Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's Sports Meme Power Rankings

New Holliday Thread

Super_grover_tiny by grover on Comment 701 comments

In honor of Veterans Day, and the fact that my browser is struggling to deal with the 750 comment behemoth below, I'm starting a new thread to continue the ohhing and ahhing over the A's new addition.

Does Matt Holliday make the A's contenders in 2009?

I think the answer to that question lies in the health of Eric Chavez's shoulder, whether or not Daric Barton insists on continuing his Wally Pip impersonation and a bunch of other minor details involving mental discipline, personal growth and maybe an organ transplant or three.

Have at it.

0 recs  |  Comment 701 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: veterans day holliday thread

Comments

Display:

My computer thanks you.

I pray for the day that the health of Eric Chavez is no longer a question mark or concern for this team.

I imagine he does too.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 11, 2008 7:23 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Boo

I wanted to see a 1K comment thread.

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

by nevermoor on Nov 11, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What do you think this is, LookoutLanding?

"However, at Elias, I think they keep track of the amount of sunflower seeds spit in a dugout each night." - Brad Ziegler, 8/7/08

by doctorK on Nov 11, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

At least it got over 800

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

by nevermoor on Nov 11, 2008 7:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I wish we could say that about someone's OPS

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 Nov 11, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not even close

You guys are a bunch of amateurs

by JI on Nov 12, 2008 12:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Meh, she's a regular.

That thread was fueled by cars, comps and bad movies.

It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray

by Faux on Nov 12, 2008 5:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That would take him playing for another team.

“playing”

If I don't comment on your comment how will you know you are completely wrong? -Rocktopus

by pam5981 on Nov 11, 2008 1:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

might as well start

Trading for Holliday seems to indicate that Beane thinks the A’s can contend in 2009 (apparently he sees enough uncertainty in the Angels as well). But Holliday alone doesn’t make the A’s a contending team. Besides the issue of needing more offense — and I’m uneasy about pinning those hopes on a healthy Chavez — there are still lots of questions about the rotation. The veteran “ace” and leader, Duscherer, hasn’t proven yet that he can remain healthy starting through an entire season. The A’s are well stocked with pitching prospects, but you can’t count on their being ready enough for the major leagues to make this club a contender. So they A’s may also need to pick up at least one veteran starter, if they expect to contend in 2009.

by OaklandSi on Nov 11, 2008 7:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Along those lines...

Just throwing some names out to get a bit of discussion going.

Brad Penny had his option declined by the Dodgers for a cool $2 million. Maybe offer a 1 year/$6 million contract plus $500 K in IP options (matching his 2008 salary) and give him a chance to earn a big payday in 2010.

Jarrod Washburn is heading into his FA walk year and there’s a good chance the Mariners are looking to make a salary dump. What’s Bedard’s health status if the Mariners kick him loose?

Jon Garland? Randy Wolf?

I’m all for going after any SP we’d be rid of after the 2009 season. I do not want to go after one of the big FA fish.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 8:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

I think someone is going to be really smart and offer Penny an incentive laden deal, I hope the A’s are the first to do it. I worry that a time with deeper pockets will beat us to it though.

Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Nov 11, 2008 8:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Of course time = team

Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.

by TexasAsfan on Nov 11, 2008 8:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I know... Hell, everyone knew

I was just having a chuckle.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

There’s always an argument about when you should judge a trade. I’m typically inclined to make a call early on but in this case adding Holliday can only be step #1 in a new dance. We need to see what else Billy has up his sleeve.

Then I’ll bash the man!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I keep getting this image of Beane

on the dance floor. It’s weird.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 11, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Like this?

Happy Billy

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 9:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How the Hell did this end up here?

This was meant as a reply to Blez.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Randy Johnson

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 Nov 11, 2008 8:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There's an idea

Tell me more, kind sir.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 8:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

sign him

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 Nov 11, 2008 8:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I would love that.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 11, 2008 8:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree,

signing Unit would be exciting – put fans in the seats AND provide some good experience for the young pitchers (Gio, Cahill, Anderson, Eveland) to learn from. I love the idea.

by Sliderule on Nov 11, 2008 9:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He was a local kid too

Hailing from the great city of Livermore

by methodrampage on Nov 11, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Based on that brilliant analysis

I say DON’T sign Randy Johnson, take half of what it would cost to get a deal done and GIVE it to salb918.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

Why pay so much for 12 starts?

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 9:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Because

he’s perhaps the 4th best FA starter out there. At least, according to the BtB folks…

by Sliderule on Nov 11, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm rich!

See you later, punks!

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 Nov 11, 2008 8:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sharpie: $2.99

Knowing where to put the X: $15,000.

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 Nov 11, 2008 8:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Diamondbacks are trying to sign him, but supposedly have $10 million

to spend on a second baseman and anything else, including Johnson. He seems to want to re-sign with the Diamondbacks but may not agree to less than $10 million. So either the Diamondbacks open up the wallet more, or Johnson is available.

by OaklandSi on Nov 11, 2008 8:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sandwich pick

Would we have to give up a higher draft pick to add Randy Johnson?
If so, is it still worth it?

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

On the pitchers

On Penny maybe a deal like 2/yr 8.5-9 mil with 2-4 mil more in incentives
No on Washburn, (Hate him+ to old)
On Bedard same type of deal as Penny if he is healthy +2 mil/yr, (2yr 10-12 mil + 2 mil in incentives)
On Garland 1yr/4.5 mil
I like Wolf the most of all these SP. I would not mind a 2-3yr deal for Wolf in the 6mil range. I think the more you are able to leave the prospects in the miners the better you are. I would love to see BB sign two of these guys, (Penny & Wolf would be my choice). Feel free to rip me at your leasure.

"AN, Reducing Work Productivity since 2003", connie mack 11/06/08

by adragon on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Penny is interesting

The fact that he’s a douche bag doesn’t help though. I am partial to a short-term deal for Oliver Perez…he was much better after he changed his mechanics when the Mets switched pitching coaches. Honestly I wouldn’t mind ponying up for Derek Lowe. Extreme ground ball pitcher plus Mark Ellis equals awesome. Washburn is interesting, but is he really better than the guys we have? Braden is pretty much Washburn, but ten years younger.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1 I don't think the As have the pitching (yet)

I’m less excited about the trade than I was yesterday, because I don’t think we can retain Holiday, so I expect him to get flipped mid-season.

No problems trading Smith (a back end of the rotation guy), and Street (a good reliever with trade value, but after last year needs a change of scenery). Cargon may come back to haunt us.

So we get Holiday for half a year, we don’t need to sign Giambi (let Cust be the LH DH) then hope that Billy can flip him for something better than Street/Cargon. Like a studly 3B / SS.

by Miata71 on Nov 11, 2008 8:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I feel hungover

what happened last night? Why are printouts of Matt Holliday’s fielding stats with me in bed?
Ugh. I remember these home/away splits looking way better last night. I hope when I get back from the bathroom they’ve managed to find the door to my apt.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 7:31 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I am hungover

My religion is A'slamic.

by WhoNeedsReligionWhenYaGotBaseball on Nov 11, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Under the radar

  By trading 3 for 1 the A’s opened up 2 spots on their 40 man. This year it will be tough getting 40 players on the 40 man. Another factor is will the dodgers offer the A’s some good players for Holiday? If they don’t sign Manny will Kemp and some others be going As’ way?

by Arcman on Nov 11, 2008 7:34 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

More to come from this deal? I hope so.

In Billy we trust, but did he give up too much for a one year player? Gonzales has five years left under club control to develop. He was the centerpiece of the Haren trade, and to give up on him after just one year seems foolish.

Street seems to be a throw in. WTF. He could have/should have brought something in return on his own?

If there is more to come I will get on board, but I remain skeptical. Has Billy lost his touch? He got too little for Rich Harden, and gave up too much for a one year rental….I hope not, but I will step back from the ledge to see what else develops.

by hokecole on Nov 11, 2008 7:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

one-year rental

This might be the best of the one-year rentals to get.
29 and a Boras client in a walk year. This is Holliday’s chance to prove his numbers are not inflated by Coors Field and that he is a legitimate premier player.
Also some half-season rentals from last year netted some good trades-Manny got Bay and Sabathia brought in La Porta. Not a bad haul either way.

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Holliday alone doesn't make them contenders.

Adding Furcal and Dunn or Lowe along with him does, though.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 7:46 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Agree... in principle.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 8:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No Dunn

  He is just another Cust. I don’t like the Holiday trade but will wait and see what Beane does. Remember how he traded for Weaver and flipped him shortly afterwards. Beane still has another 20 million to spend so wait and see what happens.

by Arcman on Nov 11, 2008 8:23 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

duplicating our best hitter

seems totally redundant.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 8:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Things I'm really, really looking forward to assuming this deal does

go through and the A’s do get Holliday:

1. Not having to hear over and over again that Jack Cust is the A’s best hitter

2. Not having to hear Cust devotees and Cust detractors argue over who does or doesn’t understand baseball because Cust is clearly or is clearly not the best hitter on the A’s.

Because Holliday is clearly going to be the most accomplished hitter on the team now… barring some miraculous signing of Teixeira, and even then it would be a toss-up imho. :)

by still bills kingdom on Nov 11, 2008 10:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Ok, yeah, I could’ve put that a lot better- so let me expound upon what I was getting at and perhaps state it more clearly:

With the addition of Holliday to the A’s offense it is my great hope that Jack Cust will no longer be quite the object of scrutiny he has been for the past year or so, and will be allowed to flourish and be a productive member of the A’s line-up with less pressure to be “the guy” in terms of power production and offense in general.

And as such, that he will be a less divisive figure amongst A’s fans because everybody can just enjoy his contributions without overly debating his strengths and weaknesses.

I’m of the opinion, personally, that Cust will be even more productive in a line-up where he’s not charged with being the only serious power, RBI, or home run threat. It’s not his fault that he ended up being that guy last season, and it’s easy to focus on the negatives when there aren’t enough other positives to go ‘round in general where the team’s offense is concerned.

by still bills kingdom on Nov 11, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

great post

i agree 100%

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No Doubt Holliday will help Cust

I just hope he somehow cuts his strikouts down to 150. Is that too much to hope for?

He has a great OBP and of course everyone loves the long ball. And like I said, Holliday will help him as will Furcal and anyone else of value we can get.

I also wish he could learn to hit breaking stuff a little better but that is asking a little too much

by Trainman on Nov 11, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't mind his inability to hit curveballs, because

a. he knows he can’t do it and so he doesn’t try to except with 2 strikes, and

he has a great eye for the strike zone, and so even with 2 strikes he lays off most of the curveballs that aren’t at least borderline strikes.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gah

STOP PUTTING IN THESE AUTOFORMATTING GIMMICKS!

Jeez.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

May I suggest the "preview" feature?

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

by iglew on Nov 11, 2008 2:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ah, that's just another gimmick

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Reminder: the internet is not like a big truck.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

,which quite frankly is its' biggest weakness...

"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 11, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

its'

that’s a new variation on the irresistable temptation to add an apostrophe to “its” (which, along with "ours, theirs, " etc. does not need one).

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 2:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But you CAN use an apostrophy in "it's"

It’s when the intended meaning of the word is the contraction of “it is” or “it has”

But as a possessive, it’s “its”

:D

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

And as a lot of desserts, it's Its-Its

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

by Nick on Nov 11, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Alpo flavor

Kibbles-n-bits-its-its

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

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 11, 2008 4:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I personally prefer a little creative license with punctuation...

and I don’t see the internet as one entity. I see it like a lot of entities that make up a sum greater than their parts, like an anthill or the 2006 A’s.

Therefore, I stand by my apostrophe.

I also say that I support Chuck Wagon over Kibbles’N’Bits because the damn miniature chuck wagon could pass through cabinet doors, which is freakin’ awesome!

"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 13, 2008 10:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The difference isn't nearly as large as you seem to think.

Cust’s 2007 was better than Holliday’s 2007. Holliday was better in 2008. Holliday is certainly the overall better player because of the defense differences, but he’s not really much of a better hitter. Maybe a bit. Like, a very teeny tiny bit.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cust had a better year than Holliday?

Holliday scored 30 and drove in 11 more runs than Cust in 11 less games. Please explain to me how he had a better year.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait did you just say 2007?

The 2007 where Holliday was runner up MVP?

Typo?

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

RBIs and runs scored are dependant

on the rest of the team.

Holliday was better, but not because of RBI.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

As I posted in the other thread, Randy Winn scored more runs than Cust

with a lower OBP and on what’s not even close to being considered on offensive power house Giant team.

All Cust defenders have is HR and OBP totals. Problem in he doesn’t score or drive in runs at a clip to make his OBP matter or his Ks not matter. The game is about scoring and driving in runs. Cust doesn’t do either all that well.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Who's saying I want Randy Winn

It’s more I don’t want Jack Cust …. like the other 4 teams before the A’s

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which were

the Orioles, the Rockies, the Padres and the DBacks.

Yup, a bunch of very smart teams there.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And the A's?

How many times have the A’s made the playoffs under Beane, compared to the Rockies? Or the DBacks? Or the Padres?

And you still haven’t answered my question about why the Twins, a team that emphasises, moving the runner over, making contact, putting the ball in play, also “underperform” in the playoffs.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not making the case Beane is an idiot

I’m simply saying he over values OBP… as do most of you here. It sounds like you’re saying he’s perfect. You called those other teams dumb and I just pointed out they have made the playoffs. And I wouldn’t start calling up the Twins … we all have some painful memories there.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:50 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

How exactly can you overvalue NOT MAKING AN OUT

I mean, man, Cust would just be fucking AWESOME if he would only strike out 120 times and have 80 more popups to the second baseman, right?

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

80 pop ups no

But 10-12 ground outs or fly ball with a runner on 3rd coupled with an avg that’s about 20 points higher would equal 100+ RBI. There’s a reason Cust has never driven in a 100 and most likely never will … at least as long as he’s a 230 hitter striking out 190+ times.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Congratulations, you have won!

I now present you with a lifetime contract for RBI Machine!

Congratulations!

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I thought that contract belonged to Emil Brown

"I believe in spiritual rebirth, and I can't wait to experience that." --Barry Zito

by GreenNGoldGirl on Nov 11, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hitting doesn't work that way

Over large enough samples, guys maintain their batted-ball-type profiles, no matter the situation. Only hyperdisciplined freaks like Ichiro have that degree of precision over what the ball does off their bat.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

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

no matter the situation

I disagree with the premise “no matter the situation”. I think herein lies an area of “batting” study that requires more assessment.

If it were true “no matter the situation” then batting would be like bowling. But things like success dependent upon your slot in the batting order, hitting with two strikes, hitting with runners onbase…they vary widely for any particular player. So, “no matter the situation” doesn’t work IMO.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The reason why Cust has never driven in 100 runs

is that in 2007 he played with a bad offense, and in 2008 he played with a just fucking terrible offense.

Playing in an extreme pitcher’s park doesn’t help either.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cust has only played 1 full season in MLB

That’s why he doesn’t have a 100 RBI season yet. He was on pace for 100+ RBI season in ’07 but only played a partial season.

by methodrampage on Nov 11, 2008 3:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I confused

He only had 12 AB with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs, and he drove in 10 runs. That’s 10 RBI in 12 AB. I will take it. Assuming he got a hit 100% of the time (which is insane), and also assuming each extra hit was a two-run single (I’ll assume second and third to be even MORE generous), that would still only give him 97 RBI on the season.

The guy makes less outs than anyone else on the team. I’d much rather have EITHER a walk or a strikeout with a man on first than a double-play ball like most of our team seems to be pretty adept at. Wouldn’t you?

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not disputing the general argument

I agree with the basic idea that Cust is a good hitter.

But the way you guys are trotting out the “10 RBI in 12 AB” stat is highly misleading. Those 12 AB are not all of his plate appearances with man on 3rd and less than 2 outs; they exclude both the sacrifices and the walks.

According to Baseball Reference, Cust has 25 plate appearances with a man on 3rd and less than two outs. The 10 RBI come from all of those PA’s, not just the 12 AB’s.

Of the 25 PA’s, Baseball Reference lists: 2 singles, 10 walks (1 intentional), 7 strikeouts, 4 sac flies, and 1 GIDP.

(Why that doesn’t add up to 25 and 12, I’m not sure. Maybe there was something weird like an interference call, or maybe I’m not understanding the numbers completely. But it still shows the general picture.)

Of the 12 AB you cite, 7 ended in SO. Of the 10 RBI you cite, 4 are sac flies. I doubt the other six all came from 2 hits (though it’s possible). Some may have come from bases-loaded walks, of which Cust had 3 for the year, but BR doesn’t specify which of those were with less than 2 outs.

It’s not a bad performance over all, but I don’t think it supports your case nearly as much as the way you present the stat implies. He really does walk and strike out a lot even in this situation.

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

by iglew on Nov 11, 2008 5:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

*sigh*

Where the hell do you get that I’m saying that he’s perfect. The Rockies have made the playoffs how many times in recent years? And suddenly, you want to emulate their approach? The Orioles? The DBacks were broke, bankrupt after their WS victory, to the point that the other owners had to bail them out financially.

Why shouldn’t I bring up the Twins? They have also underperformed in the playoffs.

How about you try to explain why their approach, making contact, putting the ball in play, moving runners over, making productive outs, has been no more successful than that of the A’s, instead of engaging in lazy snark?

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You're trying to make this an all or nothing argument

But I’m not going there. I never said the Twins Rockies or anyone else were perfect. It’s your side that thinks the other teams are dumb.. the reality is the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I’m not the one over valuing one statistic and ignoring others as it suits me. OBP is an important stat … but only as part of a bigger picture. I will say this one last time …. Cust is not a good RBI man because he takes too many called thirds and hits for a low average.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

who is a better hitter ON THE A's

than Jack Cust?

(before yesterday’s trade)

witty remark

by dtownmbrown on Nov 11, 2008 2:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it's not just one a's hitter who is better than cust

since this dude wants to “hide” cust at 7 or 8 in the lineup.

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 2:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

{seeks partner to play "hide the Cust"}

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just make sure you don't get Cust out

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"My" side?

Which is what? I’m a Materialist. Present your evidence that the style you advocate wins baseball games, and I’ll happily change “sides”.

You said in a previous post that the A’s have underperformed in the playoffs due to their offensive approach. So, why is it that a team with the offensive approach that you advocate, also underperforms in the playoffs?

Who here is claiming that OBP is the one and only stat to pay attention to?

OK, answer this question: you stated up top:

t’s more I don’t want Jack Cust …. like the other 4 teams before the A’s

Do you still believe this?

Also, just so you know, Randy Winn is a pretty good player. Just as there’s more to baseball than OBP, there’s also more to baseball than RBI.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 3:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

True, Randy Winn is underrated

He was pretty clearly the best position player on the Giants last season.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cust's K's

I’m curious are more of them due to taking strike 3 or swinging and missing?

by methodrampage on Nov 11, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the rest of the hitters in the lineup perform poorly when Cust is on base because he’s a poor baserunner, and they know it’ll take a double to score him from third, so they give up and only try to hit well when Rajai is on base

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

stop trolling and

show us an actual statistic, or even a scouting report since you must think numbers don’t mean anything, that shows that cust is a “poor baserunner”, or a bad candidate for the 2 hole, or a bad candidate for the 4 hole, like you’ve said in previous threads.

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 11:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The game is about scoring and driving in runs yes.

FOR TEAMS.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

33 home runs with 77 RBI

When you hit for as low an average and strike out as much as Cust you’re not going to drive in many runs. He’s not the type of guy that is going to turn a high OBP into 100 runs scored. He just doesn’t run well enough. He’s a hitter than should be judged on RBI and he comes up short there too.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If guys aren't on base in front of him, he can't drive them in.

If guys behind him aren’t hitting, he can’t score.

What about those two aspects of baseball can’t you understand?

The one thing Cust (or any other hitter) has the sort of total control over that you attribute to runs and RBI is HRs. And Cust is near-elite at that particular skill.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey, you know who else struck out 200 times?

Ryan Howard (105 runs scored, 146 RBI)
Mark Reynolds (97 runs scored, 87 RBI)
Adam Dunn (79 Runs scored, 100 RBI)
Dan Uggla (97 Runs scored, 92 RBI)

But yeah, we’re embarrasing ourselves.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 11:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Howard hit 48 home runs and 20 points higher too

See that’s just it, you guys act like Cust is tops in the league in HRs and ignore that fact he has a low avg. If you have that many strike outs you better be hitting 40+ jacks and at least hitting 250.

For the record I wouldn’t want Dunn my team either.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it is very hard to reason with you

perhaps I could supply you with some reading, as it seems you are bias against people the comment in AN.

here is a short, easy-to-follow article on why strikeouts are not nearly as evil as you say they are:
http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html

let’s start there

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've played or coached for close to 35 years now

and while I in no way would make the case I know more about the game that a lot of MLB baseball people, I feel comfortable saying I know more than most of you on here. I still understand the game is played on the field and not on a spreadsheet. Numbers are great but it’s using those numbers along with what you see that makes for a good manager.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You are ever so endearing as well

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 12:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

F'n whippersnappers man.

Whippersnappers and lollygaggers…

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Strange

You are not usually one to so stubbornly pursue fruitless debates with irrational adversaries.

Did you recently develop a taste for low-hanging but intensely frustrating fruit?

by 74mk on Nov 11, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fuck off you under-evolved primate

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 1:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Precisely

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A pitch like that

You’d have been disappointed if I didn’t swing.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd be happy with a productive out.

Stop keeping the bat on your goddamn shoulder.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 2:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

aw, nuts

You beat me to that joke.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There was this big thing like 200 years ago

It was the scientific revolution. It basically established that numbers and data should inform the way we view the world. So far, it’s done pretty well, bringing us things like the Theory of Gravity, flying machines, antibiotics, and now the internet. It works for baseball, too.

Humans are terrible at detecting patterns. If you’ve ever seen a shape in a cloud that looks like a bird or an animal you’ve experienced our bias for seeing things that aren’t there. We form hypotheses or ideas about how things work, then examine the data to see how that idea stacks up. That’s how we ought to asses our ideas. Experience informs our way of thinking, and we should give due respect to your 35 years coaching the game, but remember that people spend thousands of years believing that certain dances or rituals affected local weather patterns.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:15 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

asses indeed
That’s how we ought to asses our ideas.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ATM

analogy of the month

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

oops, that's AOTM

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think I would like to borrow a term from Stephen King...

… and bring all Cust haters and naysayers of sabermetrics in general under the singular banner “The Flat Earth Society,” or “Flat-Earthers” for short.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Humans are great at detecting patterns

if those patterns are related to obtaining food. They may be “terrible” (your judgement not mine) at detecting abstract patterns, but not patterns that have an aural or visual basis. Not too bad at smells either (but not like dogs…600x better than us!)

We all have “confirmation bias” in that we look for patterns and examples that CONFIRM our current beliefs (e.g. we all wore black, it rained, so wearing black brings rain) rather than objectively noting events, and synthesizing a theory that explains our observations.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It’s more than conformation bias, which only really applies after we’ve taken a position (although I think conformation bias and cognitive dissonance play a large role here).

Our brain is a pattern finding machine. We see patterns in everything, even if it is mostly random. This leads to recognizing true patterns but also leaves us wide open to massive type-1 errors. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance then make it nearly impossible for us to recognize when we’re wrong. That’s why people used to cut open animals to tell the future – we are hopelessly terrible at filtering out what really is cause-effect and when our brain has just gone haywire.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 3:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

gravity

Was 300 years ago

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

also

brought us the nuclear bomb.

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and Enron!

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And do you know more about baseball

than Billy Beane? He’s played in MLB. Have you?

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hah

I dont think Bill James has played in MLB.

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i thought we could start with

strikeouts not being as bad as you think, and then we could work to other topics such as why RBI’s are not a good indicator at all of how productive a hitter is.

no?

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He has a point about strikeouts

But not as big as he thinks. The run value of a K is about -0.2 runs. Cust struck out 197 times last year, and that should count against him to the tune of about 4 runs. Where sactown makes his mistake is in overestimating the magnitude of the negative value of a strikeout.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm talking batting avg too

less balls in play means less hits and less runs

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Again you are correct in your basic assumption that it is better to put the ball in play. Here’s a relevant quote:

According to Dave Studenmund’s Batted Balls Redux article in The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2007, strikeouts had a run impact of -0.113, infield flies -0.088, groundballs 0.045, outfield flies 0.192, and line drives 0.391 per incident last year.

Again, it’s not the basics that you’re missing, it’s that you’re attempting to put a precise value on an event far too complicated for our brains to handle based on observation.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:38 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

That's a pretty big difference.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Nov 11, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But maybe

I’m not counting the intangibles. Is the 0.2 clutch?

by Sliderule on Nov 11, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

correcting my math:

You may have noticed the decimal point slip above. Sorry.

Cust should be penalized about 4 runs for his strikeoutness, but the penalty for a K should be about 0.02 runs.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

4 runs more than a guy who was exactly the same

But NEVER struck out. Not once.

That’s the thing. Holliday strikes out roughly half as much, so that’s 2 runs.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's 0.02 runs

so, yes, Cust is about 4 runs worse than a player who never strikes out at all and somehow posts the same numbers.

In practice, unless your name is Pujols, you are going to strike out 80 times in a year in which you hit 30 home runs. It’s simply a fact of baseball. So the max differential between Cust and that group is more like 2 runs.

Side note: Can I just say again how bloody incredible Albert Pujols is?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wasn't Joe DiMaggio even better

in the strikeouts-per-season department??

Often (but not often these days) I sometimes look down Sansome St from Market, and imagine Joe and his brothers throwing a newspaper(??) from one block to the next, to the oooohing and awwwing the office workers walking on the street. That spot on Sansome is where they did that about 75 years ago.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Where is that spot?

I work on Sansome, at Clay and I will be walking down Sansome in about a 1/2 hour to the BART train home to Fremont.

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 3:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

at Bush and Sansome

throwing toward…Sacramento, but certainly not all that way! They worked as news-boys.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 8:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just down the hill from where Robert Louis Stevenson lived and wrote ...

… and where Miles Archer was shot.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 8:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and where Black Bart was apprehended

as he walked from his hotel at 177 Second St, near Market. I think it was on Bush between Montgomery and Sansome, though…

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 13, 2008 10:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm no math major

but 197*(-0.2)=-39.4

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Nov 11, 2008 5:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just like the genius that thought up the save

The game or value of players hasn’t changed. Just the methods.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You are hilarious

The concept of run values has been in print since the 1960s. Acting like this is some new fangled idea is Abraham Simpson-esque.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, linear weights were first developed in the late 1910s

by a cranky statistician named F.C. Lane.

His numbers were a little off but shockingly close to what we have today, once you adjust for the run scoring environment of the dead ball era.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I invented the terlet...

… Watcha laughin’ at, fatty? Too much pie, that’s your problem.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 2:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey Joe

I heard that you and John Miller won’t be doing Sunday night baseball…whats up with that? You guys made such a good team…

by GusanoQuemador on Nov 11, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You make it so easy

In 2000, Preston Wilson struck out 187 times, had a .264 BA, and 121 RBIs with 31 HRs.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not looking it up again, but I think Cust had an EQA that was 5 points higher.

So, yes, he had a better offensive season. Holliday is the better overall player, but the differences in offense are minimal at best.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I'm curious too.

Both by rate stats, OPS+ and EQA, and counting stats, whether traditional or sabermetric, Holliday was better.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Whether you adjust for season or all-time

Jack Cust’s EQA was 5 points better than Matt Holliday’s EQA in 2007.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 1:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Huh?

From their 2007 EQA page, Holliday, 318, Cust 313.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 3:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We better have more than one, if this deal is to be a good one.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

p.s. hope you understand i was being ironical

and i find it hilarious where this mini-thread went, and that I got somebody to imply that Randy Winn is better than JC.
wow.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 11:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Point was Randy Winn was on a team with bad offense but scored more runs with a lower OBP

Of course he’s a different type of player but that’s my problem with Cust…. what’s his job? As a 3-4-5 hitter he should be expected to drive in runs. You people can quote all the numbers you want but this still comes down to a player that takes too many close pitches with two strikes and runners is scoring position. If you can drive a boarderline pitch then you’re just not a good run producer. OBP doesn’t cover up bad situational hitting.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I have a rather large sample size with Cust

30-40 games in person and around a 100 on TV is a good sample size (and I’m not even counting the games I saw him play in Sacramento a few years back) He takes too many pitches with two strikes and runners in scoring position. We spend a lot of time teaching our young players about situational hitting and knowing what your job is … it’s just disgusting to see that lack of understanding on a major league level.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which is why we've placed 30+ kids in major college programs thus far

But again, you are putting words in my mouth … who said anything about swinging at bad pitches? If you have you’re RBI producers leaving runners on base at the whim of an umpire you’re not a very good coach. In what universe is teaching players to protect turning them into bad hitters?

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

Protect != hit a 80 hopper to second base to "move a runner over"

There’s a difference between fouling off a close pitch and rolling over to make an out on purpose “to move a guy over”

It’s stupid and it teaches kids to swing at bad pitches.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 2:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you just said it yourself

“There’s a difference between fouling off a close pitch and rolling over to make an out on purpose”

who said I’m teaching my run producers to roll over on a bad pitch? It’s called foul off the pitchers pitch and hit yours.

But if all you can do is roll over on a close pitch you’re not much of a hitter … see Jack Cust for an example of that

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Where's the pitch? What type of hitter are you?

Where’s the zone been for that game? Is the umpire constant? No snark but you really talk like someone that hasn’t played.. or at least not at a very high level

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No snark?

Yes, that ad hom attack was purely for the edification of the viewing populace.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 2:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sorry if it's the truth

He’s talking in absolutes when every pitch of a game is a total separate entity. Anyone that has played or coached the game on a serious level knows this. I truthful am not trying to get personal but you guys are in here going rah rah on some real ignorant statements.

by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 2:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is an interesting article on the subject:
While it is often said that being able to foul off pitcher’s pitches in order to extend an at bat is a skill a la Richie Ashburn or Ichiro Suzuki (who was in the middle of the pack at .643), over the long run it doesn’t appear that fouling off more pitches than average makes a player any more successful. The top 20% had an OPS of 767 while the bottom 20% were at 753 with the correlation even lower than that for swinging and missing.


And Here’s the Pitch

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But can't a player who extends his at-bat by fouling off pitches essentially make the pitcher leave earlier?

That wouldn’t make the individual batter’s stats better, but whoever got the pitcher near the end of his appearance might have an easier time. Or the pitcher gets pulled and the bullpen has to pitch more.

The good/bad probably depends on how strong the bullpen is.

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 2:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So instead of trying to see how a batter is better with a higher PPA...

could we see a correlation for how pitchers are worse with a higher opponent PPA?

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Pitchers are definitely worse when they have higher pitch counts

and relievers are worse than the starters they replace, so, yes, higher PPA causes you to score more runs. Not a lot more, but more.

The thing is, the guys with great PPA are invariably disciplined hitters like Swisher, not slappy foul-ball mavens like Ichiro.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

*shakes head*

Because the only stats that matter are OBP and OPS right?

let your players know what there role is and teach them to excel in that role

success for one player could be failure for another

but there’s not much left to say here ….. you feel stats tell the whole story and I disagree

more power to you

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

huh?

more bases + less outs = mondo runs dude.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Excellent

I think you guys are right on the brink of bringing sactownbull around.

Please keep at it. Stay persistent. He’s going to see the light any second now. Really. I feel it coming, sort of like the way my old basset hound used to sense earthquakes.

A few more facts, a bit more logic, a touch more persuasion … you’re almost there. He may have glided blithely past every single argument you’ve made thus far in favor of the snuggly comforts of personal experience myopia, but that doesn’t mean the next brave foray won’t be the one that catalyzes The Big Epiphany.

by 74mk on Nov 11, 2008 3:05 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

lol

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 3:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Morgan?

I think you’re forgetting about the time Scutaro had a “higher probability of a hit” since he was 3 for his last 46.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We're not trying to convince him

We’re trying to pillory him to convince others.

Sort of like how the purpose of prisons isn’t really “correctional.” It has a lot more to do with retribution and deterrence…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I believe this part: “We’re not trying to convince him”

This part makes me roll my eyes: “We’re trying to pillory him to convince others.”

I’ll go with this instead: “Vehement, arrogant ignorance is incredibly frustrating to behold. Arguing is a reasonably effective coping mechanism.”

by 74mk on Nov 11, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

true

but some of us are just in it for the LOLs.

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 7:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

deterrence Long?

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

{registers EpiphaniesinOakland.com}

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Only EiO site worth a damn anymore

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 3:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Unless that is their role

If it is, then it may be success even if it is failure for others…

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

by 5Aces on Nov 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

stats may not tell the *whole* story

but they tell a lot more than your “i’m a coach” story.

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

"protecting" the strike zone necessitates swinging at pitches that you have a low likelihood of hitting squarely

Even though a pitch is borderline, or even a full-blown strike, doesn’t mean it’s hittable. If a pitch isn’t hittable (or is only barely hittable), swinging at it is a bad decision.

(Tangential case in point: the Melhuse and T-Long Ks looking against Lowe — those were great pitches that, even had Adam or Terrence swung at them, they would have, at best, made lousy contact on.)

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

God, those pitches are from my nightmares...

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 2:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think anyone here believes that.

The differences in umpires and zones has been observed and documented, and of course is still worked on.

But, to me at least, it seems reasonable that because all hitters have to work with the same pool of umpires, those differences are minimal over the course of a large sample. An attempt to understand signal to noise in stats, as well as regression, is key to baseball analysis.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

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

Exactly

The hitter’s margin for error on the flight path of the ball is far greater than an individual umpire’s variant strike zone. If you know the pitch is somewhere between 2 inches over the plate and 4 inches off the plate, who the hell cares if the umpire’s zone is an inch wider than usual?

I suppose in theory you could develop some kind of differential swing frequency based on the individual zone of the umpire and the probability that any given pitch will be a strike, but that would take months to figure out and the hitter has fractions of a second.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good point

Very tough to be watching a pitch, coming in on a horizontal-axis, and “freezing” the relative position of the plate (vertical-axis observation). The ump’s eyes can go “up down up down” with far more ease than a batter’s eyes can perform that task. Guys like Vlad simply ignore where the strike zone is… their question is, “Can I get the good part of the bat on it, with high bat speed”.

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

what does the ump have to do with it?

That’s the thing about a Custean approach—it ignores the ump entirely. If a borderline pitch is called a ball, gravy; if it’s called a strike, oh well. And, in any event, we’re talking about (Eric Gregg excepted) borderline pitches—which are usually (but not always, depending on the hitter) no good for solid contact anyway. This debate on the pro-Cust side isn’t about the strike zone, but about the contact zones. It’s about defining and refining the areas over which a batter actually exerts control, and learning to let go of the areas over which he can exert only marginal control at best.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

geez man, I'm already scarred for life

Did you have to bring that up?

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am utterly sanguine about those 2 ABs; always have been

I liked PHing for Dye, and I never had any problem with those guys taking those pitches. Those were the smart percentage moves; Lowe just executed extremely well. I like smart and well-played baseball.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I like it when the A's win

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 3:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I mean the way that series ended was sad

I was at the walk off bunt game, so going from there to that low.

I had to work that night (game 5) and I was on the bay bridge listening on the radio. The am coverage died for a second right as Long K’d. It was like driving into this grey cloud of sadness. Terrible.

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I rode home from the Coliseum and almost puked I felt so bad.

But that might have been the rally big dog, rally nachos and most of two 32 oz bottles of water.

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You liked PHing for Dye

while Grady Little was signaling an intentional walk ?

by green star oakland on Nov 11, 2008 3:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So you take the pitch and pray it isn't called a strike?!

At least give yourself a chance and swing at a close pitch … standing there isn’t going to accomplish anything. Well, actually it accomplishes a lot … a lot of losing.
Are you suggesting Melhuse and Long made a good decision by not swinging?

I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.

by Vacafan on Nov 12, 2008 3:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Are you serious?

You don’t see how not swinging gives you “a chance”?

It’s never 100% certain that ANY pitch will be called a strike, and if it’s borderline the chances of being rung up on it may be well below 50%.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 4:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

a qualified "yes" to each query

You take the pitch not because you think/hope/pray that it will be called a ball, but because you can’t hit it effectively. You learn to not care what the ump calls it.

Actually, strike “qualified” on the response to the second question. Simple “yes” will suffice. Swinging at those two called strike threes wouldn’t have done Melhuse or T (or the team) any good. You have to, as the saying goes, tip your cap (or thrust your groin) to Lowe. He nailed both of those pitches, and there wasn’t anything the hitters could do about it.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 12, 2008 7:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think you misunderstand

Here’s the point: if you instruct your hitter to “hit situationally”, you’re asking your player to, for example, look to hit the pitch to the right side to move a runner from second to third. If the pitcher throws nothing but inside pitches, and your hitter is only looking to hit the ball to the right side, you’re going to get an ugly out. If your hitter is just looking to make solid contact, the chances he gets a hit are a lot higher than if he just looks to hit to the right side. Every hitter should be going to the plate looking to get on base except maybe a player bunting, but even then you have to make sure you bunt it far enough away from the fielders so your runner doesn’t get forced, and honestly, you’d rather not get any outs than the one out anyway. If you instruct your hitter to hit the ball in a specific direction, you’re depriving him of hitting opportunity.

With respect to your comments regarding sending players to major college programs…my friend coached the freshmen at Del Oro (Rocklin area) High School a couple years ago. One of the kids had a brother that was in the minor leagues. This kid apparently was taught his pitching motion by his brother, and it was an exact copy. The kid’s pitching motion was GROSSLY inefficient; he almost leaned forward while winding up, killing his velocity. I told my friend that the kid could seriously throw far harder if this was fixed, and his answer was that the kid’s brother had taught him the motion. That means the kid’s brother was WRONG, and likely won’t make it anywhere in the big leagues. The fact that kids from your school have made it to major college programs has almost zero correlation to your abilities and knowledge as a coach; it has to do with the PLAYERS’ abilities. Sorry man.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

my coach

told me teammates wouldn’t get recruited if I didn’t cut my hair.

by Future Ed on Nov 12, 2008 12:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We've gone over this before. I know it's hard for some people to understand.

Especially people who “played the game” and “still teach after 40 years” or whatever the hell you have to say to prove that you’re awesome at baseball. All it really proves is that you’re hard headed and refuse to accept something different that may go against the stupid concept of “traditional baseball” that you have in your head.

(disclamer: I’m turning 30 next June. I’ve played baseball since I was 6. Who gives a shit?)

That said: WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU TRY AND TEACH A KID TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN GET A HIT?

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dude, you just blew my mind

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 2:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Balks, dude. You send your hitters to the plate looking to force the pitcher to balk.

Or you have them try to get the catcher to airmail the return throw to the pitcher so Jason Kendall can score the winning run.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So, they should swing to intentionally miss the ball?

Swing to cause catcher’s interference?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

a walk? but that would just clog the bases!

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How do teach someone to swing the bat to get a walk?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

in defense of sactownbull

I also think AN gets too snarky with a dogmatic worship of On Base Percentage. I agree that there are many productive outs:
grounders to the right side when a runner is on 2b or 3b
fly outs to the outfield or deep foul territory that allow runners to advance
advancement due to balls put in play which result in errors on the other team.
Fouls also include the likelihood that later in the at bat the pitcher will make a mistake or give in.

I thought the Phillie D-ray series was fascinating in terms of watching the Phillies eke out runs. They won two of the first three games by one run.
I think the old high OBP/OPS theory was a product of the steroid era and needs rethinking.

They're called RUNS for a reason.

by connie mack on Nov 11, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There's plenty of room in the stocks for another person

Your arguments are not refinements on anything he’s said, just repetition.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It has nothing to do with a "dogmatic worship of OBP"

The idea that a hitter should swing at a BAD pitch, just for the sake of making a “productive out” is downright insane.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 3:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah, this really isn't a "Moneyball" vs "old-school" argument

It’s two different approaches to fundamentals.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OBP and OPS have flaws obviously,

The obvious flaw in overrelying on something like OBP / OPS, isn’t steroids. It is that they are only offensive stats. So, a guy with a >900 OPS who is very very bad defensively in an OF corner, ie Carlos Lee, is actually not better than someone with a <800 OPS who plays very good D at SS, ie Yunel Escobar.

Another flaws is lack of adjustment for park.

Another flaw is that OBP / OPS doesn’t take into account baserunning.

But, it’s not meant to do all that. OBP / OPS are meant as simple rough stats that are easy to understand and can be calculated easily at the ballpark.

If you want more accurate stats, there are the linear weights based stats, such as EQA, Batting Runs, BaseRuns etc, which assign run values to individual events, ie singles, doubles, SBs, CS, etc. These run values are based on what real world actual living players did in MLB games. Some of them, such as EQA, work for the whole history of baseball. So steroids aren’t an issue. Others, such as BaseRuns, are “tweaked” to be more accurate for the modern game, but less accurate otherwise.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 1:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, there is.

A WALK!

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gammons has some bad moments

But Beane seems to like talking to the man.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, this, from Gammons
Anderson, Cahill and others will be pitching in Oakland come July,

doesn’t sound like Gammons has been talking to Beane.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 9:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, Cahill is a stretch

But Gio, Mazzaro and maybe even Anderson could be in Oakland by July.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I know Anderson is considered polished,

but you really see him in the majors by July?

My main quibble with that sentence from Gammons is Anderson and Cahill being up by July. The others I can see.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 10:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Let me put it this way

I’ll be disappointed if Anderson isn’t bucking for a spot in Oakland’s rotation come July.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 10:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's pretty silly.

Even with Smith gone, there are more than 5 pitchers ahead of Anderson on the depth chart. If all of those guys are pitching well, Anderson won’t be around. You should be hoping the A’s don’t need to call him up in July.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Silly?

It’s silly that I think Anderson is about to blossom into maybe the best LHSP prospect in baseball? If i’m being silly you’re way too serious.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gallagher is the only pitcher who will be long term for the A's who is currently on the team

I see Mazzaro, Cahill and Anderson and the Gallagher will make up the big 4. Then you have a battle for 5th starter with Eveland and Simmons as the two most possible.
What Beane is doing is starting to build a hitting team to go with this pitchers. Not sure yet if he plans on keeping Holliday long term but that would be sweet.

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

by Eastbayjim on Nov 11, 2008 1:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Damn, I forgot Gio (the other Gonzalez)

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

by Eastbayjim on Nov 11, 2008 1:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the only Gonzalez now

by rightbackin on Nov 11, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cahill had a ZiPS of 4.54 or something like that 4th best on the

team now without Smith among starters.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't say it was the definitive authority, but rather that

there’s evidence that Cahill might be ready this year. Do you have any evidence that another system is better for players with minimal big league time?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No system is good at projecting players with minimal big league time

However, ZiPS was pretty clearly the worst of the major projection systems (PECOTA, Chone, THT, Marcel) last season.

At the very least, you need to wait around for the rest of the projections to come out.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 4:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No. I'd rather post now.

I’ll bore you all with PECOTA after it comes out too.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 4:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and cahill and anderson are the only ones named

“and others” could be anyone, and there’s a 100% the a’s will have called up some minor league pitchers by july.
just not cahill or anderson.

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

just read the article
Gio Gonzalez, James Simmons, Vin Mazzaro

all more likely to be pitching for the a’s this year than anderson or cahill.

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 12:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

good lord I hope

Because Cahill and Anderson have the chance to be really really special. I want them to come up when they’re ready to be good, not to start their clock when they’re still learning their way. Put it this way, I don’t think they’re going to be better options in 2009 at the major league level than other guys whose clock it is less imperative to be keeping a very close eye on.

by jdr on Nov 11, 2008 2:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This crap about not putting your best players on the field in order to delay

service clocks is getting somewhat annoying.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sure Brewers fans would have preferred Ryan Braun on the field in 2007

And Longoria missed what — a week?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not the one who made a massively overstated claim, you are

Either service clocks are worth worrying about, or they aren’t.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 4:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In general anything other than a meritocracy is bad management practice

You know, Paul is our best lawyer and he’d get our client the best outcome, but he’s only in his 3rd year and we don’t want him pushing for partner too soon. Let’s put Bob on the case. That way we get to string Paul along an extra year before we have to make him partner.

A company that thinks this way isn’t one I want to be associated with, as a customer, employee, investor or even drinking buddy.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 4:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The A's clients are the fans

As a fan and client, I want the A’s to win. I want them to convert what resources they have most effectively into won ballgames. Most investors want companies to maximize profits, which in general would involve meritocracy, but sometimes not. Say, if the industry had some strange rules such that they only controlled employees for a set amount of time. In those conditions, it may be wise to keep promising employees in apprenticeship. I would divest from a company that ignored such things in favor of vague ethical notions.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Nov 11, 2008 5:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A company that doesn't think pleasing its customers

is Job 1 isn’t going to be competitive long run. Not emphasizing merit in favor of taking advantage of systemic imperfections leads to a sick culture and screws you in the long run. Ask investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac what they think of the government favoritism that those companies enjoyed. Were they saved by those? Or did those warp the thought process of top management?

The most irritating thing to me about MLB is its anti-competitive practices wherein owners are out to maintain monopolies, get tax breaks and subsidized venues, and limit player salaries all as higher priorities than expanding the customer base. This is not healthy for the business.

As an owner in an individual team, I’d much rather see my organization not worry about trying to game the system and just do the best it can every day — on the field, and in the marketing department. Taking advantage of system imperfections should come third.

That’s how George Steinbrenner increased the value of the Yankees from $10 million to whatever billions it’s worth now, while short-sighted guys like Schott and Pohlad and Loria are happy with their mere tens of millions generated from freebies. I’d rather be an investor with George than with Jeffrey or Carl or Bud or Steve.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

pleasing this customer=winning games

Ignoring beneficial strategies that other teams take advantage of because it violates “meritocracy” would make this fan very angry.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Nov 11, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

I want the A’s to win baseball games, and rushing their best prospects is an exceptionally good way to NOT do that.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So that is a meritocracy. Keeping their best

prospects in the minors when putting them in the majors would win more games is not.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It won't win more games, dude

Vince Mazzaro in 2009 and Trevor Cahill in 2015 win more games than Trevor Cahill in 2009 and a Kirk Saarloos clone in 2015.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

2016*

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Or instilling a culture of winning

leads to a culture of winning games on the field and at the box office enabling you to increase your customer base and therefore paying market rates for Trevor Cahill in 2015.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We'll probably see both Mazzaro and

Cahill in 2009 BTW. I see a 10 man rotation.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sweet Jesus Christ, I hope not

If that happens, the A’s just gave away Carlos Gonzalez for doodly squat.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 7:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 7:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Most fans are pleased by winning games

Yes, there are exceptions, such as when Barry Lamar Bonds is involved.

The disagreement IMO, is:
Winning games, when? Should a team try to “time” it so that it can build that magical “team that can do something special” in the future? Even if it involves conceding games in the present? Even if it might involve wasting a good chance to get in the playoffs in the present?

Or should it just try to play the best players?

Longoria has been mentioned as an example of the benefits that screwing around with a player’s service time clock can bring a team.

WaddellCanseco mentioned Braun as a counterexample, though to be fair to the Brewers, Braun’s D sucked.

For another counterexample, see Liriano. The Twins finished behind the WS by one game. Was it wise for them to screw around with Liriano’s clock and keep him in the minors?

Twins fans, and even non fans who live in the area, have been taxed to build a nice new stadium for Pohlad. Why should a Twins fan, having given money to Pohlad, accept the team costing itself a playoff spot, just because the owner is a cheapskate?

Note that I’m not talking about prospects who clearly aren’t ready, such as probably, Cahill and Anderson.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 7:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My point is just that it's a factor to be considered

If a team is in contention or likely to be in contention, it should be given relatively little weight, and if the team is not in contention it should be given greater weight. Also, it’s somewhat frequently the case that the prospect is far from obviously better than whatever mediocrity he would be replacing.

Also, the way I look at it, it has less to do with money than with keeping good players on the team longer, or more through their peak. Only the Yankees and maybe a few other teams are in position to ignore that and expect to re-sign anyone they want to re-sign.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Nov 12, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right

I mean, it’s just a nonstarter to argue that players can always be re-signed, because a. they can’t be, if they don’t want to be, and b. financial realities exist. You can’t just wish them away.

I want to see good players on the A’s, and gratuitously giving away service time means that the team will have worse players. It’s really that simple.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 12:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, here's the thing then

Why should someone who’s taxes have built a nice new stadium for a team with a rich and cheapskate owner, the Twins and Pohlad, be sympathetic at all to their screwing around with Liriano’s service time, and finishing one game behind the WS?

By giving even relatively little weight, a contending team is possibly seriously compromising a playoff opportunity.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 11:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

actually, you're not an A's client

Someone like Clorox (presuming they buy a luxury box) or whatever silly company sponsors dot racing is a client. You’re a customer. And, for the most part, customers don’t matter to MLB clubs.

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which is really really wrong.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The first. I like the hyperbole.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

why bother with under-the-top hyperbole?

(Would that be hypobole?)

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That should be "under-the-bottom"

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

pooperbole

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We need a glossary for this stuff

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And I forgot revenue sharing.

Let’s minimize payroll because we make make more money in the short run with an empty stadium and whining.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 7:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not about vague ethical notions

It’s about whether you’re trying to maximise profits in the short term, or maximise profits in the long term.

Steinbrenner bought the Yankees as a $10M toy with money from the family shipbuilding fortune. He has turned that $10M toy into the family fortune, worth billions of dollars; a sports brand that is famous all over the world, that is associated with the US in the eyes of people all over the world, even non sports fans.

I don’t believe anyone would claim that Steinbrenner has been ethical and moral. At all. What he had, was a long term vision, seeing the Yankees a long term investment that he would give to his Little Steins.

Unlike most of the other owners whose profit maximising plan is to force the host city to build them a new stadium, whine and moan about being small market, whine and moan, tell lies about why a top prospect is in the minors, pocket money from revenue sharing, and then sell after a number of years.

Take the Padres. The local populace just built a nice new stadium for them. And now, the owner is slashing payroll dramatically, plans to slash it even more, and the Team President, Sandy Alderson is saying things such as “Fans are going to have to have some patience…” And the owner and team president have even refused to meet with a long time fan favourite player to discuss a new contract, even though he wants to stay, and will give the team a big discount.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 7:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't like any team gaming the rules to increase profits, or get a stadium or anything like that

Steinbrenner geared the operation towards winning. The narrow issue we’re discussing really doesn’t even have a lot to do with all these issues you’re bringing up.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Nov 12, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Again, what is "winning"?

Is what Mark Shapiro is doing in Cleveland “winning”? Many stathead fans would say yes.

The “winning” that Steinbrenner has tried to do, is not similar to the “winning” that Shapiro is trying to do. It’s not similar to the “winning” that many stathead fans often advocate when they in many cases, instinctively, and reflexively, advocate that a team tear the roster down and rebuild.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 11:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sure.

And of course, that’s the only thing they’ve done.

Lazy snark.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 11:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A better legal analogy would be assigning an associate to a task

which could be better, but more expensively, performed by a partner because you judge that using up the partner’s time is not worth it.

Anderson and Cahill are the partners. Simmons and Mazzaro are the associates.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In that analogy the partner bills at a higher rate. If the

rates are efficiently set by the firm, the partner should only do jobs that the client would want to pay the higher to have done. If the associate can do the job well enough for the client’s purposes, the associate should do the job. It’s better for the development of the associate as well.

Service clocks in baseball are analogous to partner clocks in law firms, whereby associates expect to make partner in seven years or so. Keeping a star associate off a high-profile case even though he/she is the best person for the job, for the sole purpose of not increasing his/her market value is similar to keeping a better player in the minors for the sole purpose of not starting his service clock. You lose more games but you save some money in year 7.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If the associate can do the job well enough for the client’s purposes, the associate should do the job. It’s better for the development of the associate as well.

I rest my case.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How is this anything like putting a worse lawyer

on a case even though you expect a worse outcome from the case, just to delay his/her Partner Clock?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Law firms do not have "partner clocks"

Associates are free to (and do) change jobs constantly. Firms regularly poach top talent from other firms.

If you hold an intelligent guy “in the minors” for too long, he’s going to quit and go elsewhere. Minor league baseball players cannot do this.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

They do in the sense that associates expect

to make partner in 7 years or so. If there’s a high profile case that you deliberately keep an associate off of to depress his/her market value, for the sole purpose of not having to make him/her partner early, you’re doing the equivalent of keeping a better player in the minors when he could be helping your team win in the majors.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The fact remains that associates have leverage

and baseball players do not have leverage. Maybe that’s not the way it should be, but it’s a collectively bargained system. The only way to change it is by changing the CBA. Expecting teams to damage their own competitiveness out of some meritocratic idealism is naive at best.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not idealism. Competitive thinking

is proven to increase enterprise value. The Fannie Mae and George Yankees vs CBS Yankees are examples. There’s oodles more. Oodles.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Another example is Arte Angels vs

Disney Angels. Henry Red Sox vs Yawkey Red Sox.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nintendo Mariners vs Smulyan Mariners

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

HSBC vs Bank of China

HDFC Bank vs State Bank of India
Toyota vs Renault

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i have trouble following your arguments sometimes waddell

i feel like a child who wanders into a movie

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 5:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Simple, OIB -- do your best for the customer

and you’ll have a successful company. Focus on other miscellaneous crap and you get warped thinking that leads to suboptimal outcomes.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Argument by analogy sucks

Henry’s Red Sox are not better because of this kind of “competitve thinking,” which they don’t engage in anyway (they almost invariably bring up prospects in the second half of the season), but because they know how to draft talented players and the previous administration couldn’t find a gold coin in Uncle Scrooge’s bank vault.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The point is their job one is increasing

customer base, not looking for tax breaks and revenue sharing. They care more about winning than service clocks. It’s OK to bring up prospects in the second half if those prospects benefited from seasoning in the first half. It would be a strange coincidence if all prospects were ready in the first half of all seasons.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Revenue sharing is based on income

It has NO RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT A TEAM SPENDS.

Nor does it have anything to do with prospects, for that matter.

Two teams with identical payrolls, one of which worries about this stuff and one of which doesn’t. The team that worries about service time will win more games and draw more fans (thus making more money), because it has better players for the same cost in dollars. This is why every competently run team, including the Red Sox, cares about service time.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This argument would be more clear

with closer attention to terminology. When you talk about a company’s “income”, it usually means net income, in which case it does indeed involve payroll.

I assume what you really meant to say is revenue sharing is based on revenues (which I agree ought to go without saying…).

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

by iglew on Nov 11, 2008 6:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry, you're correct

Receipts. Proceeds. Cash turnover.

Not profit.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 6:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I wasn't talking about revenue sharing

in relation to payroll. I was using it as an example of a systemic imperfection that crappy owners focus on rather than increasing their customer base.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hmm?

If by previous administration you’re referring to Dan Duquette, you’re allowing yourself to be influenced by the propaganda from the Epstein fanboys.

Duquette got Lowe AND Varitek for practically nothing. He signed Pedro. Much of that 2004 team was built by him.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 12:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, Pedro

What a steal. I mean, no one thought that guy was good until the Red Sox got him. I mean, other than the NL Cy Young voters.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 1:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So?

It was Duquette that signed him. Not anyone else. Not Genius Epstein. And are you contending that Pedro was not a bargain?

Also, Lowe and Varitek don’t count I suppose? And how about Wakefield?

And your lazy snark conveniently avoids my main point: Pedro, Manny, Lowe, Varitek, Wakefield, Trot Nixon were all not acquired by Epstein.

Despite what Epstein and Gammons would have people believe, Duquette did indeed find gold coins, and NOT in Scrooge’s vault.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 7:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The 2004 team was overwhelmingly a team of bought superstars

I’m sorry, I don’t view that as evincing any real ability to locate talent. I mean, Manny Ramirez? Pedro? Give me a f***Ing break. A five year old could tell you those guys were good.

The 2004 Red Sox were no different from the 2004 Yankees, except that they were lucky and the Yankees were not lucky.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 12:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Trot Nixon, Jason Varitek

Derek Lowe were bought superstars.

And the genius Epstein tried to get rid of Manny Ramirez almost immediately after he took over. Remember the waiver stunt? So, I suppose Genius Epstein is not a 5 year old who could tell that Manny was good?

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 11:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

By the say Longoria's service clock is meaningless with his

100 year contract

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 4:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We don't know that. We also don't know what harm

this line of thinking causes in other areas.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't be ridiculous.

You think Longoria would have just voluntarily agreed to make peanuts for another season, out of the sheer goodness of his heart?

That’s an imbecilic position.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You're saying his contract was materially changed

for the privilege of coming to the majors earlier? If so, that’s just wrong.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am saying that had the Rays stupidly broken camp

with him in the lineup, instead of making him wait for 2 weeks so that he would end the year with less than 1 year of service time, his contract would have either been a year shorter or paid him more money, because he would have had far more negotiating leverage.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It would have been even smarter to have

threatened to do that and signed him in the spring enabling him to play those early games.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

For all we know, they did exactly that and he called their bluff

which turned out not to be a bluff, of course.

In any case, I thought we weren’t supposed to think about service time at all. Now it’s OK to talk about it, but only to make empty threats?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 5:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think Gammons' aneurysm affected his reasoning skills

I’m not being sarcastic or cutting about that. His thinking hasn’t been anything close to what it used to be since he came back.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Post

That was just a mistake, everyone makes those…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 3:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

mark mulder?

What about him? Or maybe Barry Zito is available cheap. These are farfetched, I know, but this young pitching staff needs a stopper. No one currently on the staff seems like a candidate. Another farfetched idea is the man from Vallejo, Sabathia. Maybe he would accept a hometown discount. Wouldn’t this team be a contender, at least for the wild card, with Sabathia, Halladay, a healthy Chavez and Jason Giambi?

by wasat71playoffs on Nov 11, 2008 8:33 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Roy Halladay FTW

Guys, can you imagine a Halladay, Sabathia, Mulder, Zito, Eveland rotation?

Billy- make it happen.

by ohmangoAs on Nov 11, 2008 8:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it takes time

i feel you

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 11:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Eveland looked damn good after he came back up

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah i’m glad we gave up smith and not eveland.

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 7:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I loved Smith's pickoff move

Everything else about him was pretty average or subpar, though. Poor fastball speed, poor location for the most part, poor movement…Eveland at least throws hard with a nasty curve.

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 7:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I like how Halladay slips in there

How exactly are we supposed to get him? In this universe or all the others combined? There are probably essentially five untouchable players in the entire major leagues and he is one of them. He is the Blue Jays.

by jdr on Nov 11, 2008 2:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Rule about Halliday and Holiday on the same team?

Some prohibition, I am certain.

doing search right now….

Officially awaiting the 2009 season.

by One won lost won on Nov 11, 2008 3:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think it depends on other moves as well

Such as Furcal and maybe adding someone like Dunn too for first base.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 11, 2008 8:42 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Then I'd definitely rather him than Giambi

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 10:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well yeah but there's a slight price difference

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 12:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How slight, I wonder...

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 2:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

$80 million?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Also appeared in about 100 games at 1B

during his Reds career

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Nov 11, 2008 8:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

This is step 1. I’ll let Beane finish showing us his new dance steps before critiquing the man.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd rather have Swisher play first

Gold Glove defense from a switch hitter with a little power and decent average (I know he sucked last year). Plus the cost would be way less.

by jpl on Nov 11, 2008 9:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Why do you think the cost would be way less?

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 9:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

Dunn would just cost money. Swisher would cost players – potentially good players.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 9:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Give 'em DLS back, show them the medical bills, and

throw in one high-A ball level OF prospect with reasonable upside. :)

by still bills kingdom on Nov 11, 2008 10:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Logically, though...

… you’d figure he cost a helluva lot less than when the A’s traded him. After this past season, he doesn’t net Fautino, Sweeney, and Gio. The Sox are motivated sellers, too. Maybe he could be pried away for relatively little…

Look, I can dream all I want to and you can’t stop me.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 10:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've been hoping for something like this...

ever since I heard they wanted to shop him. Would Billy bite?

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 10:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cost in dollars would be significantly less

and he certainly wouldn’t cost that much as far as players go. He just doesn’t seem to fit into the White Sox plans. We’re probably talking mid-level prospects.

by jpl on Nov 11, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Eh

I’ve heard fans from many teams, A’s, Giants, Mets, are just some of those, wishcasting for a trade for Swisher while not giving away much, because, “he doesn’t fit into the WS plans”, or “he doesn’t fit into the WS baseball approach”.

I’ve not seen any credible writer, ie someone like Ken Rosenthal, say that the WS are willing to give Swisher away for not much.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 10:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't want Swish back

I like him personally, but I’d much rather have Dunn.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 11, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dunn = 18M

Swish = what Kenny Wants.

Not a fair comp.

by ohmangoAs on Nov 11, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

'cept its not an "or"

you can only spend FA dollars up to our budget.

trading payroll is just like trading prospects. They’re both assets you can’t get back all that easily.

So you should be speculating on what Kenny wants for Swish before you say you’d rather have Dunn. For example, would Furcal and Swish be more valuable than Mazzaro and Dunn? (assuming Mazzaro nets swish)

by ohmangoAs on Nov 11, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Why do you assume Mazzaro nets Swish?

That’s my problem with this wishcasting for Swish that I see so many fans of so many teams around the web make. They want Swish, and believe he can clearly help their teams, yet, at the same time, they are only willing to give up not much for him.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't assume

That was a hypothetical, and it was definitely (and intentionally) constructed to be a very good deal for the A’s. The point is that if this deal were availible, then we’d be better off with Swish than Dunn.

I threw it out there, but the point is this: I don’t have an opinion on Swish vs. Dunn because I don’t know what either one will cost. MY EXACT position was that we should estimate what he’d cost, then decide. Quoting myself:

So you should be speculating on what Kenny wants for Swish

and

Swish = what Kenny Wants.

I’m not assuming Swish will be cheap, but I’m saying we can’t make statements that signing a FA is preferable to a trade, without considering the real costs of each side.

I’m guessing your indignation was meant for other swish fanboys.

by ohmangoAs on Nov 11, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I just don't see Billy getting Swisher

back. So I’m not going to speculate about that. I think Beane traded him for a reason and it wasn’t just because he loved the guys he was getting in return. I think that Beane realized he was selling Swisher at good value.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 11, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And I agree on that

Kenny would have a tough dance saving face if he traded Swish back.

That’s also a reason why sending FLDS or Gio back won’t happen- it would look too bad for Kenny to get the same guys back, but without Sweeney.

Perhaps a different [set of] prospect(s) would be good enough though- you can sell it as being high on that prospect.

Does anyone think the Beane loves Gallagher Stories were purely designed to improve the spin on the Harden trade. BTW, I’m not criticizing that trade—I doubt Harden was netting better offers.

by ohmangoAs on Nov 11, 2008 12:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The first sentence is the key

Any time you trade anyone, there’s going to be people out there saying it was a mistake, but when you trade for a guy and then trade him right back, it really calls critical attention to itself. Everyone is going to compare the first package with the second package, and depending on how they measure up, the conclusion is going to be that either one GM made a mistake the first time or the other GM made a mistake the second time.

Now I know some GMs are more sensitive to press criticism than others, but for anyone it’s at least a partial factor, and it becomes an additional cost to the trade from the GM’s point of view. If they really want to trade, they’ll do it anyway, but it’s easier to avoid that extra cost by trading with someone else. If Kenny Williams really does want to move Swisher, it’s far easier to trade him to someone else.

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

by iglew on Nov 11, 2008 2:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Also, totally different situation

because he was traded away for Thome, and back for Garcia. That fits with my theory that any swish trade HAS to be for a different player.

In the first two Gio trades, Kenny could consistently say that both trades were good without contradicting himself.

In contrast, if he traded swish for just Gio now, he’d have to admit the first trade was a mistake (by admitting that Swish’s current value is lower than what he paid.

by ohmangoAs on Nov 11, 2008 3:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

right, and now he couol buy swisher at good value.

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The best pitcher we have any shot at all at is Lowe.

I posted the link in the big thread, but they just broke all this down at BtB.

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

by nevermoor on Nov 11, 2008 8:52 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Depends on whether he'll take a discount to come here or not.

I certainly wouldn’t pay him the 15M that he was paid last year.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 8:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh yeah. I don't think he's getting 15MM from anybody.

But I’d rather have Unit on a 1 year deal for 15MM than Lowe for 4 years for 15MM per though.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 11, 2008 9:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

It’d be great to have some veteran leadership and some more solid innings alongside duke in the rotation, but not for $15M. I’d rather see that money used on a fix for the left side of the infield (furcal? blake? anybody but crosby at SS?).

If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base. ~Dave Barry

by mdiff8 on Nov 11, 2008 10:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, to reiterate Blicks' question

would you rather pay Johnson $15M for one year, or Derek Lowe something like $50M-$60M for 4 years?

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well...

If I had to pick between only those two, def. Johnson for 1 year. But I just don’t see BB paying that much for a SP.

If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base. ~Dave Barry

by mdiff8 on Nov 11, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dunn wants 100 million?

  Dunn thinks he is a 100 million man. No where close.

by Arcman on Nov 11, 2008 9:04 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Maybe not better

But Lee was 31 when he scored that. Dunn will be 29 and he hits 40 home runs. Every. Year.

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Lee is a very different type of hitter

He is no worse than Dunn on Defense. He has produced an OPS+ of 120 or higher in 6 of his last eight seasons. This year was his first significant inury (ie lost time).

Dunn has produced an OPS+ of 120 or higher in 7 of his last 9 full seasons. Dunn is younger and lefthanded bat.

I think your bias for players with plate discipline is clouding you on this one. Lee is an incredible pure hitter. Look at their numbers, really aren’t that far apart.

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right, they're worth about the same in my estimation

It seems to me that the Lee contract is also the butt of more than a few jokes, which is strange to me. I think the deal works out to be approx. market value. I know Dunn at less than 16M/season is a good deal.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I mean, if you want to talk about a bad contract

Hunter? Who else, oh yeah, Torri Hunter. And Juan Pierre?

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Johnny Damon?

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Borry Zita?

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, we were just talkin OF

I don’t have time for all the crappy SP FA contracts

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The reason people make the Lee contract the butt of jokes

is his D. He’s become a player with the range of a potted fern. With a strong arm granted. He gives back a LOT of his offensive value because of his D.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 3:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No worse than Dunn overall, however

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Worse than Dunn, actually

Dunn’s bad D is exaggerated. Lee is arguably the worst defensive OF in the majors. No range, and poor routes.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't know that.

What are some good free sources for defensive info? I was just taking a look at some old BBTF posts that had Dunn/Lee about the same in left field.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 12, 2008 2:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You can find RZR from THT

Zone rating, you can find from foxsports.com.

 If you want them converted into runs relative to average, Chris Dial converts zone rating regularly, you can find that on BBTF in the Dialed In section.

Justin Inaz has converted both zone rating and RZR into runs relative to average on his blog, but not separately, he averages them.

Sean Smith, the guy who does the CHONE projections, also does defensive projections, using a combination of zone rating, RZR, his own TotalZone system, which is a pseudo play by play metric similar to Dan Fox’ SFR, and Tango’s fan scouting report.

Dunn IS bad. Just not as bad as Lee.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 8:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks sir!

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 12, 2008 8:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok, but I can find D metrics that show Lee is clearly better

What exactly are you referring to?

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 12, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which ones?

I’m referring to RZR and zone rating.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 11:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How so?

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OPS+ of 127, 109, 126 the three years prior is not worth that kind of money for a corner OFer.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Nov 11, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well he had a bad year in '05 and still hit 32 dingers and 41 doubles

I disagree with you

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Lee has never had a year in his whole career that was better than Jack Cust’s 2007, and they were essentially equal last year. If you were paying Carlos Lee’s salary for Jack Cust’s production, would you be happy?

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 4:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

dude, I don't want to talk about Jack Cust

I was responding to the comment about Dunn being significantly better than Lee. Cust is an aberration. He is 30 and has one full season in the bigs. Carlos Lee has 10. So there.

BTW, I’m not one of these Cust haters, so put away the knives.

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 4:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And you are wrong about '08

At least if we are talking about ops+

Lee = 144
Cust = 132

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 4:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cust's OPS+ was 147 in 2007, not 132

BRAA: Lee 26.2, Cust 28.6
WOBA*: Lee 119, Cust 119

it’s pretty close, but Cust was better by a bit. I’ll call it a tie, but it’s still not better.

I’m not a Cust-ophile. I think he’s good, and a fair market contract on him is probably around $8 mil/year, but that’s also about what a fair contract for Lee would be. Lee is horribly overpaid.

by MrIncognito on Nov 11, 2008 5:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Is WOBA* park-adjusted?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

2008

2008

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 8:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Read the original statement

scroll up or read:

Lee has never had a year in his whole career that was better than Jack Cust’s 2007

by MrIncognito on Nov 12, 2008 5:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So everyone is overpaid except Cust?

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 8:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No.

Raul Ibanez is not overpaid. Carlos Lee is not overpaid. Carlos Lee is not much better than Ibanez. Yet is paid much much more.

Other not overpaid players: Randy Winn, Matt Holliday.

My point? Defense matters. Because of his horrendous D, Carlos Lee is not much better than an average player, yet is being paid like a star.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ughh, Carlos Lee IS overpaid

Typo.

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

by rfloh on Nov 12, 2008 8:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No, just Carlos Lee, which was the original topic of discussion.

by MrIncognito on Nov 12, 2008 5:27 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That wasn't Ed Wade.

It was Tim Purpura.

And Alfonso Soriano got paid even more.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

true,

but the Astros are still dumb.

"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 11, 2008 3:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think Furcal is Step II

and a veteran starting pitcher Step 3.

And then you have a 90+ win team with a realistic chance to win the division. And as others have pointed out, the one big salary on the team is Chavez— it is not inconceivable that Holliday is signed long-term sometime next year to essentially take that place as Chavez’ contract runs out.

by windyfelix on Nov 11, 2008 9:25 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Furcal might be out of the A's range.

I’m thinking the A’s might have to live with a platoon of sorts at SS.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 11, 2008 9:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Atlanta, should they trade Escobar

Baltimore
Boston
Dodgers
White Sox

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If you're including the Orioles

might as well add the Giants to that list. And maybe the BJs.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 10:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OK, consider the Giants added to the list

I think Toronto is going to focus more on pitching than SS for now, costing them a shot at Furcal.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 10:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

LA sign furcal

we’ll trade for dejesus

by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 10:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

With everyne reporting Street is in the deal.

The weird thing is. The Contra Costa Times reports Street said as of Monday afternoon he hadn’t heard anything from the A’s.

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 9:53 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

so since both Smith and Gonzalez have heard from the A's

Street’s inclusion is probably not agreed on at this point.

I wonder if there’s a three way deal being worked on?

by OaklandSi on Nov 11, 2008 9:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A's add in patterson

send him to STL for craig or freese

by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 10:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Street and Patterson for Craig or Freese?

I don’t like that one bit.

Unless you mean Colorado sends Street and gets Ludwick, and Oakland sends Patterson and gets Craig or Freese.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 10:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yes

though i think rockies would wan more than ludwick

by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I heard that too,

but it was unclear if that was Colorado going to do that or the A’s. One made it sound like the A’s were near that but now supposedly with Street going to the Rockies, would they do it instead.

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 10:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

so i'm confused

so this trade could or could not include street.

holliday to A’s w/ smith/gonzalez definitely involved + something else (hopefully not anderson/gio/mazzaro/cahill)

then A’s could deal street directly to stl if they choose, that might be the hold up since that rockies info leaked

so here’s the dilemma…would A’s rather trade street in a holliday deal or include something else. then trade street separately?

by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 10:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's sounding

More and more like a three-way.

'Who's that guy we had to release last year because he robbed a bank?'- Billy Beane
Gio Gonzalez is my hero.

by Morgasm on Nov 11, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Even if it was a 3-way

You would think Street would be told he needed to be somewhere for a Physical

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

True

Which if nobody else is in this trade.
Smith and Gonzo for Holliday is a steal.

'Who's that guy we had to release last year because he robbed a bank?'- Billy Beane
Gio Gonzalez is my hero.

by Morgasm on Nov 11, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Unless it was another player

that no one realizes just cause no one has asked this person if he had to be anywhere for a Physical

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That is weird,

especially considering that Street has had some serious elbow problems, and that other players are being asked to fly to Colorado to be examined by the Rockies’ doctors before the trade is announced.

Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough

by andeux on Nov 11, 2008 10:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly what I was thinking

Unless he was called from the A’s 5 mins after he made his comments about not hearing anything.

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Here is the article

That mentions street not hearing from A’s as of Monday afternoon.
CC times

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

At bat music

Could it be anything other than Holiday Road?

by jessenumber1 on Nov 11, 2008 9:55 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I was really hoping

for Madonna’s “Holiday”

OK, no I wasn’t.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 11, 2008 9:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Madonna

You think ARod would allow that?

by jessenumber1 on Nov 11, 2008 10:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

holidays in the sun?

by the sex pistols?

or holiday in cambodia by the dead kennedys?

etc

BB should send scouts to watch cricket players.

by alea iacta est on Nov 11, 2008 10:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yoink

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm on it

Won’t have it up ’til tonight.

“Holliday in Alameda”

Ball bat ball bat ball bat ball bat …

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 11:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lol

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We can start calling Fosse "East Bay Ray"

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

by Nick on Nov 11, 2008 1:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

green day lol

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not a big fan of new whiny Green Day

But it’s pretty hard to deny any accolades to the overall career of the band.

by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Except they didn't get any accolades until they went whiny

It’s like people think they arrived on the scene with “Wake Me Up When September Ends.”

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 3:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't know they were considered not whiney at any point

Look, I just think there’s punk and there’s not. And Green Day is not.

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

green day lol

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Nov 11, 2008 3:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There's, like, an extremely small enclave of bands that anyone accepts as punk

The Sex Pistols. The Stooges. Then there’s moderate resistance to the idea that The Clash or The Ramones are truly punk. Or Fugazi, for that matter. I’m done worrying about who is punk. Screw punk. I don’t need punk. I like The Stooges. I like Fugazi. I like The Ramones. I even like some early Offspring. I care not anymore whether or no they are truly punk.

Mini-rant, not necessarily directed at you, Mr. Turgidson.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with all you said

Just not Green Day

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Spits on keyboard

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 3:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Black Flag? Rancid?

Okay, sorry.

I agree, though. Most of the “hardcore punk” people are just elitist hipsters in disguise.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 3:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Obviously, the list isn't complete

I just wanted to point out how ridiculous it is to argue whether these bands are punk or not. It doesn’t make them any less good.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Nov 11, 2008 3:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed.

Besides, if you don’t agree I’m going to have Henry Rollins beat your ass.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 3:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I preferred pre-Rollins Black Flag.

But I’m in the minority. I’m also really old.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"There's gonna be a WaddellCanseco Minority!"

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

by Nick on Nov 11, 2008 4:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ha!

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 4:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We're gonna have an OBP party tonight

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

LOL

"However, at Elias, I think they keep track of the amount of sunflower seeds spit in a dugout each night." - Brad Ziegler, 8/7/08

by doctorK on Nov 11, 2008 10:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"You down with OBP?"

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 12, 2008 1:33 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah,

you know me!

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

by 5Aces on Nov 12, 2008 8:33 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You ain't no punk, you punk

You wanna talk about the real junk?

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Or "Holiday" by the Kinks

Youtube here.

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

by Nick on Nov 11, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm still confused

This trade boggles my mind, and since I’m reading Huston hasn’t been told if he’s included or not makes me think its not finalized yet.

I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop.

'Who's that guy we had to release last year because he robbed a bank?'- Billy Beane
Gio Gonzalez is my hero.

by Morgasm on Nov 11, 2008 10:20 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

But if it wasnt finalized.

The players that have been told to report for physical, would not have been told that.
So either. Street got told where to report after he made those comments or the rumors of who is in the trade are wrong.

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 10:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's possible they could

But I don’t see them flying Carlos if from Venezuela unless it was finalized. There are reports out there it is finalized also.

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A three-way trade would be nice

If the Rockies can get Ludwick straight up for Street, then what are we doing giving Colorado three players for Holliday?? (Including Street, of course) Seems to me we’re giving away a bit much for a one year rental.

I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.

by Vacafan on Nov 11, 2008 10:52 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Be fair

Holliday is a bit more established hitter than Ludwick.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Getting ahead of ourselves with this Furcal talk? Crosby is terrible, but...

I just don’t see it as a wise use of FA Dollars. Furcal is 31, has had significant injury issues, he is not an especially disicplined hitter and he has limited power. If he’s better than BoCro in the field it’s not by much. I think the team would be served well by a Dunn signing because it gives Barton a chance to learn how to hit again, he is somewhat versatile and could be a long term replacement for Cust. With that kind of pop in the lineup we can afford BoCro in the middle.

Then I agree with looking for a bargain FA arm like Penny. Or, gulp, Lowe who is probably the best available for the money. Gawd I hate that guy.

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 11:01 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

good work

i appreciate this post…i am not on board with the furcal train. bad backs don’t just get better, generally.

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 11:33 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Furk Fuckal!

…or something like that!

"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 11, 2008 3:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Plus there's the back issue

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I do not want your back issues

of the Rafael Furcal Fan Club Magazine. The features are boring and all the ads are for discount clothing shops in Santo Domingo and international calling cards.

"I have more questions after these."-WaddellCanseco

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 13, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

bad backs

Are a very serious problem and are typically chronic. Back pain is the number 2 cause of lost work (#1 sick children). I am not sure what was causing Furcal’s back pain-could be nerve entrapment or even diabetes.

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 4:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Are there any examples of players who've missed serious time with back problems

and then come back to play well?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hasn't he been hampered by back problems for a while and missed time the last few seasons?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yes

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 9:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I dont know honestly

I don’t know about players returning from back surgery/performing well. I think Will Carroll would be the best source of information on that.
Furcal’s back problem appears to be a nerve compression (hard to figure out since teams are so secretive with the exact details). This is usually treated by ablating or cutting out tissue/bone that is pressing down on the nerve. One way to do this is to remove some of the bone that makes up the spine. Bone regrows very quickly. So it is possible the bone can regrow and press against the nerve in the future.
A quick search on Furcal shows he had the same problem at the end of 2007.

Heres a link if anyone is curious, or if you feel you have back pain:
http://www.spine.org/Pages/ConsumerHealth/SpineConditionsAndTreatments/CommonProblemsCorrectiveActions/ChronicLowBackPain/Default.aspx

I am pretty sure Furcal does not have diabetes, but diabetes is a major cause of nerve pain. Diabetes creates an abnormal metabolic environment in the body and people with diabetes tend to develop entrapment syndromes (such as carpal tunnel syndrome) at 3x the rate of non-diabetics. This is often called a “focal neuropathy.”
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/neuropathies/

by apilgrim on Nov 11, 2008 6:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

{snaps fingers}

That’s it! Harden was really missing all that time because he has dozens of unhealthy illegitimate children!

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#3 is Appleby's

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

by Nick on Nov 11, 2008 5:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#4 is Canadian gamblers

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#5 is sunscreen

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

by Nick on Nov 11, 2008 5:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#6 is misleadingly shallow pools

(Or “beer.”)

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 5:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#7

AN

au contra ire

by JediLeroy on Nov 11, 2008 6:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#8

Alarm clocks?

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

by 5Aces on Nov 11, 2008 6:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It wasn't the snooze. Everybody thinks it was the snooze. It was the volume.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#9

Damon Mashore?

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 7:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#10

Pete Rose

Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 11, 2008 9:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lol

"We are a complete freak show." -- Billy Beane

by day-to-day on Nov 11, 2008 9:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am OK with Furcal ONLY if he comes on a 2 year deal.

Since he turned down a 2 year deal with the Dodgers and it is rumored that he wants 4 years, I don’t see Furcal happening.

No 4 year deals to injury prone players.

Lowe will get a 4 year deal. I say Randy Johnson or Brad Penny.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 11, 2008 4:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He's already turned down a two year deal. Kotsay's extension was three years and that was too long.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

*sigh

Kaiser ads killing me.

"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."

by SwampyD on Nov 11, 2008 11:02 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

as a Kaiser nurse, i'm glad its the ads

and not the nurses

Andy Bernard does not lose contests. He wins them. Or he quits them. Because they're unfair.

by BigTuna on Nov 11, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Should we get in to our Kaiser stories now.

Cause I have a couple, that make you scratch your head.

by Athletix Man on Nov 11, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

(False) Hopes

Of this lineup

1. Sweeney
2. MaEl
3. Holliday
4. Cust
5. Chavez (healthy and does not suck)
6. Suzuki
7. Somebody not named Bobby Crosby
8. Daric Barton (please stop sucking)
9. Travis Buck?

Off of false hopes that those players A. stay healthy, and B. live up to their potential (both of which never happen when you’re an A’s fan) i think we could have a pretty decent lineup there if we can plug in somebody like Furcal in the Somebody not named Bobby Crosby Slot. We could put him up in the order and move MaEl down were he belongs.

Basically, our SS, 1B, and 3B are still huge question marks if you’re a realist….

by Dukererer on Nov 11, 2008 11:03 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

mine would be

sweeney cf
ellis 2b
holliday lf
giambi 1b (please)
cust dh
chavez 3b (i can dream)
suzuki c
buck/cunningham rf
pennington ss

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd put Cunningham in the leadoff spot.

He can run better than Sweeney. I’d like to see more SB attempts.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 11, 2008 12:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

cunningham will probably be in AAA

holliday/sweeney/buck/davis/denorfia is more than enough OFs, and the a’s will want cunningham to get regular at bats.

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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 11, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Here is mine

ss Furcal
2b Ellis
lf Holliday
dh Cust
3b Blake
cf Sweeny
rf Buck
c Suzuki
1b Barton/Chavez if healthy, (bats 6th)

"AN, Reducing Work Productivity since 2003", connie mack 11/06/08

by adragon on Nov 11, 2008 1:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that's not bad at all

but i do not want any part of casey blake

"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball

by flipgatey3 on Nov 11, 2008 9:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+25

"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox

by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 12, 2008 1:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hmm, this answers some of the speculation from earlier in this thread.

Sounds like this deal might have leaked a bit earlier than the teams would have liked.

"RIP: UserID: 553"

by Masaryk on Nov 11, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

do people not want to deal w/ beane

suddenly street is a hot commodity lol

2 options:

keep street for a seperate deal

and add something else to the holliday deal (maybe gio, mazzaro or doolittle)

by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Options?

By all reports, the deal is done….he isnt keeping Street for a separate deal.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Nov 11, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How can I learn to be a better troll?

"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King

by Buck Turgidson on Nov 11, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Damn.

I’d better start cleaning up my flirting…

"I believe in spiritual rebirth, and I can't wait to experience that." --Barry Zito

by GreenNGoldGirl on Nov 11, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hmm?

You haven’t read the Bible? There’s some pretty risque stuff in there.

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

by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 12:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The book about Christ's love for the Church is pretty hot.

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

by iglew on Nov 11, 2008 3:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah

Christ really nailed the Love.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 11, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Does it strike anyone as odd...

that all the news sources are talking about the next trade before this one has been finalized. I mean the Rox are dealing Street and as far as I know he is still an Oakland Athletic.

by throttle mathius on Nov 11, 2008 1:13 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I sorta think that this one isn't finalized, or else we'd have a quote from Billy.

But that’s just me. There is a quote from Holliday though.

Maybe the fact that this leaked out before it was done is causing some minor complications. I could see Billy trying to three-team this if there is something on STL he wants.

by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I know

It just seems like a lot of jumping the gun on the part of the media, like a snowballing effect. No one important has confirmed or denied this trade. The Street part seems weird and the amount of teams suddenly talking about Huston just strikes me as a bit off. I can’t put my finger on it but I will be suprised if the trade goes through as is.

by throttle mathius on Nov 11, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I just want to know if anyone else notices the fact...

that really nothing is set in stone. We don’t have Holliday, they don’t have any of our guys, and Street (the one guy who should have to pass a physical the most) has no indication of being traded.

To me this screams menage a trois.

by throttle mathius on Nov 11, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

To be fair, everything screams menage a trois 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 Nov 11, 2008 1:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's actually +2

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 Nov 11, 2008 1:45 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

You, me, +1

Unless my math is wrong.

by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 1:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OK this is really awkward...

You’re not actually so much invited…

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 Nov 11, 2008 1:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The menage is pending approval.

Dependent on whether or not Beane gives permission for Selig to watch.

by throttle mathius on Nov 11, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs