t claim him on waivers” is another way of saying “I would prefer to do nothing than to obtain this player.”

I’ve already talked at some length on various threads about what I think good moves would be (pick up Branyan, sign Furcal and Ellis to short-term contracts, etc). Should I put them in my sigline so that they will come up every single time I post something?

(BTW, while I’m not sure Glaus is going anywhere, he is a FAR better player/contract than Michael Cuddyer, independent of their positions of need. Glaus was about 20 runs above average this season.)

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 16, 2008 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know PT

Using the moves as a new sig might work. 2008 is over after all…

Or, you could use a more generic line like “my suggestions are in the other thread”.

"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty

by 5Aces on Oct 16, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It IS true... the 2008 edition of the Oakland A's is now history

OTOH, if I have time to, I want to de-mothball my college hoops blog, so the sigline might go back to a link to that.

Although this upcoming season does not exactly fill me with optimism, certainly not for Stanford’s purposes.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 16, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cuddyer? Why?

He’s not all that cheap: 09:$6.75M, 10:$8.5M. Nor is he all that good: career OPS+ of 106, with poor D in corner OF. And he isn’t all that young either, 30 in 2009.

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

by rfloh on Oct 16, 2008 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Magglio

The Magglio contract was brilliant for Detroit. What they did was sign a guy who was a model of health with the exception of one fluke incident (for those who don’t remember, it happened when Willie Harris basically slid into Magglio’s knee while trying to catch a pop up). Because that knee was a question mark for a while, the Tigers built a clause into the first year of the deal that allowed them to cancel the rest of it if Magglio spent significant time on the DL for that reason. The Tigers shielded themselves from the question mark.

If the A’s or any other team could do a similar thing with Furcal, that would make a contract look a little bit better.

by thejd44 on Oct 14, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good idea on the contract stipulation

Definitely a way to sign Furcal to a 4-5 year deal and protect yourself from his back not being healthy yet.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 14, 2008 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only problem is that Oakland is an unlikely destination as it is

He’s going to want a full guaranteed contract, and I’m sure another team is willing to take that risk.

by thejd44 on Oct 15, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lets give it a shot then

Step One: Figure Out What We Have.

We can not figure out what we will have to fix, what we can fix, and so on, with out knowing what exactly we have to work with.

Catchers:
Kurt Suzuki
Rob Bowen

First Base:
Daric Barton
? Eric Chavez

Second Base:
FA Mark Ellis
Eric Patterson
Cliff Pennington
Gregorio Petit

Short Stop:
Bobby Crosby
Cliff Pennington
Gregorio Petit

Third Base:
? Eric Chavez
Jeff Baisley
Jack Hannahan
Cliff Pennington

Outfield:
Ryan Sweeney
Travis Buck
Aaron Cunningham
Carlos Gonzalez
Jack Cust
Rajai Davis
Matt Murton
Chris Denorfia

Starting Pitching:
Justin Duchscherer
Greg Smith
Dana Eveland
Sean Gallagher
Gio Gonzalez
Dallas Braden
Josh Outman

Relief Pitching:
Huston Street
Brad Ziegler
Joey Devine
Andrew Brown
Santiago Casilla
Jerry Blevins
Ryan Wing

We’re for sure letting go Frank Thomas and Alan Embree, and Mike Sweeney’s already gone.

So where can we improve?

The Outfield is crowded, and the uncertainty there is a good thing; its because we have too many players that are good enough to start. Catcher the only position we are sure to have an above average player at though.

First Base, Second Base, Third Base and Short Stop are all weak however. Bobby Crosby has worn out his welcome, Second Base is a question mark with an under performing, injured Mark Ellis now a Free Agent with his return in doubt, and third base is completly up for grabs, since we can not count on Chavez at all anymore, but no one is behind him. First Base is manned by Barton, but Barton had one of the worst seasons by any regular player, let alone First Baseman, ever.

Those are the positions we need to improve on. Sure, we can put an all Defense team in the Infield and go with a hitting Outfield like in the early 80’s, but we’ve already seen how exciting a bad offense is; its not. Pitching and Defense wins games, but Offense puts butts in the seats, and thats what we’re lacking most.

Looking at the field as far as Free Agents and Trade Bait goes, I agree that looking at our minors we do not have any true Short Stop prospects coming up that look like solid regulars or better till you get down to Low Single A. Adrian Cardenas could stick at SS, but he’s more likely to slide over to 2B or 3B. So I do advocate signing Furcal if we can get him on a 3 Year Contract or less.

As for 2nd Base/3rd Base, I would target Marlins 2B Dan Uggla. He is supposed to be shopped this off season, and he would be a good target to trade for. We can stick him at 2nd Base for offense, or if we resign Ellis after all, move him to 3B, and have Chavez play 1B. Would a package of Vin Mazzaro, Adrian Cardenas and Matt Murton do it?

So now we need either at least one of a 2nd Baseman, Third Baseman or First Baseman. If Chavez can play 3B, we’re fine there. We’re pretty sure that Chavez can play 1B, so that might be fine too-if not, Barton is there.

For Third Base/First Base, I would try targeting Alex Gordon. He would be a good fit depending on Chavez’s condition, regardless of which one it is. He is young, he has a great minor league track record with, unlike Barton, lots of power. Perhaps the Royals would even consider a swap of the dissapointong prospects in hope of greener pastures?

This is my team for opening day 2009.

C1 Kurt Suzuki
1B Eric Chavez
2B Dan Uggla
3B Alex Gordon
SS Rafeal Furcal
LF Aaron Cunningham
RF Travis Buck
CF Ryan Sweeney
DH Jack Cust

C2 Rob Bowen [1B/3B[
BN Rajai Davis [CF]
BN Cliff Pennington [SS/2B/3B]
BN Eric Patterson [2B/OF]
BN Chris Denorfia [CF]

SP Justin Duscherer
SP Greg Smith
SP Dana Eveland
SP Sean Gallagher
SP Josh Outman

RP Huston Street
RP Brad Ziegler
RP Joey Devine
RP Andrew Brown
RP Santiago Casilla
RP Jerry Blevins

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Oct 14, 2008 10:51 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Uggla is not a long-term solution

He makes basically no sense for the A’s to acquire right now. I certainly wouldn’t give up Cardenas, who might well BE a long-term solution, to obtain him.

Still wondering why people think Greg Smith is a better pitcher than Dallas Braden.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 15, 2008 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I highly doubt that package would nab Uggla.

A pitcher with one great year on top of several average ones, an outfielder who’s already burnt out, and one pretty good prospect for one of the few 30 HR second basement out there.

by NateHST on Oct 15, 2008 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

THT just did a comparison of Uggla to Ty Wigginton

and Wigginton’s projects are more favorable compared to Uggla. Uggla came from nowhere, and is overrated. Yes he can hit bombs, but his OBP is probably going to be around .330 rather than the .360 he put up this year. He would benefit our team if he was on it, but he would damage our team significantly in the future if we had to give up Cardenas to get him.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 15, 2008 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Uggla's defense is really bad.

by thejd44 on Oct 15, 2008 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So is Wigginton's...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 15, 2008 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe we can get them to both stand next to each other and count as 1 guy on the field?

by mikev on Oct 16, 2008 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll try, go eazy on me I'm new

I’m not sure why winning 7 more games next year is is worth some of the radical ideas in some of the posts I’ve been reading. BB has been eating up talent without much reguard for positional need. This off season it just needs to be redistrubuted a bit. The one thing I do agree with many of the posters is that we should bring back Giambi. He would be the positive club house Vet that the big hurt and Mike sweeney were but he might make it through the whole season. That is the beginning and end of free agents.

Let Ellis walk. You all might not like me for this but he is not the future for the A’s Pennington is solid and mybe the future leadoff guy for the A’s. If not Cardenas will be right on his heels.

My redistrubution plan,

Gio for KC’s Mustakas (3B in 2 years) this kid smashes the ball and will a play good 3B. KC is solid on the left side of the infield and weak on the hill just the opposite of the A’s. They are both ranked about the same on most prospect lists. Good deal for both teams.

Street for TB’s Brignac (SS) and Wade Davis (RHP) Brignac is close to big league ready with huge upside. Future 20-30 hr guy with a solid glove. TB likes Bartlet and has one of the Beckhems in their system for the future. Davis is insurance because I’m trading a couple of our 4A LHP’s and we need someone to spot start from AAA in case of injury.

personal opinion here A’s might not like it.
Braden and HRod or # 13 pick for WAS # 1 pick If you watched the olympics you know why I want the # 1 pick Strasburg is a stud Wasington will want him but to get a legit starter + HRod or the #13 plus not have to pay Boris money to sign him would have to be tempting

Sign Giambi 2y @ 10-12 per
10 mil for the draft
Crosby starts at SS if Brignac has a slow spring by midseason Crosby is Chavvys back-up at 3b
2 more year for Chavvy you’ll see he’ll be ready to go for ’09 then Mustakas takes over
Buck, Cargon, and Sweeney will play OF in OAK for many years.
the pitching staff,
Duke, Eveland, Gallager, Outman, Smith
Blevins, Casilla, Myer/Grey, Brown, Zigler, Devine
C Suzuki, Bowen
1b Barton, Giambi
2b Pennington
3b Chevvy
ss Crosby, Brignac
lf Buck
cf Sweeney
rf CarGon
DH Cust
Uti Patterson
OF Denorfia

by grabber on Oct 15, 2008 8:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You can't trade draft picks.

by mikev on Oct 15, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What mikev said, plus that offer wouldn't even be remotely tempting ...

also, if you were able to pull off that trade anyway, $10m wouldn’t be enough money for the draft … it might not even be enough for Strasburg …

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

by devo on Oct 15, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus you misspelled "easy"

Other than that, welcome to the Show.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 15, 2008 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry man, but there is no way that Street will net us Brignac AND Davis, let alone Brignac himself

Also, unless the Royals are dumb, they wouldn’t trade Moustakas for Gio alone. Maybe for Gio and two other pieces, but Moustakas has ‘superstar’ written on him, while Gio’s been traded a couple of times and didn’t exactly light up the bigs this year. This is not to say that he is a quality prospect, because he is, but its that he’s not on the same level as moustakas.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 15, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

*isn't a quality prospect

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 15, 2008 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rays bullpen seems just fine. Why do they need Street at all?

What they really need is a RF…and a SS but they have Brignac.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 15, 2008 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have a question in need of an answer

Is there a benefit to having a competitive team for which rookies can break in on. I feel that a winning environment can somehow effect a rookie’s impact. I don’t know whether it’s because a competitive team has good players, and good players will give good tips to rookies because they are successful, whereas bad teams have bad players etc. I really don’t know the answer to this, but it just seems like teams like the red sox end up having a lot of their rookies pan out, whereas other teams, like the Royals don’t. However, there are counter examples to be sure, i was just looking for an overall trend, if possible.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 15, 2008 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think winning breeds winning, and losing breeds losing

I don’t know if that answers your question specifically. But some of the things perennial losers (Rays) throw out when they suddenly become winners are “accountability” and “attitude adjustment”. Naturally, talent is important, too. Hey it’s like the shrink from The Natural says: “Losing is a disease.”

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 15, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there is a significant degree of selection bias ...

really good teams only promote the very, very best prospects to the majors and they can generally pull the plug on them quickly so we don’t really notice them as failures.

Also, while the Red Sox have gotten very lucky (on top of being very good) the last few years, look at the Yankees and their less successful track record with prospects or the Mets or Angels who also have high payroll, veteran teams and have seen plenty of prospects wash out …

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

by devo on Oct 15, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do think there is some cause/effect

Less fun to lose, makes the MLB seem harder/scarier than it is, etc. But I have no idea if I’m projecting bias.

It would be interesting to see numbers on this.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 15, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

or less pressure means they can just focus on playing ball, trusting the processes, not pressing as much for results ...

The methodology would be simple enough, but gathering the data makes that more of a project than I would be willing to undertake …

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

by devo on Oct 15, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Slacker.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 15, 2008 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well if PT would hurry up and analyze the Mariners and Rangers

Maybe he could do this, too!

by thejd44 on Oct 15, 2008 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You and me both

I meant in the sense of “someone someday should do it” not “dammit devo, make with the numbers”

I wonder what they’d show.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 20, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gosh, what I would love to know even more

is what factors make AAA players good major league players or not so good major league players. I personally assume that the majority of guys in MLB are physically gifted (although maybe not the same percentage as in more athletic sports like NBA and NFL), so therefore you can take some of the physical gifts out of the equation. I mean of course Mark Ellis can’t hit 73 HR’s because, lets face it, he’s never going to be as big as Barry Lamar, but what makes Pujols such a ridiculous hitter and some other gifted hitter not. Even between succesful MLB hitters, say Dunn vs. Pujols, there is variance. I mean, if they are both physically gifted, its obviously something else. I’m wondering what quantifiable biological variables could contribute towards this.

I think what I’m trying to gleam from all this is are those the same factors that affect AAA hitters conversion to the bigs? Why did Dallas McPherson flame out, but Ryan Howard become mr. big shot (yes they play different positions, but according to B-Ref, they are listed at the same height and weight.)

Of Course, this exercise has endless possibilities and outcomes, but the biologist in me wants to know what makes MLB hitters tick, and AAAA hitters not.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 15, 2008 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sunscreen to the eyes?

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 15, 2008 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Serious answer

Pitch recognition. The difference between Pujols and a guy with the same power/bat speed/hand-eye coordination is that Pujols can recognize what he’s supposed to do a little bit faster.

Of course, I don’t really accept the premise that many major leaguers have the same physical tools. The difference between hitting a ball square and missing the sweet spot by a centimeter may be minute, but the best hitters can do it more frequently than the average hitters.

by thejd44 on Oct 15, 2008 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't really see how you can take physical ability

out of the equation AT ALL. Regardless of whether by physical ability, you’re referring to general physical ability, ie being able to run fast / jump high, which generally is useful in most sports, or sport specific physical ability, like the ability generate batspeed quickly and hit a baseball 500 feet.

To use an example, all the guys running in the 100M olympic final are physically gifted, just like Usain Bolt is gifted. None of them are setting WRs like Usain Bolt. Or, a better example, since baseball requires a greater variety of physical skills than running the 100M: everyone competing in the decathlon in the Olympics is one of the best athletes in the entire world. Only Bryan Clay won the gold.

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

by rfloh on Oct 16, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the point is, the difference between Albert Pujols and Adam Dunn is probably not strength ...

Just like the difference between Ichiro (43 sb, 4 cs) and Cone Figgins (34 sb, 13 cs) is probably not foot speed.

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

by devo on Oct 16, 2008 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cone?

I was trying to come up with something witty, but I got nothing.

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

by vignette17 on Oct 16, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly...

now maybe Pujols DOES have something physically over Dunn, i don’t really know since i don’t actually work with either of them in person. I’m just wondering why Dunn can’t strike out less like Pujols. As far as Bolt is concerned (and Michael Phelps for that matter), they are beyond physically gifted people and statistical outliers of even the athletic population. Maybe the same is true for baseball, but I just don’t see why it would matter nearly as much. Like I said, its hard to know for sure since I can’t see this athletes up close and personal and broadcasters dont rave about how different they are (unlike the olympics where every other shot is of Michael Phelps’ freakishly flexible ankles), but why would it be that Barry Bonds was even more productive than Mark McGuire? My best guess in difference is cognitive skills like thedj44 suggested. Something may be neurally wired differently, or faster, or both.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 16, 2008 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Michael Phelps' ankles are hardly the only thinkg freakish about him

The creepy “older guy who hangs out at high school parties to pick up 17-year-olds” look is pretty freaky.

by thejd44 on Oct 17, 2008 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The look must be genetic

His cousin is my roommate. We count the days until he’s confronted by Chris Hanson on television sets across the country.

by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 18, 2008 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Firstly,

physical skills can be divided into 2 broad categories:

General physical skills, ie general physical preparedness. Being “strong”, running fast, jumping high.

(Sport specific) physical skills, ie special physical preparedness. Being able to throw a curveball, a 95 mph fastball, being able to hit a 95 mph fastball 500 feet, being able to turn a double play, being able to master the technique to throw the discuss, being able to play Bach’s solo violin sonatas and partitas etc, all require special physical skills.

General physical skills can impact special physical skills, but certainly not completely so. Otherwise Michael Jordan wouldn’t have gotten stuck in minor league ball.

Bolt and Phelps are outliers? Fine. What of Bryan Clay, gold medalist in the decathlon. Decathletes are the best athletes in the entire world. They need strength, speed, endurance, flexibility, among other qualities. What differentiates Clay from other decathletes? Another statistical outlier? Would you then write off every champion athlete as a statistical outlier? What of Michael Johnson, whose record in the 200m Bolt broke? Another statistical outlier? Carl Lewis? Jesse Owens? All statistical outliers?

And if you want to argue that Bolt and Phelps are outlier, I don’t see how you can then say that Bonds or Pujols are not outliers too. Bonds has the most HRs in history. Only 500 HR and 500 SB player. And Pujols if he continues on his current course will have a career as ridiculous as Bonds. Why are they not outliers, but Phelps and Bolt are?

And why do you just assume that the difference is “cognitive” skills? Did Michael Jordan get stuck in minor league ball because of “cognitive” skills?

Also, I don’t see how anyone who has watched Pujols and Dunn, can conclude that there’s no difference physically between them. Are their swings very similar? As for Bonds and McGwire. Same thing. Are their swings very similar? And Bonds stole more than 500 bases.

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

by rfloh on Oct 17, 2008 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or to put it more succintly,

compare the swings of Bonds and Jeff Francoeur. Bonds, a very short, and very explosive swing. Francouer, a very long swing. Francoeur, takes much longer than Bonds to get his bat speed to the velocity that he needs to. That’s physical skill.

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

by rfloh on Oct 17, 2008 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pujols

Coils up and snaps in his swing. I think Dunn has a long, softball-like swing. I wouldn’t be surprised if Pujols had a much faster swing than Adam Dunn.

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 18, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's my plan

I got a new computer, so I don’t have the writeup right now of my plan for the A’s. It’s in a word document somewhere else right now.

So here is the condensed version:

1. Trade for Magglio. Package centers around Street, Petit (doesn’t sound like they want Crosby’s salary), Sweeney, Jared Lansford

2. Trade for Jimmy Rollins. Package centers around Greg Smith/Eveland, Vincent Mazzaro, Crosby, Henry Rodriguez

3. Sign Mark Ellis, but only if he takes a one year deal worth around 4 million with the possibility of doubling that with incentives.

4. The A’s are NOT signing Jason Giambi. I’m supremely confident of that. I don’t have the link now, but Mychael Urban emphatically stated that in a mailbag, so I believe him.

Lineup:

Rollins (SS)
Suzuki ©
Cust (DH, preferably getting more fastballs in front of Mags)
Ordonez (RF)
Buck (LF)
Ellis (2B)
Barton (1B)
C-Gon (CF)
Pennington (3B)

The A’s seem to be holding out hope for Chavez to return to third. If he does, we’re lookin at this:

Rollins
Suzuki
Cust
Ordonez
Chavez
Buck
Ellis
Barton
C-Gon

That is actually a major league lineup. I believe that Rollins and Ordonez would put the A’s with a pretty good chance at the AL West, because I also believe Barton, Buck and Ellis will have much better seasons. Additionally, I see Baisley/Pennington battling it out. I can also see Cunningham being the center fielder if they want C-Gon in AAA.

Rotation:

Duke
Smith/Eveland (whichever wasn’t traded)
Gallagher
Outman
Braden

Bullpen:

Filler
Gonzalez
Brown
Casilla
Blevins
Zeigler
Devine

the problem is not "too many left handed hitters" but "too many suck handed hitters"-Zonis

by ohad on Oct 17, 2008 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Your plan looks pretty reasonable. A couple of possible tweaks.

1) I see no way Cunningham makes a major league CF. He looked pretty bad in LF. If they trade Sweeney and Carlos isn’t ready, I’d expect the CF to be Denorfia or Davis.

2) The Phillies would probably want Gio rather than Mazzaro, and given that you’ve made him “Filler”, it doesn’t sound like you’d have a big problem with that.

3) A rotation with both Outman and Braden is pretty ugly. Gio or Mazzaro would probably be better than either.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 17, 2008 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Phillies would probably want ~~Gio~~ Cahill rather than Mazzaro.

Actually, I’d suspect the Phillies just aren’t trading Rollins, period, as they have no particularly good options to replace him and no particular need to change the lineup that just got them to the World Series.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The caveat

I wrote these ideas before the playoffs, so because of that I was a little hesitant to add the Rollins part. Because you’re right, if Rollins stars in the series there’s isn’t really much incentive for them to go out and trade him. But this is just an exercise, so the hell with it.

the problem is not "too many left handed hitters" but "too many suck handed hitters"-Zonis

by ohad on Oct 17, 2008 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

responses

1) By filler, I meant some reliever that isn’t very important at this point. I see the A’s continuing Gio’s bullpen role to develop his command, and I still like him. But yes I’d have no problem putting him in the trade instead of Mazzaro.

2) Admittedly a rotation with both Outman and Braden is not optimal. Trading for another veteran starter is not something I’m opposed to at all, but didn’t really find a solution for that at this point.

the problem is not "too many left handed hitters" but "too many suck handed hitters"-Zonis

by ohad on Oct 17, 2008 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Additionally

I basically consider the 4th and 5th spots open for competition for spring training, but i wrote the names down for the sake of concreteness.

the problem is not "too many left handed hitters" but "too many suck handed hitters"-Zonis

by ohad on Oct 17, 2008 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I'd rather trade for Yunel Escobar than Rollins

He’s cheaper, and Rollins won’t have very much over him in a year or so.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 17, 2008 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Escobar

Yeah, he’d be nice. Problem is, there is no way they’d trade him without getting Cahill or Anderson. This might be true of Rollins as well.

the problem is not "too many left handed hitters" but "too many suck handed hitters"-Zonis

by ohad on Oct 17, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Escobar is already a better player than Rollins...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ya probably so

I was just hesitant to say so beacause Rollins did have a +20 HR and +30 HR season recently. However, I really thought that was more flukey than something sustainable.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 18, 2008 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In Philadelphia

by VORP is too nerdy on Oct 18, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

3b jesus guzman

do you give him a 40 man roster spot, so he doesnt opt for minor league FA? hope he does well in AAA in 09 and isnt a fluke?

he’s the same age as AN fav allen craig and dominated AA. his walk rate need a boost though. Guzman has some defensive versatility too. if he continues to tear up the winter leagues, A’s will have a difficult decision to make

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Jesus%20Guzman&pos=3B&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=461882

Jesus Guzman – OAK

Jesus Guzman homered twice, doubled and drove in eight runs for Caracas of the Venezuelan Winter League on Friday.
Guzman had a grand slam and a three-run homer in the 18-6 win over Zulia. Guzman, who signed with the A’s a year ago as a minor league free agent out of the Seattle system, wasn’t able to build on his first-half success this year. After hitting .359/.414/.562 in 80 games in Double-A, he slumped in Triple-A and got hurt. He could still qualify as a sleeper for 2009 with the A’s unsettled throughout the infield. He’s best at third base, but he can play some second and he’d probably be an option at first as well.

by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 18, 2008 3:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

he only dominated for half of a season at AA

and has had mixed results in the past. He did have a good 2007 season though, so maybe he has turned the corner, but he is old for the levels he’s hit well at (23 at A+ in ‘07, 24 at AA in ’08). That’s a tough call.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 18, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not old for those levels...

It’s fairly average, actually.

To answer the question, he’s clearly worth a 40-man slot over some of the guys the A’s have at the back end there.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

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

I don't know if 24 is old for AA or not, but I bet it's old for AA players on 40 man rosters

Not counting rehabbers of course. Not much projection left at that age. Time for the stud farm.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Oct 20, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

eh i tend to think of him as one year behind...

so not really a killer , definitely not a sure thing, and not too terribly young (although ryan howard was 25 when he came up). He’d be a nice player to hold onto, depending on who he’s kicking off the 40 man roster.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 20, 2008 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The average for AA is closer to 23 ...

but most players in AA are not legit prospects, so at 24, he was certainly old to be considered a legit prospect … which is not to say that he isn’t a legit prospect, but his age is certainly a mark against him …

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

by devo on Oct 20, 2008 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs