Mike Jacobs Traded to the Royals

People at MLBTR are saying

This could make Billy Butler available. Would anyone be interested in seeing Butler in green and gold? And if you want to spend a ton how about Butler and Gordon together?

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

by vignette17 on Oct 30, 2008 2:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He would be kind of redundant, no? They have similar minor league careers (although Butler had more power potential that has yet to show at the MLB level), and although Butler has been better than Daric, that isn’t saying too terrible much. In 800+ PA, Butler has managed to be -2.5 BRAA (batting runs above average), while in 600+ PA for Barton, he has been -3.2 BRAA. They both field the same position (1b) and Butler has also been relegated to DH duty as well. Butler did play some 3b at the tender age of 19 in A ball, but it was all of 41 games and the fact that he hasn’t played their since seems to be kind of damning towards his defensive potential (although they did/do have Alex Gordon, so that could be another reason why). Unless we get Butler in a fashion that adds value to our team (I.E. a favorable trade for the A’s, which may not be hard considering the Royals’ latest move), Butler would be foolish to acquire. The only thing that really stands out about him is the fact that he is young and was solid in the minors, so he still has lots of potential.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This says everything I wanted to say

Butler would be a supernumerary— a marginal upgrade at best.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and that's exactly what Jacobs is to the Royals

nice to have a smart GM, huh?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 30, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe.

He’s supernumerary / superfluous / an unnecessary indulgence IF they choose to see him as any kind of long term solution.

Spending most of next season at AAA is unlikely to hurt Ka’aihue much, given that he’s not played much above AAA.

And Jacobs can always be traded, say to contender that is desperate for some slugging.

Furthermore, Leo Nunez doesn’t look like anything all that special, nothing more than the typical reliever His K rate is nothing special, his walk rate is OK; especially given that he’s more of a flyball pitcher.

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

by rfloh on Nov 1, 2008 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

perhaps the Royals think Jacobs is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

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

by monkeyball on Nov 1, 2008 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

None of this is wrong

But I think the point is that the Royals already have not-very-good stopgap players. The Royals are, pretty obviously, not going to win in 2009. They already have Ross Gload (and, I assume Shealy) under contract. So even though Jacobs is a marginal upgrade over those guys, why bother? Why not just play Gload if you think Ka’aihue isn’t ready?

Logically, the Royals must see him as some sort of (long-term) solution since they already have crappy players for the short-term.

by thejd44 on Nov 1, 2008 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why bother?

Because they need to play the games. If your attitude is why bother, well okay, why care if they trade Leo Nunez at all? He’s also filler. No big deal.

They had an 88 OPS+ in 2008. BPro had them at 41 runs below the MLB average offensively. 1b / DH was a particular weakness for them, SS was another. They have already improved at SS by finally dumping TPJ for Aviles.

Gload is going to be 33, with a career OPS+ of 92. He’s basically Emil Brown. There’s nothing there. Shealy might be able to become something, but he’s OLDER than Jacobs, and worse. If they can improve at 1b / DH, without much cost, why shouldn’t they do it?

Logically, the Royals must see him as some sort of (long-term) solution since they already have crappy players for the short-term.

Perhaps. Or maybe if Butler makes some progress, instead of sucking, and / or Ka’aihue has a good year at AAA, say >900 OPS, they can trade Jacobs. Maybe for another Leo Nunez type even.

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

by rfloh on Nov 1, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The reason Florida only got Nunez for Jacobs

is probably that most of the league realizes he really sucks. I don’t think trading him would be that easy.

This move for the Royals is akin to the A’s spending a lot of money on a marginal upgrade at a position like first base. Will it win them a couple more games? Possibly. Does it actually help the organization get closer to a championship? No.

If a move doesn’t get a team closer to a championship (or, conversely, directly benefit a rebuilding process), it’s not a good move.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, Florida got Nunez for Jacobs

Why can’t the Royals get another Nunez type for Jacobs when they want to trade him?

In which case, who cares if the Royals gave up Nunez for Jacobs.

This move for the Royals is akin to the A’s spending a lot of money on a marginal upgrade at a position like first base. Will it win them a couple more games? Possibly. Does it actually help the organization get closer to a championship? No.

Actually no, it’s not similar. AT ALL. By spending a lot of mony on a marginal upgrade, the A’s are costing themselves the opportunity to get a legitimately good player. The Royals are costing themselves a guy who looks like a journeyman middle reliever.

If a move doesn’t get a team closer to a championship (or, conversely, directly benefit a rebuilding process), it’s not a good move.

Winning more games, at minimal cost, is not a good move?

