Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: The Boxing Bulletin for Boxing Fans!

5 Reasons the A's should trade for Matt Holliday

I think it would be huge if the a's could trade for Matt Holliday....Some might agree or disagree but a power right handed bat in this lineup is just what we need..

Reasons

1.  The A's need right handed pop and Holliday fits the bill perfectley

2.  We need a feared hitter in the middle of the order.

3. He is a good and we need some good players not 4A ball players

4.  He will sell  more tickets which means more money to spend

5.  You will excel in the AL West making our games better and possibly a shout at the wild card

Lineup with Holliday

1. Mark Ellis 2b

2. Ryan Sweeney RF

3. Matt Holliday LF

4. Jason Giambi/Jack Cust DH

5. Carlos Gonzales  CF

6. Cliff Pennington/ Gregorio Petit/ Bobby Crosby SS

7.  Eric Chavez 3b

8. Daric Barton 1b

9. Kurt Suzuki C

 

Now doesnt that look like a strong lineup.

The Question is though what would Billy give up to get him since were rebuilding.

I say send Huston Street and others

Your THoughts?

0 recs  |  Comment 251 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Why trade for the right to pay Holliday

When we could sign one of the free agents out there and keep our prospects (Dunn being my choice, but Burrell and others also out there)?

I, personally, think Holliday is overrated anyway and – even though his road splits are improving – a lot of what you’re paying for is Mile High performance.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 27, 2008 3:10 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

The problem with

Holliday is that he is not only a Boras client, but he has already said he plans on testing free agency after the 2009 season. Somebody will end up giving this guy a 6 year 120 million dollar contract (or more), and that leaves the A’s shit outta luck on him after next season. They don’t have the funds to splurge that much cash on a single player, and I think if Beane plans on dealing away some of our minor league talent it’ll be on a guy who can contribute for more then a single season. I would love to have Holliday’s bat, but considering the entire situation i’m gonna have to say pass. I’d rather go after a guy like Dan Uggla who would be around for a couple years, and could play 3B. Even Burrell would be nice, and wouldn’t cost prospects.

by JPShark on Oct 27, 2008 3:12 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Your reasons are insufficient and should be rethought

Holliday only makes sense to acquire for a team on the cusp of contention. The A’s acquisitions need to be either cheap short term pickups or long-term acquisitions. Holliday is neither of those two.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 27, 2008 3:52 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

+1

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 27, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Now doesnt that look like a strong lineup?

No … not terribly strong … about average … with some luck, maybe a bit better than average, but that’s it.

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

by devo on Oct 27, 2008 4:05 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Why is Zook batting ninth???

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 27, 2008 4:21 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

why does everyone assume we're getting giambi?

did billy beane announce this when i wasnt looking?

"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft

by harendaman365 on Oct 27, 2008 4:32 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think it's wishful thinking.

I SERIOUSLY doubt we’re going to get him.

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 27, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't even think he makes sense

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

by nevermoor on Oct 27, 2008 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Conversation with a life of its own

I was just wondering about this. I don’t think anyone with the A’s has said anything whatsoever about getting Giambi. Now half the rosterbation threads and comments have him penciled in. Furcal gets thrown out there a lot too. I still see no evidence of picking up either one.

I think “rebuilding” = “few FA signings.” Last year we got Emil Brown and Mike Sweeney and picked up Frank after the season started. These were seen as pretty low risk.

The rest of the lineup above isn’t worth commenting on. Buck? Zook 9th? Ellis leading off? Oh whoops I commented.

by Mark H on Oct 27, 2008 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It stems from a comment that was made by either Forst or Beane

I don’t recall which. They said a big bat would be signed. It is being assumed based on the available free agent crop that Giambi is the guy.

by jpl on Oct 27, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes, it stems from extrapolating:

comments Beane made about acquiring a bat this offseason.
plus recently ellis and chavez made some comments to the media encouraging the FO to pursue Giambi.
plus a number of Bay Area journalists have speculated on Giambi as well.

to be fair, as far as the biggest name sluggers go, Giambi probably makes the most sense when you read deeply into every word Beane says, and a number of ANers have come to this conclusion. Maybe Im a pessimist, but I dont really get the feeling Beane is promising big name.

without a doubt, as Mark H notes, AN has given this conversation a life of its own.
(side note- I like it. we should continue to insert him into our rosterbations)

by oakinboston on Oct 27, 2008 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the most specific thing I've heard is

right-handed power. I do, however, think that JaGiambi would be a nice shot-in-the-arm to the lineup.

by Mark H on Oct 27, 2008 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dunn!!!

I’m keeping my fingers crossed

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

by nevermoor on Oct 27, 2008 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dunn, Teixeira, Giambi, whoever

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 28, 2008 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Given those 3, I'd probably go with Dunn.

Tex would be TOO expensive and long term

Giambi wouldn’t be long term enough.

by mikev on Oct 28, 2008 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK

i’m going to go out on a limb here and make some predictions as to what I think Beane plans on doing about the offense situation for 2009. Matt Holliday isn’t coming to Oakland. It’s interesting, but not likely. So, i’m new to this site (enjoy it very much so far), the world series is on, i’ve had a few beers, and I wanna talk some A’s baseball. First, I don’t think many feel that Beane is going to blow all of the reduced payroll on 2 all-star type players. Realistically, this team is going to need a lot of things to go right to compete next season. Now’s not the time to “splurge”. With that said, I think Beane feels he is at least within a reasonable distance of fielding a pretty solid team. I think he try’s to make Crosby the Mark Kotsay of last season, because this year was finally a wake-up call about good ol’ Croz, and with only 1 year left on his contract he’ll be easier to deal. Then, I think he goes after Orlando Cabrera on a 2-3 year deal for around $7-8 million per. If Furcal doesn’t resign with the Dodgers, somebody will vastly overpay for his services and that won’t be Beane. Cabrera is a fine fielding veteran SS that doesn’t put up rediculous numbers, but would be a good upgrade over Crosby. If he can come in and hit .275/.330/.390 with a good glove he’s well worth the money IMO. Next I think he does indeed sign Giambi. Guys like Burrell and Dunn are going to want 4+ year contracts, and likely for $14+ million a season. That’s not Beane’s style, at least not yet. Giambi would probably sign for 1-2 seasons and maybe an option year. He’ll come cheaper then Burrell/Dunn because of his age, but I honestly think he’s not too far off production-wise from either of them if they were to come to the AL. So, i’m guessing he signs for 2 years, $9 million a year. Lastly, at least as far as major moves go, I think Street is a St. Louis Cardinal and David Freese is playing 3B for the A’s next season. I think its a very logical move by both teams. They have hooked up on deals in the past, and have things that the other team needs that also happen to be expendable. Freese is one of three good 3B prospects in that system, and he’s really not even the best of the three. He’s ready now, and projects to be a solid RH bat that could end up a middle of the order type guy. He’s older, but has shown good success at the higher levels. Take Streets contract off the books, plus a million or so from Crosbys after we eat most of it and this team’s budget is still only in the mid 50’s if i’m not mistaken. We upgraded at 3 positions, added a legit power threat to give Cust some protection, and with some improvement from the youngsters this team could be pretty solid in 2009. Then, in 2010-11 when Giambi and Cabrera come off the books, the prospects have arrived and are playing well, Beane can blow some big(ish) money and trade for a stud or two. I wish, but just don’t see that as an option for this offseason. What I do see is big signs of improvement and the future for 2009.

by JPShark on Oct 27, 2008 6:54 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Cabrera doesn't project to be much better than Crosby

He’s really in decline at this point. I’d rather just throw the farm products at the wall and see if one of them sticks if the A’s don’t sign Furcal or trade for a young (<2 years service time) shortstop.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 27, 2008 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What about signing Roco Baldelli?

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 27, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Baldelli not a good option

He’s been diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder. His playing days are likely numbered, and he won’t be able to play as much for the years he has left. Very sad, and I wish him the best, but not what the A’s need.

by MrIncognito on Oct 28, 2008 6:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

To play shortstop?!?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Baldelli to be added for his

right handed bat; hopefully within the A’s price range…

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 28, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd rather sign Juan Rivera

and that’s significant considering that I don’t really want the A’s to sign Juan Rivera.

There are teams which should take a flier on Baldelli (shit, the Rays probably should given their problems finding consistent RF play) but the A’s are not one of them.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can agree with that!! Besides Rivera;

who else do you see Oakland targeting in the off-season?

What about SP?

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 28, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not much of a fan of the prediction game

It’s pure, unadulterated guesswork. Before the A’s signed Emil Brown last offseason, I was not aware he even existed.

I’d like to see the A’s give Furcal a one-year bounceback deal, sign Giambi for 2 as the DH, move Chavez to first base and trade Ryan Sweeney for Adrian Beltre, with Russell Branyan as backup at corner IF. Barton goes back to AAA for a season. But I reserve the right to change that viewpoint once I’ve finished working out where things stand in the division going into the offseason.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

why in Ba'al's name would you move Chavvy to 1B?

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 28, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because if he makes 1 throw across the diamond his shoulder will explode

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

by nevermoor on Oct 28, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

if his shoulder is still that fragile (which I suspect it is) ...

… then he won’t be able to hit adequately for a third baseman (let alone a first baseman).

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 28, 2008 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thought it was his back...

it’s his shoulder too? what part of him ISN’T injured?

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 28, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've got no problem with adding Beltre

I don’t understand playing Chavez at 1B.

If Chavez is healthy enough to play 3B, though, there’s no point in spending the trade chips and additional cash for the upgrade to Beltre. If Chavez isn’t healthy enough to play third, then Chavez likely is (a) only barely capable of fielding at 1B, and (b) incapable of hitting like a MLB 1Bman; if under those circumstances we do trade for Beltre, then Chavez should simply be released.

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 28, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I see your argument and point but,

I think Chavez at 1b, would still be more productive with the bat offensively, than Daric Barton has shown thus far.

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 28, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

that's certainly possible

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

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

You're totally misunderstanding what I'm saying

I do think there’s a point in spending “the trade chips and additional money.” It may or may not win the A’s a division title next season, but it gives the team an entree to signing him long term and, if that fails, the draft picks. Not great, sure, but it would not kill me to trade Ryan Sweeney for what ends up being 2 picks. Also, there’s at least a chance that the A’s could negotiate an extension before making the move.

And Chavez being healthy is hardly some kind of black and white issue where we can determine now “oh, he’s healthy” or “oh, he’s not healthy.” He’s around, he might be healthy— the team isn’t relying totally on it, though. Under my proposed plan above, there are multiple additional options. Branyan can play first, Giambi can play first, and if the shit really hits the fan, Baisley can play first for a while.

Meanwhile, Barton should be in AAA honing his game (and learning third base to take over from Beltre in 2010 if he does leave as a free agent).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

you should have just texted me instead

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 28, 2008 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's possible he can be "healthy" but incapable of playing third

He might be 100%, pain free, and able to swing a bat but unable to make strong, solid throws.

by thejd44 on Oct 28, 2008 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This past season, his shoulder felt fine

swinging a bat until he wore it out throwing. I think there’s a real possibility he can hit if and only if he doesn’t throw a lot. So 1B makes sense to me.

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 28, 2008 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Plust throwing and hitting are two different motions

throwing involves a greater range of motion in the shoulder and since the arm is abducted above 90 degrees, there is a lot higher risk of tendon irritation and damage. This is not to say that batting is completely risk free, just less likely to cause shoulder problems….now back problems are a whole ‘nother beast i’m not even going to attempt to think about at this point in time, but i imagine that the back has similar stresses placed on it from both throwing and hitting.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 28, 2008 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not by design, but the back has now had

not one but two years to recover – so it might be in pretty good shape come 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 28, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Probably less of an issue with the specific mechanics ...

and more of an issue of the volume of said mechanics …

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

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

Injuries often drain ability even after a person is pain free

Look at Mark Mulder. According to him, he’s not “injured” per se, but he’s also not 100% healthy in terms of being able to ptich. It seems likely all the shoulder injuries have just made him incapable of pitching at a major league level, even if he doesn’t experience pain when he throws a ball.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cheaper options with economic recession at hand;

and looking to get younger and follow A’s model of rebuilding…

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 29, 2008 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mariners

There are 29 other teams who would want Adrian Beltre. I could see the Mariners – Brewers – A’s putting together a package together, but Beltre would stick w/ the Brewers. Ryan Sweeney isn’t nearly enough for Adrian Beltre.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 29, 2008 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There are 24 other teams who don't realize how good Adrian Beltre is

A whole lot of people think his contract is a complete bust.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hopefully Zduriencik knows that he should be negotiating with the other five.

Bavasi would have gotten a reasonable offer from one of the teams that recognizes Beltre’s value, assumed it was some sort of trap, and traded him to the Orioles for Brandon Fahey.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Oct 29, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, but the other five

are starting Evan Longoria, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Lowell, Mark Reynolds and… um… OK, the Indians have bupkis at third base, they might pose a problem.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm hoping they don't find a new home for him and offer him a sweetheart extension

but I’m incapable being rational where Adrian is concerned.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Oct 29, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hell, we'll even throw in Crosby!!!

Do you think Dan Meyer has a shot to replace Embree in the bullpen next season?

Or is he looking to remain a starter like Braden?

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 29, 2008 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Forst claimed he was still in the running for a starting job next season

but it’s believed he might get DFAed during the offseason.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He's worth more than a solid outfielder.

If the Mariners trade Adrian Beltre for Ryan Sweeney (who is a perfectly servicable player, nothing against the fellow) I will personally key Jack Zduriencik’s automobile.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Oct 29, 2008 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

what if we throw in bobby crosby?

Wouldn’t that be enticing…

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

by nevermoor on Oct 29, 2008 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because Beltre is worth significantly more than Ryan Sweeney, and I'd like to have a GM that understands how valuable players are.

Also, I love Adrian Beltre. I would be okay if we got decent value for him, but if he gets traded for less that he’s worth I am going to be annoyed.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Oct 29, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm surprised you read that thing with no breaks

It hurts my eyes just looking at it.

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 27, 2008 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Surprisingly, it was worth it

Typically, gross stylistic and grammatical faux pax correlate with incoherent thinking, but this post was an exception.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Oct 28, 2008 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cabrera was never very good when he was good

And, by all accounts, he’s kind of a locker room d-bag.

by thejd44 on Oct 27, 2008 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cabrera’s probably a 1 win upgrade, which isn’t insignificant. However, going from a 76 win team to a 77 win team isn’t worth spending the money.

by MrIncognito on Oct 28, 2008 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not sure he's worth a win

I don’t know if Crosby’s range is any worse, but the difference between the two defensively is that Crosby (as far as I know) doesn’t call press boxes to bitch out official scorers for giving him errors. Offensively, I think when you factor in park differences, they’re a lot closer. Cabrera is really only very slightly better, probably not even a full win.

by thejd44 on Oct 28, 2008 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess

my thoughts on Cabrera are that although he is 34, he put up a nice line compared to Crosbys past few seasons. I wouldn’t expect him to come in and put this team over the top next year, but he would be a step up defensively and while i’m pulling these stats out of my rear end, Cabrera could come in and realistically hit .275/.330/.390 while Crosby pulls off another .235/.295/.345 type gem. I do agree with you that he is in decline, but it’s not like he’s 39-40 and not capable of putting up a line on par with his career numbers. I do like the idea of trading for a young MLB SS, but I just worry that it would cost too much in the way of prospects.

by JPShark on Oct 27, 2008 7:51 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Hey, I'm perfectly willing to stand pat and see if Petit or Pennington can handle things

I haven’t given up on Josh Horton, and there’s a possibility that Jason Christian or Dustin Coleman could be fast-tracked to the majors within a year or two. There are options available (unlike at third base, where it’s basically “Baisley or bust” if Chavez is not healthy).

The problem with Cabrera is that he just put up a line worse than the one you just posted in a vastly better hitter’s park. Knock off 40 points or so for the park and you’re looking at an OPS well below .700.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here are reasons why the A's should not get Holliday

-He doesn’t cost money, he costs talent, which the A’s should hold on to dearly
-Very soon, he WILL cost money… LOTS of money
-It’s impossible not to sell high on him as he plays at Coors (yes, he’s a very good player away from Coors, too, but his numbers are inflated regardless)
-He’s another outfielder. Murton, Cust, CarGon, Sweeney, Cunningham, Patterson, Denorfia, Rajai Davis. If we’re going to give up talent, give it up for somebody who will fill an immediate need. Like at hole we have at third and that valley that we have at short.

by NateHST on Oct 27, 2008 8:03 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

OK, not a Hollidsy fan,,,

But it might be a good idea to ake a realistic group of OF that might be available.

Couple of Criteria:
1. Cannot be from the AL West because of increased cost
2. Cannot be an impending FA

Anybody got an ideas?

My Bargin basement guys
Jeff Salazar
Jason Michaels

Moderate Cost
Luke Scott
Ben Francisco
Ryan Spilborghs

Pricey
Shin-Soo Choo
Seth Smith
Hunter Pence (not a fan)
Brian Barton/ Ryan Ludwick
Alex Rios/Adam Lind

Wow this is going to Hurt
Matt Holiday (yes i know hes only got 1 year left)
Matt Kemp

Hum….. Any other guess for a decent power/OBP mix

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

Jayson Werth?

Corey Hart? Brian Giles?

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 27, 2008 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Werth is the everydady starter for the Phillies with no reason to move him

Brian Giles and his age worries me

Corey Hart has a horrible OBP, this year and carreer….

Good ideas, but are those guys you would like to build long term on.

And why would Philly more Werth?

by laxtonto on Oct 27, 2008 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm surprised Luke Scott doesn't get mentioned more

He bats left, but otherwise he’d be a great fit.

That said, I’m flogging the Dunn horse until it’s dead.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 27, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The reason to move Werth is simply

that the Phillies have ample offense around him and if they could get a lot of young talent for him they could reload without ceasing to be highly competitive. But I wasn’t especially advocating that the A’s try to get any of those guys, just trying to add to your list – it looked like you were seeking more names of guys who play OF who could help the A’s and who aren’t so good there’s no chance they’d be moved.

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 27, 2008 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We don’t really need another OF at this point in any case; that and pitching are the only areas we have good young talent.

by MrIncognito on Oct 28, 2008 6:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1 for the first sentence, -1 for the second

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

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

That might be an AN first.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 28, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In retrospect it would have been much funnier

if I had put “0” in the subject line and the sentence I actually wrote in the text box.

Well, no use crying over spilt Hardens.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree

Our only chance for an offensive contribution from the OF (assuming Cust is a DH) is Buck bouncing back to ‘07 form. Sweeney is average (at best), and I don’t see any reason to predict CarGon/Cunningham/etc are putting up an .800+ OPS next season

This is not to say that our young outfielders aren’t good, they just aren’t ready yet.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 28, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe I just think there seems no chance the Phillies move Werth.

They just finally have him playing as their everyday OF instead of a platoon guy, and Burrell is a FA…

I see what you mean by retooling on the fly with him, Its just hard to see him available.

by laxtonto on Oct 28, 2008 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Am I the only one who is not jumping on the Jayson Werth bandwagon?

I do not understand what’s supposed to be so attractive about a 30 year old corner OF with a weak track record who wasn’t even THAT good this season. I wouldn’t trade Ryan Sweeney for him straight up.

(Minor added point— he’s looked absolutely horrible in the postseason. Some truly embarrassing at-bats.)

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Everybody's gonna jump on the Shin-Soo Choo train now

They would just need to get Crisp from the Sox to have a Coco CarGo Choo outfield.

au contra ire

by JediLeroy on Oct 27, 2008 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you say "Hunter Pence" really fast a few times

It sounds like Underpants. I vote the A’s get him for the nickname alone.

by thejd44 on Oct 27, 2008 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

if u want, add J. Willingham and J. Hermida to that list...

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 28, 2008 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What about "Cheechoo?"

Oh, that’s right………..Billy Beane isn’t a hockey fan.

My bad……..

by mrod on Oct 27, 2008 10:21 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

yet...

once the Earthquakes start making (and failing in) the playoffs… he’ll take over for Doug Wilson and “moneypuck” the Sharks to a Stanley Cup!!!

by buddahead9 on Oct 27, 2008 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No need for the Sharks to change GMs

Doug Wilson is one of the best in the biz. The Sharks produce a ton of talented players from the farm even though they haven’t had a high draft pick in ages.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

no offense, but moneyball hasn't even gotten the A's to the World Series

i’m not sure how Moneypuck is gonna do any better…

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 28, 2008 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is this sardonic or serious?

Because if you’re serious, I want to read it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess what I meant is

There is a lot of effort. A friend of mine (who is sabermetrically inclined) is a much more knowledgable hockey fan than I am and he’s linked me to some stuff in the past. I suppose it’s fair to say that hockey isn’t anywhere near where baseball is in terms of statistical accuracy or predictions, but the work is being done.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

on an off topic tangental point:

there is sabermetric-type work being done on basketball too. However, I think that sports involve a sliding skill-to-athleticism scale, and as that contiuum shifts more towards the athleticism side and further from the skill oriented side, talent becomes much much easier to evaluate. For example (and extremes), baseball is immensely skill based (although athleticism does play critical roles as well) and to evaluate players based on athleticism (how muscular, how fast they run a 40 yard dash, etc) only gives us so much information, as we all know, on how much this player may or may not contribute to a team. Thus, we used sabermetrics in order to tease out talent from statistics. However, in more athletic based sports (and the term ‘athletic’ is arbitrary in that there are various types of athleticism, i.e. strength, power, endurance) such as the 400 meter sprint, the only real statistic you need to evaluate talent is their finishing time. Of course you can measure physiologic variables in order to improve performance, and they can help predict performance as well, but not nearly as well as that finishing time. Of course, almost all other sports fall in between this spectrum, such as basketball which is both but more athletic than baseball. So to may a long story longer, while hockey will definitely benefit from sabermetrics, I highly doubt that it will be able to impact the sport quite the same way as it has on baseball. Of course, I highly doubt you were arguing this, but it was a random and tangental point…So I think its time to lay off the booze…

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 28, 2008 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The reason why sabermetrics works in baseball but less in other sports

has nothing to do with athleticism. “Sabermetrics” works perfectly in the 400 meters. You know almost exactly how good a given athlete is. They have discreet individual performances that can be tested and averaged. Hockey, basketball, football, field hockey, etc etc are harder to deal with than the 400 meters (and baseball) because the players’ performances are interconnected and mesh together.

The spectrum is “total individual” to “total team”, not “athleticism” to “skill.” You’d have just as hard a time rating players individually in a team chess match. (And by that I mean one where the whole team is playing one game, not a series of one-on-one games.)

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is true

If I had to rank the four sports in terms of ease/difficulty it would be baseball, hockey, football, and basketball. People might disagree with where I place hockey, but here’s my rationale: Yes, it’s very much a team sport (especially for a goalie), but there are plenty of individual things going on that can be measured. Lots of sample size issues though.

Football has certain areas where you can measure, but most of it has to be team oriented because of how dependent skill position guys are on the offensive line, and how dependent defenses are on defensive lines. I think, in time, the footballoutsiders types will be able to do a lot of good work.

Basketball is the toughest, I think. If you take the 12 worst 12th men from around the Association and make them into a team, they’re clearly suck. Hard. But one of those guys on that team is going to average 18 points a game. One of those guys is going to average 10 rebounds. Doesn’t mean those guys are any good. A baseball equivalent would be like saying if you took the 25th man and made up a team, somebody would have to hit X number of homers. That’s not true, but in basketball, somebody will score. Somebody will get some rebounds. And they appear good because of their teammates (or, in the opposite extreme, not as good) much more than in other sports.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nice one buddahead9!

“Moneypuck……..coming soon to theatre near you.”

by mrod on Nov 1, 2008 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Forget Holliday; Believe in Crosby!!!!!

He sure gets my vote of confidence….

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 27, 2008 10:31 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

"Don't stop believing...hold on to that feeling!"

I am Ray Fosse's infatuations with Clay Wood and high-definition television.

by franks a lot on Oct 28, 2008 6:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here I go again

  Lets get Prince Fielder. Send over Huston Street, Gio Gonzalez, Deric Barton, and Cunningham. The A’s will have their big bat for 3 years. With him as the clean up hitter you can stick Cust at DH in front so they got to pitch to cust. Buck, Sweeny, Fielder, Cust, Chavez, Suzuki, Ellis, Cargon, and whoever is ss.

by Arcman on Oct 28, 2008 8:12 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Terrible idea

Just terrible. The four players you mentioned are virtually locks to produce more value for the A’s than Fielder and they’ll be around longer.

Fielder was barely an above average player this season.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Prince Fielder

2006: 110 OPS+
2007: 156 OPS+
2008: 128 OPS+

Are those correct? 278/378/533 – 130 OPS + (Lifetime). Those numbers seem above average to me. I think this club NEEDS to go after Prince Fielder.

Huston Street + Vin Mazzaro + Greg Smith for Prince Fielder?

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

why Greggles?

can’t you trade someone else? Greggles is going to get better. Street=gone, and I don’t know who Mazzaro is.

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 28, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't kid yourself

Greg Smith may become a better pitcher but his ERA is not going to get better. He was extremely lucky this season.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll miss his pickoffs if we trade him.

and ilovegregsmith won’t be very happy…

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 28, 2008 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OPS+ is not adjusted for position

I think average for a 1b is around 115 …

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

by devo on Oct 28, 2008 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I said PLAYER

Not hitter.

Fielder is bad defensively, and he plays first base. Terrible combination. You can subtract at least 15 runs a year off his total, and it gets worse when you consider that either he’s actually playing first base or that Jack Cust is playing left field.

Also in the category of “terrible”: the arbitration awards Fielder is going to get. Arbiters love defensively incompetent sluggers. You’ll be paying free agent prices for a guy who hasn’t gotten there yet.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Defense

I can’t help but think you overvalue defense… or at least rely on Defensive Statistics way too much. I’ve seen teams win Championships with a couple holes defensively. I’ve never seen teams win with terrible, powerless offense. This below squad looks pretty decent to me. Fielder is only 24 years old. It’s not like he can’t improve his defense, get on a better diet, etc… if the situation were right.

1. Buck – LF
2. Sweeney – RF
3. Cust – DH/LF
4. Fielder – 1B/DH
5. Chavez – 3B/1B
6. Suzuki – C
7. CarGon – CF
8. Ellis – 2B
9. Shortstop

With Fielder, 25-Man Roster will be at about $50-Million in 2009, $55-Million in 2010, $60-Million in 2011. Then in 2010, Carter/Doolittle, Chavvy, Barton could be ready to take over 1B.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 28, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you refuse on face to value Fielder for what he is actually worth,

i.e. a -15 defender or worse, there is no point in having this discussion. And no, he’s not going to get better. He’s a fatso who will get fatter. And players’ defense normally peaks by the mid-20s anyway.

I don’t understand the fascination with giving up talent to get Fielder when you could just give up money to acquire an almost equally good player in Giambi, Dunn, Burrell, Abreu, Ibanez, etc etc etc.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you do value defensive stats too heavily

I brought this up on another thread, but I don’t think you can really compare offensive and defensive stats. They should be viewed in different contexts. We can agree that Fielder is very good offensively (although not great because he is a 1b) and very bad defensively.

And just because Fielder is fat doesn’t mean he can’t improve. You used to go off on those who called Cupcakes fat. And Fielder does have old player skills meaning he’s likely to decline at a quicker rate than most. But the dude is 24 and OPS+ed 156 the year before last (and his father peaked at age 26). He won’t go Richie Sexson on us yet. And yes, he will be expensive (because of one Ryan Howard).

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

by vignette17 on Oct 28, 2008 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A run is a run is a run

You can question the merits of some metrics, but what you’re not understanding is that all of the metrics convert their numbers so that a “defensive run” and an “offensive run” are the same thing.

by thejd44 on Oct 28, 2008 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I kept reading that as

a nun is a nun is a nun.

Kind of disturbing.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 28, 2008 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

nun and run are actually quite similar

in that the A’s generally score the former number of the latter.

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 28, 2008 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't you blaspheme in here!

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 28, 2008 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Call in blasFEMA if you must

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 28, 2008 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A nun is a nun, bar none bar none

And nobody flys with a nun save one

Well here’s the nun, I’m almost done

The famous Sally Field

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

by 5Aces on Oct 29, 2008 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That sounds downright Beatles-ish

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 29, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This site has gone so STAT HEAVY, it’s ridiculous. I can’t even get into a simple argument w/o losing someone because I’m not on their “Defensive Metric” level. I mean seriously. Statheads hate the Angels and the Whitesox, but you know what… They both made the Playoffs and had a chance to compete for a Ring w/ bad Defensive Players – Konerko, Swisher/Griffey, Guerrero, GA, Torrie, etc….. and Statheads just brush it off to LUCK.

Sorry, but It’s just frustrating around here. I know I’m not alone.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 28, 2008 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You are not alone.

And I am your father. Due to luck, as it turns out, not genetics.

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 28, 2008 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Feel free to point to any place where anyone has said anything of the kind

The Angels were the best team in the AL West this season. The White Sox were the best team in the AL Central this season. They were rather fortunate that the four best teams in the league resided in the AL East, but they were the true-talent winners of their respective divisions. And yes, that true-talent includes defensive talent (or lack thereof).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Four??

Was Toronto really the fourth best team in the league? I didn’t follow them carefully, but I find that hard to believe.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Oct 28, 2008 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, they weren't ...

they were the third best … (according to Pythag) NYY wasn’t #4, though, they were #7.

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

by devo on Oct 28, 2008 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is kinda funny.

Statheads being accused of overvaluing defense. Shouldn’t it be stat statheads overvalue offense and disregard defense and the little things.

Also, the D metrics have Swisher as an acceptable defender in CF.

Furthermore, what of the DRays? There D was awful last season. This year, they went out and improved it. They replaced a good hitting but absolutely awful defensive SS, Willie Harris, with Jason Bartlett, good D, so-so hitter. They finally got over the fantasy that BJ Upton is a middle infielder. They got rid of Delmon Young and his tendency to take lousy routes to flyballs.

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

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2008 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

But are defensive stats that accurate?

Can we really translate them into “runs saved” and just add them with the offensive “runs added”? That’s what I’m really questioning.

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

by vignette17 on Oct 28, 2008 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're asking two questions ...

and assuming they’re directly related.

Are defensive stats that accurate? Well, that depends on what the definitions of are are … but, to be a bit more helpful, defensive stats are definitely less accurate at this point than offensive statistics. No question about it.

Can we really translate them into runs saved that are comparable to runs added? Yes, absolutely.

Keep in mind, while the translation may be imperfect (everything is imperfect), it’s a good, reasonable translation, based on real science and it is just as likely to be underestimating D’s value as overestimating it. It represents the best information we have.

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

by devo on Oct 28, 2008 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Put more simply

Saying “Player X is 5 runs above average for his position” is based on a sound understanding of how offense and defense are intertwined. What might not be (as) sound is whether Player X is actually 5 runs above average. But it’s a lot more sound than most people realize.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The "raw" defensive stats

definitely aren’t as accurate as “raw” offensive stats.

But the translation used for D stats, is the same as the translation used for offensive stats. The translations use the same linear weights method that is used in stats like EQA, VORP, etc.

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

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2008 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Poppycock

The fact that defensive stats have a greater margin for error does not even remotely indicate that they can’t be combined with offensive stats.

If a guy is a 30+-2 run player offensively and a -5+-5 player defensively, he’s 25+-7 overall. Not “good offensively and bad defensively.”

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The standard deviation you give does ease my conscience a little

Give me a big enough one and I’ll let it go. Though if you make that sd large enough, that range is bound to encompass the “real” value a player has and you’ll lose the meaning.

Is there a link that you can recommends that gives all the defensive statistics, explanations, studies, etc. in depth? I think it could make an interesting and useful Staturday/fanpost if there isn’t.

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

by vignette17 on Oct 28, 2008 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I (actually) suspect the SD for hitting is as large or larger than the one for fielding...

It’s smaller in percentage terms, though, because the range of hitters in MLB spans 100 runs or so and the range of fielders is only about 40 at most.

10 runs actually sounds about right… maybe a little high, but not too far off; I’d expect about 2/3 of hitters to be within 10 runs of their true talent level in a given season.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There was already such a fanpost

And various links explaining how the “raw” stats like UZR, zone rating etc are derived, and also links explaining how those “raw” stats are translated into runs saved.

If you can’t find it, I’ll dig up the links explaining UZR, zone rating, and the Chris Dial runs saved method if I have the time.

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

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2008 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd also like to point out that

A guy who is 30+-2 on O and -5+-5 on D is "good offensively and bad defensively."

Obviously not your point. But still true.

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

by vignette17 on Oct 28, 2008 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You have to give up talent sometime

It’s not a fascination. It’s reality. And giving up Street + 2 (of anybody except Cahill, Anderson, and Carter) doesn’t bother me. I guess I value a guy who hit 50 Bombs at the age of 23. And played w/ a bad wrist the entire 2008 season, ans till put up great #‘s. And guess what… Prince’s dad, Cecil, was a complete fatso who belted 130 HR’s from ages 26-28.

Giambi would be my 2nd choice. Dunn, Burrell, Abreu, and Ibanez do nothing for me. And the Dunn/Cust argument is one I don’t even want to discuss.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 28, 2008 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OPS+ in 2008:

Fielder: 128
Dunn: 129
Burrell: 125
Abreu: 120
Ibanez: 124

Yeah, there’s a whole lot of difference there.

The line about “you have to give up talent” is just ridiculous.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

2009 Ages

The line about, the line about “you have to give up talent” is ridiculous, is ridiculous. You give up known talent (see: Haren, Swisher, Hudson, Mulder)- To get Known Talent (Street) and/or Unknown Talent (Mazzaro and/or, HRod and/or, Barton) in return. I don’t know what Milwaukee wants or needs, but Billy Beane WILL be giving that Organization a call this offseason. He’d be stupid not to, and we know he’s not that.

Fielder – 25
Dunn – 30
Burrell – 33
Abreu – 35
Ibanez – 37

Which of those guys will be reaching their Prime Years in 2010 & 2011? If the Organization keeps throwing out Old, Re-Treads on the field (Giambi, Piazza, Big Hurt, Justice, Gant, etc.). You will continue to get horrible results.

Now, I’m all for adding one of those guys (1-Year Deal) to the mix w/ Fielder.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 28, 2008 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You could

I just believe in Good Hitters making other Hitters on the team better (see: Manny) On offense, there isn’t a leader for the youth to follow on this team. And opposing pitchers aren’t afraid to walk any of our hitters (see: Cust), knowing that they can easily get other A’s hitters around him to swing and miss.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 29, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK

Your belief is totally unsupported by facts.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If they are...

Please pull the Stats of players hitting in front of Manny, A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Giambi w/ the A’s, Tejada w/ the A’s, etc… then pull those same players the following immediate year they don’t have that kind of protection.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 29, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why don't you pull them, since you're the one asserting the statement

Or alternately, you could avoid wasting your time. This research has already been done. Go read the appropriate section of “The Book” .

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Anyways

I’m still not seeing how Prince Fielder hurts this team if the deal is right. I understand that it’s the Organizations goal to find “All-Around Baseball Players”, but those are very hard to find and/or develop. I look at Ryan Howard, and I see a bad defensive 1st baseman. But he hits bombs at a Premium Position, and he helps more than he hurts.

Burrell and Dunn are going to be looking for 5-year deals, so those guys are out. And personally, I would rather have Beane trade for some future players than spend $$$… his track record is not strong in the Free Agent Market. He’s more of a Ross Dress 4 Less guy when it comes to that kind of stuff.

I think it’s going to be a long offseason if everyone thinks that Beane/Wolff are going to bring in some bats to help the offense. I just don’t see it happening via Free Agency, and with the way the Farm performed in 2008, it might be time to sell high from within.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 29, 2008 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If the deal is right ...

sure … Prince Fielder is a better than average player … but he’s largely considered a very good or better player. Sure, we’d be better having him — if the deal was right — but there is no chance at all, in the real world, that the deal will be right.

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

by devo on Oct 29, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yep

If the Brewers are looking for a “Haren Size Deal”, that ain’t happening. But because Fielder is going year-to-year, I don’t think he’ll command as much as Haren. Oh well.

But let it be know, I’d trade H. Street + Ryan Sweeney + V. Mazzaro + Henry Rodriguez for Prince Fielder. Then I’d send Barton to Instructs/AAA to play 3B. Then I’d sign Furcal to play SS for the next 2 years. (I guess I should have put this into grover’s “Be the GM Thread”).

It’s gonna be a long-ass offseason.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 29, 2008 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

An offer of Street, Mazzaro and Greg Smith is simultaneously too much for the A’s to actually give up for Fielder and far less than the Brewers would ever realistically accept for him. That is the definition of a trade that makes no sense.

In the non-fantasy world, you’re looking at at least one premium prospect (Cahill, Anderson, Carter, maybe Cardenas or Doolittle if you’re lucky) and several other good ones. Fortunately for my sanity, Beane has already pretty much ruled out trading big chunks of young talent for short term upgrades.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, there you have it

Prince Fielder will not be an Oakland A. I’m glad we hashed that one out before General Managers meet in a couple weeks.

by Colorado Fan on Oct 30, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, in 2007 Ray Durham, Rich Aurilia and Randy Winn

split time at #3, mostly in front of Barry Bonds — Winn was about the same in 08 but Durham and Aurilia were both better. Overall, the three performed about the same (Winn better, Durham worse, Aurilia the same — though all in SSS) whether the were batting third in the lineup (almost entirely in front of Bonds — though Winn actually got the least Bondsian “benefit”, since he finished the season as the #3, when Bonds was playing a ot less) or elsewhere.

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

by devo on Oct 29, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good hitters only make other hitters better insofar as they're on base more

And hitters typically perform better when there are guys on base.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fielder is already a vegan

I’m not sure what else he can do outside of changing to an all-cardboard and Styrofoam diet.

by thejd44 on Oct 28, 2008 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is that a good diet?

Then why do I order those “no foam lattes”?

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 28, 2008 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because you're a snotty bay area liberal

Who is just trying to impress all the sheep in his life.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 28, 2008 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is something still a CGV if 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 29, 2008 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know if it's a good diet

But Fielder must eat a Redwood a day to maintain his weight.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gosh

Why on earth do people think PT is pretentious?

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

by nevermoor on Oct 29, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dude, I looked that up on Wikipedia...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly the point

If you were confused about which family of tree he meant, the question isn’t pretentious.

If you knew the name off hand and were showing off, that would be a little pretentious.

Looking up a complicated and unnecessary word just to use it, on the other hand, is very pretentious. For what it’s worth, using unnecessarily complicated words is a real problem for lawyers, so consider this some early training from someone who just went through it.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 29, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree

I appreciate him looking up the word. Of course, one of my pet peeves is reading something with a complicated word with “(sp?)” next to it. This is the EFFING INTERNET and you can find anything you want on it. Use the tool at hand.

Of course, I probably don’t mind PT’s pretentiousness because I’m the exact same way.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"Use the tool at hand"

I always follow that dictum when I’m surfing the Internet.

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 30, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It was obviously a joke...

which is, or at least is intended to be, poking fun at the ridiculous scientific name for redwoods.

Reframing this to the legal field, there’s a sizable difference between making a crack about some arcane Latinistic legal term like “res ipsa loquitur” and actually using it in a sentence, expecting laypeople to understand what it means.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why

is this “pretentious”?

What is it with the anti-intellectualism?

Do you find it “pretentious” if someone makes a reference to a lesser known rock band? A lesser known movie?

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

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2008 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not at all

1: Calling me anti-intellectual is absurd. Find me one time that I’ve criticized someone for being smart, I dare you. Incidentally, when you go pouring through those comments you’ll find this is one of, if not the, first times I’ve made a stylistic criticism of PT (who, for the record, I think is one of the better informed posters on this site).

2: Your rock band and movie points completely miss the mark. The point is not that I haven’t heard the word “Cupressaceae” before. The point is that the word is long and unnecessary. ’

As an example, it wouldn’t be pretentious for a doctor to give me a diagnoses using words I’ve never heard before because the precision matters. It would be pretentious for the Doctor to speak entirely in Latin just to show he knows the language. It would be even more pretentious for the doctor to have his message translated into Latin to give the impression he knows the language.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 30, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You HAVE heard the word Cupressaceae before?

Hm. I’m impressed, I guess…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, I haven't
The point is not that I haven’t heard the word "Cupressaceae" before.

As a response to rfloh’s comment about obscure bands, who I’m sure I also haven’t heard of.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 30, 2008 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your analogy doesn't fit

PT isn’t speaking entirely in Latin.

Also, you believe it’s unnecessary. Sometimes using an obscure word is necessary for tone or style.

And a “smart” person can be not an intellectual too, and also anti intellectual.

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

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps, but I'm not one

And the example was illustrative rather than an exact fit.

If everyone thinks I’m wrong, perhaps this is just an odd pet peeve of mine…

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

by nevermoor on Oct 30, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

*shrug*

I normally wouldn’t care either, but “pretentiousness” is an odd pet peeve of mine.

For me, intellectualism is treasuring, delighting in, glorifying, celebrating, erudition, knowledge and thinking.

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

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2008 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd ask for a referral

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

by nevermoor on Oct 30, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

pretentious illiterate

"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra

by Cheezombie on Oct 30, 2008 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's pretty funny

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

by nevermoor on Oct 30, 2008 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was referring to the tree

2:34 AM = odd capitalization, I guess.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fielder is a vegetarian, not a vegan

And being vegetarian, or vegan, means nothing, in terms of health or weight control.

Speaking as a vegetarian, with vegetarian and vegan friends, a vegetarian / vegan diet can often result in weight gain, and lead to even poorer dietary habits. Cupcakes, Ho Hos, donuts, chips, fried Mars bars, beer, are all vegan foods. Replacing meat with candy, donuts, baked goods full of sugar and fat, chips, spaghetti, isn’t going to result in better health or weight loss.

Restricted diets can be / are often WORSE, in terms of being healthy, if the dieter doesn’t put in more effort to eat properly, or if the dieter already had poor dietary habits.

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

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2008 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If When I make this tonight, the ensuing intestinal upheaval is going to be all your fault.

by 74mk on Oct 29, 2008 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ewwwwwww.

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 29, 2008 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What???!!11!!

You don’t like fried Mars bars? What, you’re going to tell me you don’t like fried peanut butter and banana / jelly sandwiches either?

SACRILEGE.

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

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2008 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My mistake

It’s Tony Gonzalez who is vegan.

But Fielder is a vegetarian who doesn’t like cheese. That is, basically, vegan.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yogurt. Ice cream. Eggs. Milk in general.

Huge difference.

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 29, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

As someone who has cooked far too many vegan meals in his life (for his vegan ex-girlfriend)

it is a huge difference. Dairy products and/or eggs are in everything. You can make virtually anything vegan — but it takes some doing …

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

by devo on Oct 29, 2008 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Meh, it all tastes like weeds.

I don’t, and will never, understand it. Of course, I actually can’t eat most plant-based foods without a hospital visit so that could be why.

by thejd44 on Oct 29, 2008 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

As, devo said

the milk products make a big difference, especially for an athlete. Most of the protein powder supplements on the market are made from milk.

Many of the meat replacement veggie “burgers”, whether those that are designed to try to replicate the taste of meat, for those who miss meat, or whether those that deliberately don’t taste like meat, for those who never really cared for meat, contain milk protein at the very least, and in some cases egg protein.

It’s (much) harder for a dedicated vegan athlete to eat properly.

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

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2008 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's precisely the problem.

A vegan athlete, someone who needs protein, is going to be eating a lot of tofu, and soy protein based products. Which can be a problem as some people don’t like the taste of tofu / soy based products. Even soy protein powder has a distinct taste.

So, then, the diet often degenerates into (too much) junk: fried mars bars, Ho Hos, donuts, cupcakes, soda, chips.

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

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2008 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Legumes!

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

by devo on Oct 30, 2008 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Legume my exhume!

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 30, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You want to cover a disinterred corpse with soybeans?

Are you a member of the Russian Mafia?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In former Soviet Union, disinterred corpse covers *you* with soybeans!

(Which reminds me of a really great un-PC joke involving Russians and protein.)

Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 30, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That reminds ME of a funny (if possibly apocryphal) story, which is, as far as I know, PC

so here goes.

Some researchers were trying to test out an early computer program for translating Russian into English and decided to give it a real challenge by putting in some idioms and seeing what came out.

They put in “The spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak” and told the program to translate it into Russian and back into English. The computer hemmed and hawed for a bit and then spat out “The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten.”

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Daric Barton

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 28, 2008 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

SWEENEY, not Sweeny. Swooney is also acceptable.

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 28, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

(Preacher shout): Amen!!!!!

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 28, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Whatever #13 fan

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 28, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

excuse me???

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 28, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wasn't aware that I was a fan of some #13 person....

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 28, 2008 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's ok

Blevins isn’t that bad to be a fan of.

by HRH on Oct 28, 2008 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

whoops... I forgot about Blevins!!!

that’s ok. Still like Unicorn better, but Blevins isn’t bad.

Awww… Unicorn's optimistic. And a cheeseball. That’s cute. ~Whiteshoes40

by #14fan on Oct 28, 2008 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

An ongoing problem

The A’s were a bad team last year. It’s encouraging that we have so many young players and we should expect them to improve, but they really deserved to be a 75-76 win team. Putting this team in a position to make the playoffs would require about a 10 win improvement. That’s a massive change in a single off-season – it’s about the same magnitude as adding A-Rod and Holliday to our team while hoping our pitching staff can pick up the slack for the Harden innings we won’t be getting.

We have some promising young players, but there’s no way this team is going to rocket into the playoff picture without giving up huge amounts of talent or cash, and neither is something this team can afford it if wants a run of sustained success like we’ve becomed accustomed to.

by MrIncognito on Oct 28, 2008 4:48 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It's easier in this day and age, though,

to vastly improve suddenly because roster turnover is so huge. Add a Teixeira level FA, a ready-for-prime-time rookie, and make one trade of excess strength to fill an existing weakness, and…voila!

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 28, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s my point though – people want back into contention, so they go all out for a free agent who will be making big $ on the wrong side of 30 and want to gut the system for older talent. The only way to expect to contend next year is to sacrifice the future. It’s like borrowing $5 trillion from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis so they can buy all our assets so we can cling to our unsustainably high level of consumption – noone would be foolish enough to do that.

by MrIncognito on Oct 28, 2008 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I suppose the Rays are another example

It involved sucking something fierce for several years, but they didn’t pay big FA dollars or sacrifice their future to go from worst to first in a year.

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 28, 2008 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Adding A-Rod alone ...

would just about do it …

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

by devo on Oct 28, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm in favor of the A-Rod signing

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Oct 28, 2008 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I advocated for it last off season ...

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

by devo on Oct 28, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd trade Crosby for him straight up

And eat all of A-Rod’s salary…

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

by nevermoor on Oct 28, 2008 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

But would you eat Crosby's too?

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

by devo on Oct 28, 2008 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes.

But only if it was wrapped inside a fried Mars bar.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 29, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The difference between A-Rod and Hannahan last season was about 5 wins. That gets us to about 80 wins.

by MrIncognito on Oct 30, 2008 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It was 6.2, according to WARP1, in a terrible season, by his standards, for A-Rod ...

I’d expect it to be closer to 8 wins in 2009.

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

by devo on Oct 30, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wish someone on the A's could have a terrible season like that.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 31, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Offensively, they were less than 5 wins apart, and BPs defensive metrics are really odd. Hannahan smoked A-Rod in RZR and OOZ, so I don’t see how there’s a 3 wins difference on defense.

A-Rod had a down year for sure, but it’s entirely possible Hannahan wasn’t as terrible as he showed, either. A-Rod is also 33, so we should expect his number to decline steadily from here on out.

by MrIncognito on Oct 31, 2008 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

57 runs (45 BRAA v -12 BRAA) very close to six wins ...

And while we should expect A-Rod’s true talent to decline, that doesn’t necessarily correlate with his performance, if you’re assuming he had a down year — performed worse than his talent — he could get worse talent wise, but perform neutral relative to talent and his numbers will go up …

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

by devo on Nov 1, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Whoever he was, he was right... or at least not wrong...

They did not spend lots of money last offseason, and made the playoffs anyway.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

 ?

"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra

by Cheezombie on Oct 29, 2008 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would much rather put a package together with my site set on a couple of Brewers or Metropolitans.

Alcides Escobar and Mat Gamel would be my Brewers of choice. Unfortunately, I think the Brewers are going to be selling off their arbitration eligible players and try to keep cost controlled players. Could a package of Street, Mazarro/Gio, and Cardenas get them interested? If not I would be interested in attempting to acquire Jefry Marte and Wilmer Flores from the Mets. Street and Ryan Sweeney would fill two of their current needs. Marte and Flores are both very young, but could fill the void at 3b and SS in a few years.

Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.

by miggyk2 on Oct 28, 2008 5:54 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I would love love love getting Flores

He’s the exact type of guy I’ve wanted the A’s to get for the last few years (and maybe Nino Leyja can develop like him but stick at SS, which Flores is unlikely to do). And I would certainly be willing to trade Street for him plus a couple of lottery tickets. If the A’s could somehow pull off Sweeney and Street for Dan Murphy and Flores, I would go crazy.

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

by vignette17 on Oct 28, 2008 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think Gamel Escobar is more appealing.

Flores is only 17, whereas Gamel and Escobar will fit in nicely with the young crop of talent that is currently in the pipeline. A core of Gamel, Escobar, C-Gon, Suzuki, Buck, Cunningham, Sweeney, Barton, and Carter would be pretty impressive over the next five years.

Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.

by miggyk2 on Oct 28, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Murphy would fit in that group

I love Flores’ upside so much that I’d be predicting him to come up with Dixon, Leyja, Inoa as opposed to the current core. You always need future assets as well as now assets. Murphy is the latter and Flores is the former.

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

by vignette17 on Oct 28, 2008 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I could see Murphy moved in a Street deal.

Mets NEED bullpen help. Murphy is a natural 3B, and the Mets might not want to continue with converting him to 2B.

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 28, 2008 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gamel is unhelpful to the A's

He’s epically incompetent at third base and the organization is chock full of first basemen/DH types.

I remember having discussions about how much I hated the concept of trading Street for Matt LaPorta. Gamel is a poor man’s LaPorta.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

From what I have read, Gamel is a more polished hitter than LaPorta.

He may not hit for the power numbers, but he handles both left and right handed pitching and has solid plate discipline. Like I stated earlier, Gamel is less valuable to the A’s if he must go through a position change. If that is the case, I advocate moving Cardenas to third, where his bat and defense profile a little better. Then put all efforts towards acquiring an up and coming short stop. By the way, sorry for calling you out, for simply requesting political correctness.

Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.

by miggyk2 on Oct 29, 2008 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gamel had a pretty high BABIP this season

392. And even with his fine season, his career OPS in the minors is 865. At 1b, or even corner OF, that’s not any kind of star prospect.

I’m not saying that he is worthless, but he looks to me like a Russ Branyan type of player. He can nominally “play” 3b, by standing there and not tripping over his feet; move him to 1b, and his hitting at 1b would make him a useful player but not any kind of core star calibre player.

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

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2008 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

[cough]

Might as well just hire the original without giving up anything in return for him.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This.

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 29, 2008 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's my point, actually.

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

by rfloh on Oct 30, 2008 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am not really convinced, from what I have read, that Cardenas will stick at 2nd.

I would rather fill two holes, SS and 3rd, and insert one of Pennington, Pettit, or other at 2nd. This is assuming that Gamel and Escobar are the answer at SS and 3rd. Gamel might have to go through a position change, which makes him a lot less valuable to the A’s. If he can be a competent fielder I would take Escobar and Gamel over Gio/Street/Cardenas. It might make more sense to keep Cardenas and try and put a package of Street and Gio/Mazzaro together to get a stud SS who could be cost controlled through this crops competitive years.

Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.

by miggyk2 on Oct 28, 2008 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd rather have Hardy and Taylor Greene

Gamel’s gonna change positions and I’m not sold on Escobar’s bat. I am sold on Hardy being solidly above average as a SS. I’d then try to sign Hardy long term. And Greene is a cheaper (i.e. possible) alternative to Gamel. Plus, he’ll probably stay at 3b.

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

by vignette17 on Oct 28, 2008 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't want to sign Hardy long term...

His bat’s not going to play so well at third base in 3 or 4 years.

I suddenly became a LOT less interested in Taylor Green when the Indians chose Michael Brantley over him as the Sabathia PTBNL.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2008 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Five reasons the A's should NOT trade for Holliday.

1. He’s a one year rental with Borass as his agent, and a 100MM+ contract after 2009.

2.No way A’s get him without giving up one of the core prospects (Anderson, Cahill, Carter, Cardenas) or a large portion/all of Doolittle/Simmons/Mazarro/Gio. Not worth it.

3. How the A’s young pitching will be in 2009 is a total crapshoot. Why invest prospects into the fact that if the A’s aren’t contending in 2009, Holliday will be a waste. Holliday can perform like Bonds, and if the pitching/other hitters doesn’t come through, no playoffs for the A’s.

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 28, 2008 9:00 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Fuck. That was 3.

4. His stats are inflated by Coors. He’s not the same player at both home/away

5. He’s an outfielder.

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 28, 2008 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

How fitting that with Boras as his agent,

you can figure to pay “time and a half” for Holliday.

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 28, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Whaaaa?

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 28, 2008 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I get paid time and a half if I work on holidays.

Wait, it’s actually double time.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 28, 2008 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I get it now.

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 28, 2008 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thought you should start a fanpost

“5 reasons the A’s shouldn’t trade for Matt Holliday!”

and see what comes in

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 28, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll do it. Sometime today.

The Dirty Canuck of the now.

by Blicks on Oct 29, 2008 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Notice in the fan post Athletics line-up;

Crosby has been booted to third option!!!

"What do we do with Crosby? Well, in my neighborhood, trash goes out on Mondays." ~ Nico

by MMunoz33 on Oct 30, 2008 11:21 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms
Start posting about the Athletics »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Me_at_att_park_small
Greener Grass, Episode 7: Transportation Proclamation
Depaulbluedemons_small
Community Prospect List #18
413niegoftl__sl500_aa280__small
A's Protect Carter, FDLS, Figueroa and Souza from Rule V
Countdown_small
Some things I am "coming around" on...
Imgp0089_editedagasin_small
DLD 11/17/09 - Nintendo 64 and a Nerd's top 10 Epic Movie Fights

Recent FanPosts

Me_at_att_park_small
Old McPherson is an A, e yi e yi yoooooooo
Bill_king_small
On Trading Catchers....
Depaulbluedemons_small
Community Prospect List #17
Small
A's ink 10 year deal with KTRB 860 am
Bill_king_small
Huston Street and the Blown Save

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Managers

Tyler_at_maya_school_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

As_kings_cal_small louismg

Editors

Countdown_small Taj Adib

Ziegler160px_small Flashfire

527918550406_0_bg_small notsellingjeans