New Holliday Thread
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.
701 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
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.
Boo
I wanted to see a 1K comment thread.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Of course time = team
Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.
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.
How the Hell did this end up here?
This was meant as a reply to Blez.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Randy Johnson
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
sign him
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
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.
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
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.
Yeah
Why pay so much for 12 starts?
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
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.
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.
Sandwich pick
Would we have to give up a higher draft pick to add Randy Johnson?
If so, is it still worth it?
If he can turn the clocks back to 2006 (or was it 2007) form,
Penny would be great.
by Pucking Insane on Nov 11, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
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
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
+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.
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
I am hungover
My religion is A'slamic.
by WhoNeedsReligionWhenYaGotBaseball on Nov 11, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions
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?
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.
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.
Holliday alone doesn't make them contenders.
Adding Furcal and Dunn or Lowe along with him does, though.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Gah
STOP PUTTING IN THESE AUTOFORMATTING GIMMICKS!
Jeez.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Preview doesn't tell me when my images aren't going to show up, apparently...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Reminder: the internet is not like a big truck.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
,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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
You and Ken Arneson can go build your team around Randy Winn and Buddy Groom
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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
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
Yeah 3 playoff teams to of which were World Series participants
a bunch of dummies
by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions
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
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?
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
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.
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
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? @('.')@
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
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.
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
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
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
*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
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.
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
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
"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
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.
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
I guess it's Cust's fault that he gets on base like 40% of the time and then the other shitty hitters don't drive him in?
Cust being a poor baserunner has nothing to do with it right?
by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
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
The game is about scoring and driving in runs yes.
FOR TEAMS.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
and, of course, the absolute best way any individual hitter can maximize his positive impact on the team scoring and driving in runs?
HRs.
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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
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? @('.')@
And striking out close to 200 times has nothing to do with fewer RBI
seriously, you people embarrass yourself
by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
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.
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
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
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
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
F'n whippersnappers man.
Whippersnappers and lollygaggers…
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
just because a strikeout makes you feel bad doesn't make it a worse outcome than any other out
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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?
A pitch like that
You’d have been disappointed if I didn’t swing.
The monster at the end of this blog.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
You show me where 30 Hrs 190 ks and a low batting avg
equals good RBI numbers
and I’ll listen
by sactownbull on Nov 11, 2008 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
He was, but that was in an era when most of the pitchers threw 85 MPH...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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
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
Just down the hill from where Robert Louis Stevenson lived and wrote ...
… and where Miles Archer was shot.
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
You make it so easy
In 2000, Preston Wilson struck out 187 times, had a .264 BA, and 121 RBIs with 31 HRs.
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
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
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
Plus, there willn't be any debate about who our lone all-star will be this season,
assuming he stays until the All-star break.
witty remark
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
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
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.
the only thing that covers up "bad situational hitting" is small sample size
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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 teaching kids to intentionally hit poorly (i.e., to swing at bad pitches and make lousy contact), you're turning them into poorer hitters
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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?
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.
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
if you have the eyesight, reaction time, coordination, strength, and timing to *mis*-direct a pitch, why not just hit it fair for a safety?
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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
No snark?
Yes, that ad hom attack was purely for the edification of the viewing populace.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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.
So, you're a disingenuous liar on top of everything else
Good times.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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.
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
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
That effect of fouling off pitches is fully (and better) captured by another stat, pitches per plate appearance
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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
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.
*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
So you want to teach a player that his role is to ground out to the right side with a guy on 2nd?
You don’t want to teach him that a single can score that runner?
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
Who comes around first, sactownbull, or Joe Morgan?
by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
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
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.
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.”
I think he's teaching them that if they STRICKOUT then they get benched
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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
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? @('.')@
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.
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.
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
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? @('.')@
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
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? @('.')@
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
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
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
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.
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.
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? @('.')@
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
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?
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
So, they should swing to intentionally miss the ball?
Swing to cause catcher’s interference?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
What, your inability to convey information to others?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
yeah, this really isn't a "Moneyball" vs "old-school" argument
It’s two different approaches to fundamentals.
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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
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
You can check your anatomy all you want, and even though there may be normal variation, when it comes right down to it, this far inside the head it all looks the same.
No, no, no, don’t tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to.
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
Apparently, we asked about Bay from Boston too...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3695225&name=gammons_peter
We were definitely looking for a solid defensive slugger, not some one trick pony.
Gammons has some bad moments
But Beane seems to like talking to the man.
The monster at the end of this blog.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 !"
Damn, I forgot Gio (the other Gonzalez)
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
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
You're putting way too much emphasis on ZiPS... it's very mediocre as a projection system for players with minimal big league time
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
I'm sure Tampa Bay fans are annoyed that they have to watch Evan Longoria for an extra season
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
+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.
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
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.
2016*
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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? @('.')@
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
the not caring about customers or mb's over-the-top hyperbole? (;
The A's colors are green and gold.
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
why bother with under-the-top hyperbole?
(Would that be hypobole?)
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Wait, you do realize that the Yankees just whined and moaned their way to the biggest public cash giveaway in sports history, right?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
i have trouble following your arguments sometimes waddell
i feel like a child who wanders into a movie
Save Rajai Davis
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
Sorry, you're correct
Receipts. Proceeds. Cash turnover.
Not profit.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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 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
The contract would have been less favorable to the Rays if they had brought him up earlier
The A's colors are green and gold.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Post
That was just a mistake, everyone makes those…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
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
Roy Halladay FTW
Guys, can you imagine a Halladay, Sabathia, Mulder, Zito, Eveland rotation?
Billy- make it happen.
I wouldn't say Mulder sucks. Right now he's just physically unable to pitch and most likely
his career is over because of his shoulder problems.
He's also been downright awful every time he's tried to pitch since 2005 because of it.
That sure doesn’t sound like a guy I want to pencil in as my 3rd starter.
I guess I haven't built up enough cred for people to recognize
when I’m doing a parody :)
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Can't be any worse than Gonzalez and Gonzalez
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
still not 100% street is in the deal
cargon/smith headed to rockies for physicals
Street for Ryan Ludwick has been rumored. Dunno if that's a post-trade flip by Colorado or not, though.
From some reports it looks like Street may or may not be included. And you never know. They have also have another guy from the minors for us.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
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
Then I'd definitely rather him than Giambi
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
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
$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
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
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.
Why do you think the cost would be way less?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
Dunn = 18M
Swish = what Kenny Wants.
Not a fair comp.
Yeah, $18 mil is a lot easier to swallow
than giving up some prospects IMO.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 11, 2008 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
Why? Is sactownbull his agent?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 3:39 PM PST up reply actions
'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)
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
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.
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
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.
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
Yeah, but prospects aren't as visible as a big-league starter.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
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.
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
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
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.
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.
+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
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
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
Dunn wants 100 million?
Dunn thinks he is a 100 million man. No where close.
He's a better player than Carlos Lee
And Lee got 6/100.
by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Which ones?
I’m referring to RZR and zone rating.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
That was a bad contract if you just look at his offense prior to the deal
The A's colors are green and gold.
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Ughh, Carlos Lee IS overpaid
Typo.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
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
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
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.
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.
Atlanta, should they trade Escobar
Baltimore
Boston
Dodgers
White Sox
The monster at the end of this blog.
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
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.
LA sign furcal
we’ll trade for dejesus
by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
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.
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?
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
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.
yes
though i think rockies would wan more than ludwick
by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Madonna
You think ARod would allow that?
by jessenumber1 on Nov 11, 2008 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
We could go a little more modern with Green Day's "On Holiday"
by thejd44 on Nov 11, 2008 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
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
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? @('.')@
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
or should that bridge go "Bill Beane Bill Beane Bill Beane ..."
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
Black Flag? Rancid?
Okay, sorry.
I agree, though. Most of the “hardcore punk” people are just elitist hipsters in disguise.
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.
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
"There's gonna be a WaddellCanseco Minority!"
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
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
"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
You ain't no punk, you punk
You wanna talk about the real junk?
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
Or "Holiday" by the Kinks
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
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.
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
But couldn't they report for a physical so that the trade could be expedited once it was finalized?
by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
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
But still no actual confirmation from either team/GM.
It’s all just ‘reportedly.’
by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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/
{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? @('.')@
#3 is Appleby's
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
#5 is sunscreen
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
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
#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
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.
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
*sigh
Kaiser ads killing me.
"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."
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.
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
(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….
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
I'd put Cunningham in the leadoff spot.
He can run better than Sweeney. I’d like to see more SB attempts.
This.
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
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
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
+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
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"
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
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
If the Oakland chicks want to learn to communicate with their new player. they better brush up on teh Bible study.
Recipient of the 2008 "The Iron Man" award from scottnak of Halos Heaven!
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
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
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
The book about Christ's love for the Church is pretty hot.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Not to Sactownbull
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Nov 11, 2008 4:44 PM PST up reply actions
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
Agreed here
It almost makes me wonder if Billy is hearing the other potential moves and thinking he should get a little more for his trouble if any of the former A’s are going to be flipped. The fact that any of them would be going off to another team gives him a bit more leverage, and we know he will use whatever he has to get an extra prospect or two.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
Could he have held up the deal
in the hopes that both he and the Rox get something good with the sudden market change? Or maybe it was the plan from the beginning?
by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
Philly Phail
From this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer:
“The A’s Ryan Gonzalez and Greg Smith confirmed they were on their way to the Colorado Rockies in exchange for Holliday, but there was no announcement from either team. Lefthander Huston Street was mentioned as being part of the deal, but that had not been confirmed last night.”
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Oh
That clears things up! Thank god we got Matt Halladay for all of that!
Your team is your child...You love it no matter what.
by TheRaiderWay on Nov 11, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
Beane just acquired Johnny Hallyday from the Alaska winter league
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
Sweet! We keep Carlos Gonzalez and Gio Gonzalez
AND we keep Street’s right arm. I’ll miss Ryan, though.
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
If that's true, the deal looks a whole lot better
now we just have to find a guy named Ryan Gonzalez and get Dan Meyer to change his name to Huston
Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.
nooo, not RyGon!
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
Phils writers must still be hung over from the WS.
But I bet that Ryan Gonzalez guy is pretty good.
by whiteshoes40 on Nov 11, 2008 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
Does that mean we get to keep Carlos Sweeney?
"AN, Reducing Work Productivity since 2003", connie mack 11/06/08
Rotoworld is saying that Adam Kennedy wants to be traded from StL.
Could we send them Crosby for him pls? Kennedy still has the best SS defense evar, right?
Considering he's a 2Bman...no
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
But he played it well, and he made a productive out that game
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
logical deal
patterson for freese or craig
A’s have 2b depth need 3b
cards have 3b depth, need 2b
by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
So why would they want Patterson?
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
The same reason we did. We thought he was a 2B.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
Fool me once, shame on you...
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
fyi tim brown yahoo sports
on knbr next, he’s the one who broke the original offer of cargon/smith/street…so maybe we’ll see if anymore info on the deal
nothing new
just said holliday could remain until at least trade deadline
used to lure giambi/furcal, other bats to support the young pitchers
like olney/gammons, doesnt believe they’ll sign holliday long term
by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
did beane wait too early to trade street?
brewers torres just retired…have 3 other FA relievers
now twins interested in street w/ neshek needing TJ surgery
Is there somebody better than Matt Holliday that Street would have gotten?
I mean, whether or not you agree with acquiring him, Holliday is pretty damn good.
Omar Minaya should have his brain revoked if he trades Wright for Street, Smith and Cargon
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Beane too, for settling for Holliday
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
So noted, grover
The NY media and Mets fans are in a really shitty mood after blowing 2 late-September division leads and now watching the Phillies win the Series — people have inexplicably decided that Wright is a choker or something, and since they’re in love with Murphy some people are talking about trading Wright (others want to trade Reyes). So I could almost imagine Minaya trading Wright, but not for those 3 players.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
We should give him his pick of any three players on the A's
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
Most of the NYC media is idiotic
Some people, or rather some idiots decided that Reyes was crap after 2007. Beltran was crap after 2005. LoDuca was a god.
To his credit, Minaya seems to generally ignore the crazies. And also to have a good relationship with the owners, thus allowing him to ignore the crazies.
I wouldn’t evaluate on what the Mets plan to do, based on what some idiot like Wallace Matthews writes.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
could A's be the 3rd team in peavy trade
padres want young pitching. cubs dangling vitters, padres have a couple 3b
A's make some sense
Beane has a close relationship with the SD Front Office but the story doesn’t even whisper the A’s name. The question then becomes, what/who do the A’s get in return?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Holliday is a great early Xmas present for A's fans.
He’a a perfect fot for our team. I am sorry to see CarGon go…the kid had so much potential but I am glad that Beane thinks this team can compete .
I wish Huston Street well. He was a player to be proud of for the fans. I wish him nothing but success…and I hope that the Rockies treat him very well.
I just watched Around the Horn and PTI at lunch
what a bunch of uninformed idiots. They didn’t even bother finding out who the rockies were going to get. Street was the rookie of the year only 3 years ago and has been the closer for 2 1/2 years. They don’t even know who that is?
The question was asked “is this trade a big deal?” and Woody Paige said “for the 6 or 7 fans in Oakland it is but not to anyone else”. The general feeling was that Holiday is a rental and will be flipped again. One of the panelists said “after a few years Billy Beane finally does something” and one guy even mentioned trading for Johnny Damon. That was almost 8 years ago! Did they not remember the Haren and Swisher trades that involved like a dozen players? I know it’s not Boston or New York but come on.
In some ways I hope BB signs Holliday just to prove them wrong. I don’t know why I even care what they think, it just makes me angry I guess.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
and then Mike Wilbon tried to say Bradon Webb should be the Cy Young
because he won 22 games. moron, those people need to jump on AN and learn a few things.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
the difference
around the horn: four uninformed douchebag sportswriters
PTI: two uninformed but funny/entertaining guys
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
just for entertainment purposes?
Damn. I knew I shouldn’t have been laying bets on who would take which side of any argument.
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
Know what your 1st mistake was?
You watched ESPN.
You were screwed from that point on.
The monster at the end of this blog.
what other TV sports channel is there at 2:00 pm?
I can’t help myself from watching sometimes.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
on basic cable I guess. not sure about the bigger packages.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
bigger packages....
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
What's even more funny
Is how Wilbon was ripping the BBWA for being stupid for picking Lincecum as CY when that’s one of the few things they’ve actually gotten right recently.
I mean, how ignorant do you have to be to choose that award winner to criticize the BBWA for out of all the legitimately bad choices that they’ve made over the years? There’s got to be a word for that and “ironic” just doesn’t seem suitable enough.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
Ugh, Wilbon
At least Kornheiser’s funny, even if I don’t agree with everything he says. Wilbon has the most entrenched old man way of thinking about any sport. He is the only other personality on ESPN who is more likely than Joe Morgan to bring up some irrelevant Old World argument at any given moment.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
Cust for Sizemore!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Nooooooo!!!
Sizemore stricks out a lot.
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
Cust for Greg Smith!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
No.
When you have a player who is undervalued by a good portion of the league, and is one of your team’s best hitters, and still is cheap (even in arbitration, he won’t be seeing the huge paydays), you don’t trade him.
There is zero reason to trade Cust. Unless someone wants to way overpay, which, as I said, he’s undervalued, so probably not.
This.
not a Cust H8ter
but part of the reason why he was one of the teams best hitters was because the offense was so anemic.
for whatever its worth
on another A’s board one of the well connected guys on there said A’s are seriously considering Dunn
Dunn and Cust in the same lineup would be maddening to watch…probably beane’s wet dream
but basically the same players but one will cost a ton of money…if it happens says much about the A’s future confidence in buck/barton
Bring it on
Watching guys get on base, hit homers, and score runs isn’t maddening in my book.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
Yay Dunncust!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:25 PM PST up reply actions
Late to the party
Had the day off. Wonder over to the local coffee cafe, get a breakfast burrito, an Ethiopian pour over, and the Denver Post. I notice Holiday on the front page with “Traded”. I say to myself, I wonder who they traded him to. Shock of shocks when I finally read the sports page.
alaska A residing in colorado.
Or is "pour" an Ethiopian masseuse?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
still no updates
tim brown article says holliday took his physical this afternoon and left for socal right after
no updates on smith/cargon physicals, street ( nothing at all for him not even confirmation if he’s offiically in the deal)
something must be holding this up…either the health issues, leaked info of street moving on again ( maybe A’s balked at it and would rather trade him directly to other teams)/other prospect compensation( no cahill/anderson please) im ok with one of gio/simmons./mazzaro otherwise get nelson or stewart
[Conspiracy theory]
Beane has one of his staffers leak the deal to the press. Street’s value instantly goes up because people are afraid to trade with Beane, but figure that he must be healthy/good/whatever if the Rockies wanted him. Beane then demands more out of the Rockies to finish the deal because suddenly the offers for Street are a lot better.
[/conspiracy theory]
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I am intrigued by your theory and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Actually, if there is any GM who I think could try to pull off something like this, it’s Billy. It could simply be Billy was getting mixed values for Street from teams and wanted to see what his value would be in a “GM neutral” situation.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
I'd settle for Chris Nelson
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Been a long time since I have posted but I had a few questions for A's fans much smarter then me
I have read alot in these posts about how good Jack Cust is at hitting. I have also read alot about Matt Holiday not making the A’s a playoff team if trading for him is the only move.
I guess my first question is that Billy Beane stated that when you rebuild, you go all the way or not at all. Yet doesn’t signing Holiday make the A’s just an average team with so many pieces missing around him? From what I have read Beane hates 80 win teams, unless its a rebuilding team that is going to get better and make a serious run.
I read many posts that state that Cust is as valuble a hitter as Holiday, wouldn’t that mean there is a good market for Cust because of his cost in comparison to Holiday? Can the A’s get a good package for Cust if they decided to trade him?
I have also learned alot thanks to all of you that a strikeout is not all that bad. So Im confused why scouts care about players like Chris Carter and Corey Brown’s strikeouts. If the guy can hit alot of HR’s and gets alot of walks why do scouts always say that those type of players need to cut down on their strikeouts and make more contact? To me it seems like you guys have proven over and over that a strikeout is just an out, why do they get their panties in such a bundle?
I guess this question is for people with alot more baseball knowledge, not just A’s knowledge. Why dont more baseball players take the Jack Cust approuch to hitting?
By approuch I mean basically sit dead red and swing as hard as you possibly can if the pitch is close to what you are looking for and just dont swing at breaking balls and offspeed pitches. I would think that it makes hitting easier, if your at the plate and get fooled no big deal, just tip your cap to the pitcher. If a pitcher is good enough to throw all of his offspeedd pitches for stikes then you tip your cap and wait wait for a hanging breaking ball or the fastball your looking for.
Seems like you can get paid a ton of dollars to do what Jack Cust can do and we dont see enough guys doing it. Dont you think more guys could get more walks and hit 30 HR’s with this way of hitting? You basically get 6 stikeouts for every HR you hit. Can pitchers really throw perfect fastballs and all breaking stuff that consitently? Seems like you would get some strieouts and some walks just by default with that style of hitting.
I know its alot for one post but thanks for any response.
by asfaninpismobeach on Nov 11, 2008 6:24 PM PST reply actions
The trend for the past 40 years or so has been to swing harder at pitches you can drive and take more pitches.
Cust is just an extreme example as are Dunn and Howard and Reynolds (sort of). I hope more guys do this. For example if Bobby Crosby did this he’d probably hit .190 with a .320 OPB and .420 SLG or something a lot better than he does now. He’d have been an asset when he was a good defensive SS. He’d have struck out 200 times but so what?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 11, 2008 6:31 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks Waddell
I think your dead on about a guy like Crosby, I mean what does he have to lose. After your response it kind of hit me that you are also taught from a young age that striking out is worse then even a popout, almost like a pride thing. I can almost hear some of my coach from the past “how can you let that kid strike you out” but if you to ground out to short you made “good contact”. Kind of brainwashing, lol
by asfaninpismobeach on Nov 11, 2008 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
Strike outs in the minors aren't necessarily the same as strike outs in the Show
In the minors you’ll end up facing a bunch of guys who’ll never make a big league roster. So if you strike out 150 times in A-ball scouts have to wonder how much trouble the hitter will have making contact as he advances and faces better pitching.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Cust being "as valuable a hitter as Holliday"
is a bit facile, because he’s about 2 wins worse on defense, which is a HUGE distinction.
It’s the difference between a good player and a star.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
This thread makes my head hurt.
Actually, all of crazy Holliday-high AN makes my head hurt.
I just want this thing to be finalized, one way or another. It feels like Huston’s not actually going to be part of this trade, considering he wasn’t contacted by the A’s (as far as we know), and there’s got to be so much more to come this offseason… I’m impatient to see how it all turns out.
Also, I think Billy has realized he doesn’t like having players with the same last name… cutting MSweeney, trading CarGon… maybe Ryan and Gio have higher VORGWSLN…
The not knowing is the worst, isn't it?
Did you actually read this thread and others? I did. My eyes hate me.
I'm here to talk about the past.
I skimmed...
which is what I usually end up doing when the discussion gets long and serious and eventually turns into a debate about the merits (or lack thereof) of Jack Cust…
I thought it was safe to have Carlos in my avatar photo. Yeah, I was wrong. Billy hates me. (And yes, I do take everything personally.)
by whiteshoes40 on Nov 11, 2008 8:43 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think Billy hates you.
He just has a lot on his mind right now. I think if you just give it some time, he’ll come around. The worse thing you can do is take his actions personally. He really is trying. Sure he’s made some mistakes, but who hasn’t?
Wow, I have been working WAY too many hours lately.
And I agree on Cust. It really is a love-hate thing here.
I'm here to talk about the past.
It's not love-hate
Just give it some time. He’ll swing eventually.
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
"Billy hates me."
Ha ha. Just in the last year Haren, Swish and Harden were taken away from me. I should have known it wasn’t safe to love Carlos. Hmm… Maybe now I should pretend that I really, really love Bobby Crosby.
"We are a complete freak show." -- Billy Beane
I'm hearing that Holliday is possibly being offered to the Yankees
and likely asking for Cano, Cabera and Kennedy in return. Then, if the Yanks get rid of Cano, they go after Hudson.
Linked to a deal with the A's, or directly with the Rockies?
Hopefully the latter, as I want no part of Melky or Kennedy.
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
Kennedy >>> Greg Smith
Sorry, Greg.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I believe he's being offered by the A's, but I don't know anything other than what I posted. Could be a three team thing.
My source could be full of shit, but he could also be onto something. He has ears in places.
by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 9:31 PM PST up reply actions
places like either side of his head, or is he some sort of mutant?
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
He's got many contacts from the 'old days' as he calls them.
I assume that means he left ears all over the place with little threads that go back to his head.
by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
You didn't tell us your friend was a Hogwarts graduate
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I should rephrase that...
my source probably isn’t full of shit, but what he said is probably one of several vectors this could go.
by LoneStranger on Nov 11, 2008 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
that doesnt make sense at all
would they play cano at 3rd? if A’s werent thrilled with Gonzalez approach, they’’ll get headaches w/ cano
cabrera is no better than what they have, he;s probably worse
i would take kennedy but in much lesser deal by himself…kennedy for landon powell and something else
by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 11:02 PM PST up reply actions
check out holiday's home/away splits
several analysts have pointed this out:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7311/splits;_ylt=ArUt7Oe6kzBsWDE9F7fY.CaFCLcF?year=career&type=Batting
im still not fond of this deal unless we really can flip this guy for some better players, which i trust beane, in his infinite wisdom, will do.
2011: bank on it.
Why would you want to look at home road splits
when you have access to park adjusted stats like OPS+ and EQA?
Choosing to use home road splits over OPS+ and EQA is like choosing to drink a Coors lite, when someone would give you a Duvel for free.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
I thought Holliday's road stats
WERE Coors Lite.
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
Barton & Pip
Wally Pip lead the American lead in home runs twice (albeit with 12 in 1916 and 9 in 1917) and had a career .281 batting percentage. Daric Barton is no Wally Pip.
I think it's PPip
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
late to the party
but i figured i would take some time and let the trade sink in before posting.
my original reaction still stands. what good will Holliday do on a team with no proven starters?? (Duke being unproven in terms of health)
unless there is much more to come, or Holliday is signed long term, the trade does next to nothing to improve the A’s chances in 2009.
as much as AN likes to bash Greg Smith, going into 2009 he was at the very least a known quantity. and that’s more than we can say for any other starting pitcher on the team except Eveland. (again considering Duke’s health)
the way i see it the A’s gave up 3 guys who could have helped in 2010, for one who will likely contribute nothing. it looked unlikely that Gonzales would become a star, but by 2010 i think he could have been a plus defender and league average offensive centerfielder. Smith would have been a solid back of the rotation guy, and if healthy Street is an above average setup guy. it will be interesting to see who fills those roles in 2010.
the bottom line for me – unless Holliday is flipped for a nice haul or unless the A’s go wild and add another bat and 2 veteran starters the trade makes no sense. what exactly did the A’s gain in terms of their 2009 or 2010 chances of contending by getting Holliday??

by 

