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

by rfloh on Nov 2, 2008 1:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jacobs is going to be paid a lot more than Nunez

You appear to be totally neglecting that fact from your calculations. His salary will likely accelerate rapidly toward $10 million a year. Meanwhile, it’s questionable whether he’s even worth 1 marginal win this year, and that’s not likely to change for the better. It’s not clear that Jacobs would even have been worth a waiver claim for the Royals, and giving up Nunez to boot is just horrible.

Why can’t the Royals get another Nunez type? Doesn’t it say something to you that the BEST the Marlins could do for Jacobs was Leo Nunez? No one else was even willing to go that far. A future trade will involve a player with less control time and, conversely, a higher salary. The only way Jacobs’ value even holds par is if he improves his play by a significant degree.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 2, 2008 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Jacobs sucks

yet, his salary will accelerate rapidly towards $10M a year?

Ryan Howard got $10M a year in his first year of arby. Mike Jacobs is no Ryan Howard.

Even if you want to make the argument that arby awards tend to overrate HRs and RBI, 2008 was the first yaer Jacobs had more than 20 HRs, and more than 100 RBI.

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

by rfloh on Nov 2, 2008 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Jacobs hasn't actually even had a season with

more than 100 RBI yet. I don’t see the rapid acceleration towards a $10M a year salary.

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

by rfloh on Nov 2, 2008 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm assuming he gets something like $3.5/6.5/10

over the next 3 seasons.

Howard got 10 million as a Super Two… quite the different kettle of fish.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 2, 2008 11:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see him getting 10.

Not unless he improves. Or the market rapidly inflates.

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

by rfloh on Nov 3, 2008 9:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Winning a couple more games while sacrificing youth development and a young, good pitcher

For a couple more games is NOT a good move. There is absolutely no difference between 70 and 75 wins (and nobody in their right mind would say Jacobs is worth anywhere near that much). Now, there might be something to a bad team finally breaking .500 or something, but Jacobs doesn’t do that.

I’m not sure Jacobs actually makes the Royals better at all. Like, not even 1 run better when you factor in losing Nunez and that some of the young guys might actually be better players right now.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

WHICH young guys?

Ka’aihue is the only young guy this move who won’t get to play, that is if they choose to go with Butler and Jacobs. And until this season, he was a very so-so prospect. Even with his phenomenal 1087 OPS at AA, and 1079 OPS at AAA in 139 PAs, he still only has an 828 OPS for his career in the minors. A bit more additional time in the minors won’t kill him.

Gload is not young, and is crap. Shealy is OLDER than Jacobs.

As for Nunez, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. You see him as a good young pitcher. I see him as a so-so young pitcher.

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

by rfloh on Nov 3, 2008 9:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thus, your comment is superfluous

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

by monkeyball on Oct 30, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I always felt like the word superfluous was itself a bit superfluous.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Verbs superfluous. Comments now without them.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Oct 30, 2008 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

PT, i've got to say you are dead wrong

Barton minor league totals: .299/.411/.455
Butler: .336/.416/.561
Plus, those are a comparable number of at bats, Barton only has about 100 more. Plain and simple, Butler is a better hitter and I for one think that if the price is right (and Beane has proved before that he has made the right moves with the Royals) this is the kind of guy that he covets.
And maybe if a deal is made, they can get another Mark Ellis type as a steal…
Plus, Butler has proven he can hit in the majors…

by stranahanahan on Oct 30, 2008 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Butler may be a slightly better hitter

and has shown more HR hitting ability in the minors, but other than HR, they are virtually the same with Barton’s defense probably being better (if not now, then definitely in the future). They are both young, which means that either could develop significant power in the majors, and I think Barton has just as much potential to hit HR as Butler in the long run. However, you are right in assessing Butler as the better MLB hitter currently since he did hit somewhat better than Barton this year. However, Barton is young and has one full Season under his belt while Butler has had 1 and a halfish. I’d like to see how Barton does this year before I make any real assessment as to who is better and who is worse.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 31, 2008 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Barton has just as much potential to hit HR as Butler"

What do you base that on? Scouting reports when both were amateurs considered Butler as a future power hitter while questioning Barton’s power potential. The minor league records vastly favor Butler in the power department, and Butler is physically stronger and generates more bat speed. I see no evidence beyong wishcasting that would support your statement.

That is not to say that Barton won’t eventually be as valuable overall as Butler, if he can make up for the lack of power by getting on base more and playing better defense. On power alone, however, Butler is quite simply better, and it’s not a close race.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 31, 2008 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well you're missing the defensive aspect

which gives added value to Barton. Like I said, Butler does have the power edge, and his minor league career OPS is significantly higher. Other than that, however, there isn’t much difference in their rate stats. I say Barton has just as much potential because he’s YOUNG, meaning he can develop power. There has been a fair share of hitters who didn’t hit for too much power in the minors, but they were young, and consequently starting having more pop as they got older. You can argue that at this current point in time, Butler is better because he hit better at the MLB level. However, it really is only a slight edge, given his defensive deficiencies compared to Barton’s non-deficient defense.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 31, 2008 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta read all the way through ...

“I say Barton has just as much potential because he’s YOUNG, meaning he can develop power.”

I think the question BC53 addressed was whether Barton had as much power potential as Butler, not whether it was conceivable that he might develop it at all. And with respect to that comparison, the youth argument is unpersuasive, since Barton is older than Butler.

BC53: “That is not to say that Barton won’t eventually be as valuable overall as Butler, if he can make up for the lack of power by getting on base more and playing better defense. On power alone, however, Butler is quite simply better, and it’s not a close race.”

DLJ: “Well you’re missing the defensive aspect which gives added value to Barton.”

“I think Rice Krispies taste better with chocolate milk.”

“Well you’re missing the chocolate milk aspect, which makes them taste better.”

by 74mk on Oct 31, 2008 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

when I was in high school, I played cowbell for The Chocolate Milk Aspect

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

by monkeyball on Oct 31, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I, however, drank chocolate milk for the Cowbell Aspect

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

by nevermoor on Oct 31, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I got a fever, and the only medicine

is more Chocolate milk.

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

by 5Aces on Oct 31, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

(only prescription)

by mikev on Oct 31, 2008 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

(runs out of the room in shame)

12 words and I can’t get them right-sheesh.

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

by 5Aces on Nov 3, 2008 8:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

it does do a body good

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 31, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's not being compared to "Daric Barton"

He’s being compared to “the best player of Barton, Carter, and Doolittle.” He is not a major upgrade on that group of prospects, if indeed he’s an upgrade at all.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2008 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on what year you're looking at

2009: "the best player of Barton, Carter, and Doolittle." = Barton
2010: "the best player of Barton, Carter, and Doolittle." = Barton (and maybe a half season of someone else)

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

by nevermoor on Oct 31, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm looking at 2011...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2008 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

1: Why? Haven’t we been saying 2010 is our target?

2: Even so, I’d be surprised if either Barton or Butler in their primes aren’t better than a rookie Carter or Doolittle.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 31, 2008 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're missing the point

It’s not worthwhile to trade significant value for someone who is just going to clog an already clogged position. The odds of him being a substantial upgrade over every other option are very small. It’s just pointless. He doesn’t add anything. The A’s are better off spending whatever trade resources we’re talking about on an upgrade at another position.

I mean, if they’re having a Billy Butler fire sale or something, OK, but I’m assuming they’d want at least a blue-chip prospect in return for him.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barton is a MUCH better fielder

but I always thought Butler was the better hitting prospect. not really an expert on that, though.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 30, 2008 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Butler probably is the better hitting prospect with respect to his HR power

and he does have slightly better career minor league rate stats (especially in the OPS department). But I have a feeling, although I do not know for sure, that Daric’s fielding ability more than makes up the difference between the two’s hitting abilities. Then again, Butler’s MLB career has been slightly more promising thus far, so I’d say pick who you like close your eyes and throw a dart at them, they probably will end up being similar in value in the long run.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Butler mashes lefties and would be

every bit that coveted A’s “right-handed bat”…when a lefty is pitching. The problem is the other 75% of the time, when Butler really isn’t that good at all.

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 30, 2008 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's 22. I think he'll probably get a little better as the years pass.

by mikev on Oct 30, 2008 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope A's fans remember that about Barton as well...

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still believe in Barton's ability

My biggest fear is that he isn’t highly coachable which, if true, could make him most comparable to the talented but disappointing…Bobby Crosby.

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 30, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Crosby is all that talented.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's a heck of a lot more physically gifted

than his performance would suggest. Heck, you have to be pretty talented to become a #1 draft pick, period.

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 30, 2008 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually don't think he's anywhere near as gifted as a first-round pick should be

I just don’t see all the physical tools he’s supposed to have. He’s a big guy, but that’s about it.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that was probably the case before, but I think he started realizing that he couldn't get by on talent alone.

His defense has gotten so much better over the course of one season that I think he’s listening to the coaches a lot more now than he did in the minors.

by mikev on Oct 30, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

my question is aren't players coachable?

If your a budding player, why wouldn’t you take advice from a knowledgeable coaching staff?

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're underestimating the ego of pro athletes.

by mikev on Oct 30, 2008 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no I understand the ego

I’m making this point that it’s plain stupid and arrogant. Disclaimer: this is coming from a person who has, at any given time in any given sport, had to work his butt off because unlike BoCro, he’s not that physically gifted. Probably the biggest problem I have with pro sports is the egos that come along with it. If coachability is really what is holding BoCro back, then good, I dislike him as a player and he deserves to suck. I personally believe that this isn’t true, and that he genuinely just sucks (because physical ability isn’t everything in baseball like it can be in other sports). But of course, I could be wrong.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A's look like a match!!

a ton of good prospects

Patrick (Chicago): Keith, what kind of return could Kansas City expect to get for Billy Butler?

SportsNation Keith Law: The more they acquire replacements/obstacles, the less they’re going to get. If they could trade him for a couple of good-not-great prospects, that is probably their best option (well, short of just PLAYING THE GUY). Toronto would be a great fit.

by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 30, 2008 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Why not go after Alex Gordon now?

There were rumors of Teahen moving back to third base, adding Gordon to the gigantic mix of 1B/DH players KC has.

by mikev on Oct 30, 2008 3:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

or they could dump teahen

i dont think one move is related to the other…plus worst case they keep teahen as a utility type.

dont see any reason for them to move gordon around in favor of teahen

by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 30, 2008 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Jacob's defense...

is atrocious. He is a very bad defensive first baseman, which is even more egregious since the pool of players at his position aren’t typically great defenders in the first place.

"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 30, 2008 3:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Move him back to Catcher!

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Jacobs is an infield version of Jack Cust

You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}

by micdog2001 on Oct 30, 2008 4:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No

No, he isn’t. Not at all.

Jack Cust walks. Mike Jacobs doesn’t. That’s the difference between an EqA of .300 and one of .270— and when you’re talking about players with no defensive value, that’s the difference between a good player and bench filler.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think micdog2001 was talking about defense only, but I could be wrong.

Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.

by salb918 on Oct 30, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two things

1: Sigh, PT beat me to this one by a hair

2: I think micdog saw low batting average, home runs, and stopped looking.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 30, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BENCH FILLER NOW!

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

by monkeyball on Oct 30, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, he isn't

Jack Cust: .851 OPS
Mike Jacobs: .812 OPS

That might look similar if you squint (with Cust having a significant edge), but Jacobs’ OBP is 76 points lower than Cust’s. In other words, Jacobs makes an out 7 out of every 10 times he comes to the plate, which is downright pathetic.

Even beyond that, Jacobs had a very high SLG (.514) which was 56 points higher than 2007. Cust, on the other hand, had a worse 2008.

If Jacobs could (at least) double his walks, while maintaining that SLG, then you could call him an infield Jack Cust.

Oh, and Jacobs doesn’t have one of these that I’m aware of.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 30, 2008 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It also seemed like he was streaky like Cust.

Jacobs seemed to hit his HR’s in bunches like Cust does sometimes. Maybe that’s not true but I’m not going to take the time (however long it would take) to look it up. Obviously you are right, Cust does walk a lot more and is a more valuable player. I guess I should have said “to me Mike Jacobs reminds me of an infield version of Jack Cust”.
Freakin jump down my throat people! I’m sorry I didn’t take the time to look over every single stat before I posted me observation. You know, in baseball 4 out of 5 is good (HRs, low average, bad defense, streaky, base on balls). but I guess on AN it’s not good enough.
sorry, no smiley faces this time. the smile has been wiped from my face for now.

You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}

by micdog2001 on Nov 2, 2008 1:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

is consitancy a skill? aren't most sluggers streaky?

I’m honestly asking, but I feel like there are very few players who consistently produce throughout the season (unless, of course, you’re Albert Pujols).

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

by DyeLongJustice on Nov 2, 2008 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I added Jocobs to my fantasy team after a couple injuries

and it seemed like he would hit 3 HR’s in a week and then go 3 weeks without one. Again, I don’t have the stats to back me up and I’m not going to search for them at this time. Which on AN is asking for people to look it up and make you feel stupid.

You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}

by micdog2001 on Nov 4, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I assumed reading this that the Marlins were thinking about moving Uggla to 1B

since my understanding is that Uggla has been barely adequate at 2B. But the ESPN story mentions moving Cantu across the diamond (does anyone know how he is at 3B?) or bringing up a rookie.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Oct 30, 2008 4:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Uggla is VASTLY more valuable at 2b

and if they ever want to trade him, keeping him there will net much more value in return.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He can't play 2nd, can he?

by OldhamA on Oct 30, 2008 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, but that's neither here nor there.

If you turn him into a 1b, he suddenly becomes an average 1b at best. If your a team looking to trade for a 1b, do you really want to give up talent/money for a 1b version of Uggla or a 2b Uggla? The added value of him playing 2b, in my opinion, outweighs his poor defense. This isn’t true for every player (lets face it, you don’t want Giambi playing 2b or SS), but if Uggla can kind of, sort of manage 2b, it’s much better for the team.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It depends how good he is at first base...

1B has a penalty of about 15 runs relative to 2B, so if he’s a net-zero at 1B and a -15 at 2B, it doesn’t really matter where you stick him. If he’s more than 15 runs better at first, they should put him at first; if less, they should keep him at second.

The only way to tell, of course, is to experiment with him at first.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I tend to think that Uggla moving would be a wash

for him. Presumably, whoever they bring in to replace him would be a far better defender, which would make Uggla moving to first a good move for the team.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Presumably whoever they bring in to replace him would be a far worse offender

Hm. That parallel sentencing doesn’t really work correctly. Regardless, the point still holds.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But the real comparison then is the difference between Uggla’s offense/defense, the new 2Bs offense/defense, and their other 1B options.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

I knew i should have said that it depends, but you are definitely right. However, would you say that teams value defense in this fashion? Honestly, I think that some teams underrate defense and as such, would be more willing to trade for Dan Uggla the 2b rather than Dan Uggla the 1b, regardless of whether or not his value is greater at one position or another. This, of course, is speculative and I have no access to the inner workings of a major league team’s front office, but I would venture to say that people like Ed Wade and Brian Sabean let offensive stats blind their defensive judgments.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

While this may apply in some circumstances,

Uggla is such a known and visually obvious butcher at second that I find it hard to believe even statistically inept GMs could fail to figure it out.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, in a vacuum, yes

But the other consideration is who they replace him with at each position. If their replacement 2B is a net -15 and their replacement 1B is a net 0, Uggla plays second.

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

by nevermoor on Oct 31, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Something I forgot to mention in my post

Is it just me, or does the Marlins’ front office seem exceptionally shrewd at making beneficial (for themselves, of course) trades as of late? We all know how they traded for Hanley, though they did give up Lowell and Beckett, and got other good prospects as well (at the time of the trade at least). They also just made the Cabrera and Willis deal, which is looking better for them than it is for the Tigers. Cabrera is overrated as his defense sucks and Willis is downright atrocious nowadays. In return for these two, they kept their payroll to bare minimum and acquire a legit hitting prospect in Maybin and an interesting, albeit unsure, prospect in Miller. Now, the front office trades a bench filler, according to PT, for a useful BP arm. I’m sure there are some bad deals for the Marlins in there somewhere, but for a team that is hindered by a frugal ownership, they do make good trades. This is saying something since being in such a financial situation does not lend itself to giving the Marlins any kind of leverage in their trades.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 4:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh, they're plenty shrewd

I’m not so high on the Cabrera trade, but they know what they’re doing.

They’re essentially an independent farm club for baseball… and a pretty damn successful one, as long as all you care about is making money…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2008 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what's scary is that some of these stripped down Marlins' teams have been semi competitive

if the ownership would allow a few of their players to actually STAY on the team for more than a few years, they probably would have been competitive by now. I honestly believe that they are similar to the Rays this year in that they are filled with talent, have been low in the standings, but could bust out at any time. Unfortunately, they would need a little extra money in order to solidify their team and provide a winning team to the fans, and that is not something (as you mention and we all know) the team cares about.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

didnt nunez almost go to the a's

for milton bradley?

"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 30, 2008 5:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

he did, and it was voided

I wouldn’t mind the A’s going after Butler. In the position they’re in they might as well accumulate as much talent as possible and see what shakes out. He’s only 22 so even if he plays the “Jason Giambi in the mid 90s” role, he’s still going to be young when the proverbial Next Great A’s Team comes around. All dependent on cost of course but if Moore gets dumb they might as well throw a line in.

by jdr on Oct 30, 2008 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't mind adding Butler for a couple middling prospects

He would make us far less vulnerable to LHP, meaning if we signed a Giambi, Dunn, etc. the lineup wouldn’t be quite so lopsided in terms of L/R punch.

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 30, 2008 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I wouldn’t mind having Butler either, but only if getting him means that we received more value than we traded away. Here’s an interesting scenario…Move Daric to 3b and put Butler in a 1b/DH mix with Chavvy. This eliminate the problem of their redundancies, provides another cost-controlled player, and gives us protection against an (inevitable?) injury to Chavez. Again though, I only consider doing this if we’re getting a lopsided trade on Butler, and I don’t think that we will. For some reason, I have this feeling that the Royals’ management still believes him to be a future all-star caliber player. As such, they aren’t going to give him up for peanuts, or even another Mike Jacobs.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except he's a player without a position

Unless you’re of David Ortiz/Travis Hafner ilk, your value as a DH or “should be DH” is compromised a lot compared to if you are even just “ok” at a position.

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 30, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Especially when, ideally, Cust would be the DH.

And I’d rather have Cust than Butler at this point, despite the age difference.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is the rub -

when you can only DH you don’t offer up a lot of flexibility. The maximum number of DHs you have rotate in is one. And at this point, Butler is more like half of one, in that even the A’s have guys who can approximate his production against RHP.

Butler career vs. LHP: .340/.399/585 (OPS .984) Yum!
Butler career vs. RHP: .256/.304/.345 (OPS .659) Oops.

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 30, 2008 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I'm wrong

but if I’m a manger and I think that the kid’s got the talent to be an all-star, I wouldn’t pay attention to his splits. Most of the good hitters in baseball have only slight deviations from the LHP/RHP splits. However, if you don’t think he’ll be all that special, then I would consider those splits.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thing is, there are splits and there are splits

Butler goes from MVP caliber against LHP to Yuniesky Betancourt caliber against RHP.

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 30, 2008 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

right...but i'm betting if he really and truly is a talented hitter

the side of the pitcher that he is facing isn’t going to matter a whole heck of a lot. However, deciding whether or not he is that good, I am unsure. I’d venture to say that Butler will be a more talented hitter than Daric, and that eventually Billy will become a decent sized (not literally) slugger, whereas Daric probably won’t develop the same amount of power that Butler will. However, I could very well be wrong because both are so darned young, anything is possible. But please, Daric, stay away from pools next summer. Thanks.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

IF he’s that talented, the splits will even out.

I think a lot of people (me included) don’t think he’s as talented as the hype would suggest. He’ll be better than Bobby Kielty on offense, but he won’t be a superstar hitter.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sample size is far too small to draw any conclusions from this

While it’s possible he’s the next Jonny Gomes, it’s also possible that this is just a probabilistic artifact. Odds are his true split is considerably narrower (and that cuts both ways).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

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

Fair enough, I'm arguing at extremes

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 31, 2008 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

{emails this post to Steven & George}

Coming to theaters everywhere in 2010: Indiana Jones and the Probabilistic Artifact

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

by monkeyball on Oct 31, 2008 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Will they be out of prison in time to make that?

by thejd44 on Oct 31, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So nobody thinks the A's should use this move to go after Ross Gload?!

Seriously though, what a weird trade for KC.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 8:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm betting that you and I are probably the only two people who get that joke.

by mikev on Oct 30, 2008 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, I didn't say anything about how clutch he is.

Seriously though, I’m a Gload fan. I realize he pretty much sucks now, but I was a fan of the guy before the weird OOTP lovefest. He just got screwed by always being behind guys like Lee, Grace/Choi, Helton, and Konerko. If he ever would’ve been in a system without a solid to great 1B in the majors, I think he would’ve had a nice career.

by thejd44 on Oct 30, 2008 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he was better, he wouldn't have been stuck behind those guys :P

by mikev on Oct 30, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

same with jack cust

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 30, 2008 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No no, he wasn't better than those guys

But those guys were all All-Star caliber players, especially when Gload was behind them in the minors or on the bench in the majors.

Not only that, but there are plenty of instances where pretty good players don’t get a chance because an established player (who may actually not be as good) already has a spot. I’m not saying that has happened here, but it wouldn’t be unheard of.

by thejd44 on Oct 31, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Make it three-sort of

GLOAD WILL EXPLODE!!!

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

by 5Aces on Oct 31, 2008 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

re

I’d actually be pretty happy if the A’s could pick up Ka’aihue, maybe for Andrew Brown or Casilla to replace Nunez. They could probably use Denorfia…

by AgitationStation on Oct 31, 2008 4:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Me too, but I don't think we'd get him for Denorfia/Reliever.

Hes putting up some monster numbers in the farm system, the Royals have gotta know he is a pretty good hitter. Why would they want to give that up for some only decent players? It would be one thing if Denorfia still had the potential to be a great hitter…but let’s face it, he’s only going to be a decent/good hitter at best who may benefit your team, but won’t carry it.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 31, 2008 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they think he's good, why did they just trade for Mike Jacobs?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2008 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They're the Royals.

by mikev on Oct 31, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Everything I read suggests the Royals don't think he's that good

So you might be able to get him for Denorfia/reliever.

But, again, he doesn’t help the 3B/SS problem so I’m not sure I’d make that move.

by thejd44 on Oct 31, 2008 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not either, but I'm known to have a man-crush on Denorfia so that may not be the best take on the issue

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2008 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well that depends on whether or not you're in the Barton at 3rd camp

If you are, that means Barton to third, first stays filled. If not, then don’t make the move.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Oct 31, 2008 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to see them try it

But I’m not pencilling Barton in at third because I have no idea if he’ll be able to play there.

by thejd44 on Oct 31, 2008 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because Leo Nunez is really

pretty much supernumerary.

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

by rfloh on Nov 1, 2008 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pitching, especially decent-to-good relief pitching, is never supernumerary

It’s one thing to trade it to fill an organizational hole… quite another to trade it to block an organizational strong point.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 1, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at his K / BB rates.

Look at his groundball rates. His pretty ERA is due to the fact that he managed to drop his HR / flyball rate to 4.2%, and possibly had some luck with BABIP.

Maybe he suddenly discovered the skill to surpress homeruns on flyballs, and to limit hits on balls in play, but given that it came in only 48.3 innings, and that that’s a dramatic change from his career HR / flyball rate, and that HR / flyball rate isn’t all that easy to predict reliably, it’s pretty damn likely the Royals trade Nunez when his value is high.

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

by rfloh on Nov 2, 2008 1:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, I know this stuff

If I thought his ERA this year was real, I’d be characterizing him a lot more generously than “decent-to-good.”

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 2, 2008 10:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Then why are you not taking it into account?

His FIP and xFIP over his career are hardly “decent to good”. Not for a reliever pitching ~50 innings a year.

He’s as much filler as Jacobs. You say up top that Jacobs has to improve to be worth it. Well, so does Nunez. The main thing he has going for him is his age. That’s pretty much it.

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

by rfloh on Nov 2, 2008 10:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

His performance has varied somewhat over the last two seasons

but if you average the numbers out (smoothing out some of the HR/FB luck), his FIP is in the low 4s… which is about what I’d characterize as “decent to good.”

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 2, 2008 11:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not 100% how FIP works, but I'd expect Nunez to still be pretty good

Moving into the weaker league and (I think, but I’m not fact-checking this) more of a pitcher’s park.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 11:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why so down on Nunez?

He’s not great. But he’s solid. And he’s young. He’s the type of guy the Royals need to keep unless they’re moving him for somebody good.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, he's solid

He’s a solid middle reliever, a guy who doesn’t K people much, who has averagish control, but nothing more, and who gives up flyballs.

He is young, I agree, and he can improve. But he needs to improve to make the Royals regret this trade.

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

by rfloh on Nov 2, 2008 1:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's definitely not going to be a franchise crippling move

and i certainly hope that no one is arguing that. this is not a high profile/high risk trade they made. but the Royals most likely lost value from their franchise by making this trade, not to mention they now have too many 1b options and not enough open 1st bases (1 to be exact), whereas the bullpen has many more open spots (and thus greater potential for someone to go down with injury and need a fill in).

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

by DyeLongJustice on Nov 2, 2008 1:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe they can rebuild their infield to have 2 first bases

That way, not only can they play 2 first basemen, but Joey Gathright CAN actually steal first!

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 2, 2008 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They traded a guy who's most likely a journeyman

reliever, for a guy who’s most likely a journeyman 1b.

Butler is not a 1b. Ka’aihue has barely played above AAA. Gload is crap. Shealy is also likely crap, and in any case is OLDER than Jacobs.

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

by rfloh on Nov 2, 2008 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I know it's a long shot, partly because he sucked when he did play 3rd

but Butler has played third in the minors.
Let’s play a hypothetical game and say that Beane is targeting him. Say we made a deal for Butler, would Beane consider trying him out at 3rd in spring and seeing if it worked?
I know I’m gonna get several comments about the idiocy of the idea, but who knows?

I for one would love to have Butler on the A’s, we need someone who can hit lefties and Butler has yet to have a poor season in any stage of pro ball. That’s the kind of guy the A’s need, someone who not only has potential but has proven himself as serviceable at every level…

by stranahanahan on Oct 31, 2008 12:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather play Barton at 3b...there is a reason why Butler only stuck at 3b for only 41 games...

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

by DyeLongJustice on Oct 31, 2008 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point...

forgot about that idea…

by stranahanahan on Oct 31, 2008 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

or we could play Hannahan again. I didn't realize how good his defense was at 3b last year

He was 2nd in the league in +/- with +21, behind Beltre who came in at +32. If only he could hit a lick, he’d be a good replacement…sigh….I hope Baisley/Dillon/Chavvy can do better.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Nov 1, 2008 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm suspicious of that number,

mostly because I suspect the Coliseum’s huge foul territory is causing him to get credit for “pluses” on plays that he shouldn’t be getting pluses for.

I think he’s a plus glove at the position, but it’s just not enough to make up for his poor bat.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 1, 2008 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

my thoughts exactly...i said he'd be a good replacement IF he could hit...which i don't think he can

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

by DyeLongJustice on Nov 1, 2008 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So far Dewan is the only one who has him rated that highly

I believe MGL had him at +5.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

THT has him at 1st in RZR, 2nd in Plays+OOZ/Chances

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 2, 2008 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My main problem with Hannahan's defense is he just doesn't pass the eye test

But reflecting on it, that’s mostly in that he has what might be the weakest arm I’ve ever seen from a major league 3B. I think an average 1B at picking balls/fielding balls on a hop would’ve lowered Hannahan’s overall defensive performance significantly.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Welcome to the bandwagon!

by mikev on Oct 31, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just gald this takes Jacobs out of the NL East, so my Mets don't have to face him anymore

He was always so fired up to put a hurtin’ on his old team, and did a pretty good job at it IIRC. Played very emotionally against the Mets and was the only guy who really went ballistic in a little Mets/Marlins on-field standoff this year.

Then I saw him pushing a pink stroller outside the Shea clubhouse and I just had to laugh.

by schmifty on Oct 31, 2008 6:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ya but his +/- defense, now that i finally looked it up, was -27, the worst in the league

the put that into perspective, that was worse than Giambi (-18, though he did also DH would probably kept his totals down), Sexson (-12), Fielder (-12…terrible last name for him), and an old old old Delgado (-15). Maybe this year he went nuts on the Mets, but he probably did his fair share of letting them back in the game too.

You gotta love the pink stroller though. Makes the manliest sluggers in the world still feel like little kids at heart. Well, maybe except for man-thong-giambi…

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

by DyeLongJustice on Nov 1, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait, is +/- just a counting stat?

Even more reason I am very skeptical of that stat (I’d say +/- is the worst of the popular metrics, way behind UZR or PMR). If Dewan doesn’t give his number per/X number of outs or games or innings or something, that’s a very misleading number.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ya ok, so I'm not really very astute on defensive metrics yet

I have yet to study them in depth, so I don’t know the merits of plus and minus all that well. I’m sure that that number is inflated to a degree, but my guess is that Hannahan is still a solid defender, and is one reason why Beane targeted him in the first place.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Nov 2, 2008 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your Mets? There's rules against supporting two teams y'know...

by OldhamA on Nov 1, 2008 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buck and Denorfia for Butler and Teahen

And then we sign Juan Rivera for the outfield to a 3 year deal,
Dallas MacPherson to a Minor League Free Agent deal (with a promise for an early release if it isn’t working out).
We put Teahen, Barton and D-Mac in competition for 3b. (Barton wins out or goes back down.
We put Chavez on the 60 Day DL and tell him to hit his way off and play DH when he does.

They're called RUNS for a reason.

by connie mack on Nov 2, 2008 12:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Buck/Denorfia > Butler/Teahen

And I’m not sure that’s really even close.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sadly, i'm not sure dayton moore would make that move anyway

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

by DyeLongJustice on Nov 2, 2008 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not so sure about that

Butler’s defensive ineptitude seems to me to be more than outweighed by Buck’s insanely fragile health. The guy can barely stay on the field.

I could definitely skip the Teahen/Denorfia bit, but it wouldn’t wreck the deal for me.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 2, 2008 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

I did make the mistake of looking at “Buck” and thinking “Buck playing a full season.” And I shouldn’t do that because it doesn’t seem like Rusty Greer Jr. will ever be able to do that (or, he might, once or twice…maybe). But I think in terms of talent, an “on paper” sort of thing, I like Buck/Denorfia. I’m just not a big Butler fan, though I’m not sure I can defend it too much other than saying bad organization + rushed player + poor R/L splits + no position = not much excitement from me. There are plenty of valid arguments that say Butler will be a great hitter, I’m just not going with that. I think that over 150 games, he would be just marginally better than Buck offensively.

by thejd44 on Nov 2, 2008 11:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Something further damning of the Royals...

Apparently, they could have signed someone like Josh Phelps to a minor league contract. Since the Giants just signed him to a minor league contract, that means that he was available at the time of the Royals/Marlins trade. Phelps has to be at least equal to Jacobs production, and wouldn’t have cost anything but a minor league contract. Sure he’s older, but at that bargain, why the heck not? He’s still young enough to be productive, and if the Royals truly made that trade because they don’t believe in Butler, I don’t see why Phelps isn’t a good backup option.

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

by DyeLongJustice on Nov 3, 2008 7:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs