Are We Still in the "Holliday" Spirit?

by Taj Adib on Dec 21, 2008 11:31 AM PST Comment 150 comments

Over a month ago, Billy Beane pulled off a stunner of a trade and acquired perennial MVP-candidate Matt Holliday from the Rockies. At the time of the trade, the motivation behind the move was somewhat nebulous. The A's were clearly in the midst of a massive rebuilding effort, Carlos Gonzalez and Greg Smith seemed to be serviceable and cheap long-term parts in that rebuilding effort and the Angels seemed poise to keep a stranglehold on the AL West division for at least the end of the decade. Thus, a one-year rental of a player highly-unlikely to sign long-term with the team seemed like a waste of resources.

However, in the next few weeks after the trade it became obvious that the A's were on a mission to make the 2009 team competitive and upgrade the team wherever possible, using recently-liberated payroll room to go-after free agents that normally wouldn't be within Oakland's sphere of influence. The first target was Rafael Furcal, whom the A's wined and dined and for whom the team was willing to overpay. Despite the attention and financial incentive to sign with Oakland, Furcal spurned the A's and threw a wrench into the team's off-season plans. To make matters worse, the team confounded it's shortstop problem by exposing Bobby Crosby to outright waivers only to find no takers for the disappointing former ROY. Now it seems the team will have to find a spot in Oakland or Sacramento for Crosby and pay him his $5.25 million 2009 salary to boot. Clearly, shortstop is an area where the A's will be forced to disappointingly accept sub-standard production for one more season.

Other rumors indicated that the A's were simultaneously interested in free agent starter Randy Johnson to help front a young, untested and sure-to-be inconsistent 2009 starting rotation. Yet, that interest never seemed to really materialize into anything more than "exploratory talks" and now the Big Unit appears likely to sign with the Giants or another NL team, thus leaving the A's rotation without a clear option from whom to expect veteran leadership and solid innings.

While the A's are still interested in bringing Jason Giambi back to Oaktown for another stint, so far this off-season has been disappointing since the Holliday trade. Rather than upgrade the two weakest parts of the likely 2009 team (shortstop and the starting rotation) the team has been rebuffed in their efforts and, as of now, will not be surrounding Holliday with a team that could best take advantage of his enormous talent. While the off-season is still young, it doesn't seem like the Holliday trade has turned out to be just the opening salvo of a rapid and radical restructuring of the 2009 team as previously thought - rather, the trade itself may turn out to be the first and possibly only major addition Oakland makes to the 2009 team. With all that being said, I'm still happy to have Matt Holliday in Green and Gold - even if it will only be for a couple of months - and I'm still looking forward to the 2009 Oakland Athletics and am still confident that a few other actions can and will be taken to improve this team for 2009 and beyond.

First off, I think the price paid for one-year of Holliday was fair and while Cargon and Smith had a little value to the team long-term as cost-controlled, fairly healthy, slightly better than replacement-level players, they will surely not be missed and Street had already worn out his welcome with the A's. On top of that, Holliday will likely improve the A's lineup by his mere presence. I think Jack Cust could certainly post another .900+ OPS season with 30+ homers batting in front or behind of Holliday for example, while Eric Chavez could be a nice complement to both Cust and Holliday now that he won't be forced into the 3-spot or 4-spot in the lineup.

Also, in hindsight, at the time the trade was consummated, with the A's front office fully aware that they were likely to be aggressive in free agency, the decision to take the risk, give up a couple of non-crucial pieces to get a player of Holliday's caliber was certainly advantageous. It's disappointing that the A's have yet to follow-up on the Holliday trade with other radical roster improvements, but I'm still really glad that during this Holiday season I can look forward to another Holliday season starting off in a couple of months. Whether or not the A's turn into the contenders we thought they would be with the possible additions of Furcal and the Big Unit, the A's will still be a better team next season with Matt Holliday highlighting an offense that really has nowhere to go but up from 2008.

0 recs | Comment 150 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

first comment

woooo

that's gold jerry, gold!!!

by 9Custs on Dec 21, 2008 11:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

seriously

i am still looking forward to April 1st (or whenever opening day is) I think we definitely pursue the giambino but i don’t think we will pull a Giants/Warriors/Raiders/49ers and spend money just cause we have some

that's gold jerry, gold!!!

by 9Custs on Dec 21, 2008 11:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely excited for the start of the season

While it has been a somewhat disappointing offseason I still trust that this team could go on the field and compete right now, though it would be nice to have a few more additions. I’m not convinced we won’t see another surprise trade or signing, as the market has taken historically long to develop this year. But I agree with 9custs, we won’t spend money just to spend it…

by stranahanahan on Dec 21, 2008 11:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Even with Crosby, I think we'll still be better than people think

We could have a healthy Cust-Holliday-Giambi-Chavez in the middle of our lineup. And even though our rotation is young, it’s GOOD young pitchers.

Also, does anybody remember the article at the end of the season last year where Jack Cust said he was going to train his eyes all of this off season? Link Here

Can you imagine if it works!?

by NateHST on Dec 21, 2008 12:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Cust could become even more of a beast than he is.

WANT!

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 21, 2008 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

train his eyes on what?

alaska A residing in colorado.

by ak_A on Dec 21, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Seeing

by NateHST on Dec 21, 2008 5:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Avoiding sunscreen.

99 MPH with as much control as a deflating balloon - CurveballKing on H-Rod

by Scottbass on Dec 21, 2008 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not Keira Knightley

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

by Helloooo 1st on Dec 21, 2008 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There are still plenty of bats on the market to help the offense.

Giambi being the first one I see Beane making a serious effort to bring back to Oakland.
Of the others remaining to date that are still available:
Mark Texeira—(uh, yeah….it is Christmas time right? “Miracle On Hegenberger Road.”?)

Manny Ramirez- (snark…..{mrod being mrod……}…..)

Jason Giambi—(still the favorite in my opinion)

Pat Burrell- (could be serviceable as a primary DH)

Adam Dunn- (great power #s, not a whole lot else going except he is still young at 28)

Rocco Baldelli- (as many have pointed out, if healthy could be the biggest bargain in FA)

Milton Bradley- (wait, who is this guy again?)

Bobby Abreu- (A very nice addition to a set lineup but would crowd the outfield even more. Definitely, a professional hitter.)

The rest of the guys left right now seem rather uninspiring to me.

Pitching wise there are still some good quality out there.

-Derek Lowe- ( probably wants too many years for the A’s liking, though.)
-Ben Sheets- ( If healthy, could be a sweet deal for the A’s.)
-Randy Johnson- ( probably going to the Giants)
-Brad Penny- ( The attitude worries me, but the man has some pitching talent.)
Randy Wolf- ( Seems to always be under the radar for many reasons but is a major league survivor.)

I need some more coffee……..who else is out there?

by mrod on Dec 21, 2008 12:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

don't forget JONNY GOMES

could be jack cust jr.

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Dec 21, 2008 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Except for the walks and ability to hit right-handed pitching, yeah

He’s got the zero defensive value part down pat though.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The hair has to help his value some

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

by Helloooo 1st on Dec 21, 2008 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Should help the HBP numbers, if ever so slightly

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 Dec 21, 2008 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yes there's still a lot out there...

they’re all holding their breath until the economy improves.

Of the offensive players, I would think that Dunn looks like the best of that group up there because he can play 1B as well as outfield. He can spot/share with Barton/Sweeney/Cunningham. It seems that Dunn’s value has really fallen since he was a perennial all-star with the Reds. I like Baldelli, too, but the A’s don’t need another outfielder. I just don’t see how Giambi has a place unless the A’s deal Barton, which is possible of course.

I wouldn’t want the A’s to go after any of the pitching out there because the A’s are the few clubs in baseball with any depth in that department. Unless Lowe, Sheets, RJ, or Penny are available at a good price.

by halflink123 on Dec 21, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I just don't think...

We need another DH, we get a burrell or giambi, then it takes playing time away from some young guys (either buck or baton) and want to KNOW that they can’t do it before we give up on them.

that's gold jerry, gold!!!

by 9Custs on Dec 21, 2008 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody said anything about giving up on Barton or Buck.

Especially since Buck and Barton both had great Septembers at the end of the season. I think Buck is gonna bounce back strong and have a great year. Barton I’m still certainly very hopeful for as well, but I don’t think it would hurt him or the team to have Giambi around to help mentor him along. But, ya never know what’s going on in Billy’ head now do ya?

by mrod on Dec 21, 2008 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i think it'd be interesting to have a poll to see what people think would be the best thing to

do with Holliday now that FA has been around for a while

-trade him right now, the a’s will not be competitive in 2009, at least have BB get the biggest return
-still be active in the FA market (Dunn, RJ) see how the season goes, if we suck, trade him
-still be active, see how the season goes, even if were doing above average, trade him b/c you think every single A will catch the bubonic plague and the season will be ruined
-stil be active, hold on to him at all costs, take the two draft picks, WS or bust
-were not ready yet, wait to make our move for next year but pester Boras the whole season for an extension the entire season, and do whatever it takes to re-sign him

"I think people in this state like BOTH teams," proclaims Nick Aliotti, the Ducks' defensive coordinator. "Except for our hard-core fans, I don't think most Duck fans would have been terribly upset to see Oregon State going to the Rose Bowl."

Another reason he needs to go.

by diehardoaklandfan22 on Dec 21, 2008 12:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

no reason to trade Holliday, especially now

by halflink123 on Dec 21, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

or

sign Barry Bonds to a 4 year deal to play SS.

I:>0

by mrod on Dec 21, 2008 12:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Sign Man-Ram to 1 year deal for 25 mil to play SS

just go for all offense and screw defense… become the warriors of MLB

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Dec 21, 2008 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

well he did start out as a SS

funny how things can change over 15 years

Another reason he needs to go.

by diehardoaklandfan22 on Dec 21, 2008 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to start being an ass

and looking up prior comments people have made about Carlos Gonzalez every time someone starts dissing him as crap. Cherrypicking? Yep. Asinine? Sure. But it’s f***ing irritating me that he suddenly went from “future cornerstone” to “roster filler” the second he left the A’s roster. Maybe some “greatest hits” from past posts will help break through this ridiculous sitewide cognitive block.

Overall, I think Cargon will be quite an asset as a strong defensive centerfielder that could hit for a high-average, bop 15-20 homers and steal some bases. annually for the next several seasons.

There’s no reason why we need to label the Haren trade, especially, as a lose/win for the A’s or Diamondbacks. So far, it looks like both teams made out very well in the deal. Danny’s doing well for them now and with his new extension, it looks he’ll be doing so for the foreseeable future. Great for them. But great for us too since we got two building-block outfielders (Cargon, Cunningham)

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Because you've never had an opinion

and then later modified it.

Pure class, Paul, pure class as usual.

by Pucking Insane on Dec 21, 2008 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't generally modify my opinions based on irrelevant factors like a player being traded away from my team

And, if I do, I deserve to be called out on it.

I really don’t see how it’s “classless” to demand an explanation for a sudden devaluing of a player’s ability which just so happens to coincide with the team dealing him away.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As my past comments will confirm, I see Gonzalez

as an already plus defensive CFer with “Garret Anderson offense” potential. He’ll never sport a high OBP but he could become a solid offensive player. In Gonzalez, the A’s traded away the only good defensive CFer they have who has the chance to be a good hitter. Unless you believe Sweeney can become a plus CFer, which I think the A’s do and I know I do not.

My take overall? If over the next five years as a CFer, Gonzalez is a better player than Sweeney, the A’s gave up an awful lot. But if the A’s are right and Sweeney is a better player than Gonzalez then it was a great trade for Oakland.

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 Dec 21, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You seem to be failing to account for the scenarios where they are both good

or both bad. If they’re both bad, the A’s are fairly likely to be screwed anyway. If they’re both good, it was pretty clearly a bad trade.

I really don’t see how Sweeney impacts this situation at all. The A’s have three outfield positions; it’s not like one of them will block the other one off.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see CF as one position, "the corners" as another

Most OFers can’t patrol CF and those who can often force you to give up offense to manage defense.

If the A’s only had one suitable CFer in the mix – Gonzalez – then trading him away was a real issue. Sweeney might move to RF and hit for a nice average, but all that does is block another corner OFer while leaving the A’s with a hole to fill in CF. In that scenario, better to have moved Sweeney and kept Gonzalez.

In contrast, if Sweeney becomes a good CFer, and develops the power only the A’s brass seems to see in him, then CF is set without impact on Buck or Cunningham’s progress, and Gonzalez becomes expendable in the quest for a slugger (or it could have been a SS), etc.

I guess I just see CF as its own position, same as seeing SS as “one position” rather than seeing it as part of “middle infield” or “infield”. And you can deal your “best” CFer easier than you can deal your “only” CFer.

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 Dec 21, 2008 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

Whereas I see it as identical to the corner OF positions, inasmuch as a player will basically be equally valuable to his team no matter which position he plays. A +5 corner outfielder and a -5 center fielder are, to me, exactly the same player.

Unless you have a player with an extremely odd defensive skillset, one position is generally going to be pretty similar to another from a defensive runs standpoint (runs above or below average, adjusted for position).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I'd rather be in the position of having to find

a very good corner OFer than be in the position of having to find a good CFer. Especially when my current young talent pool includes Buck and Cunningham and no CFers.

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 Dec 21, 2008 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Buck and Cunningham are as valuable in center as they are in a corner

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 6:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Cunningham -

I just don’t see Buck being able to handle CF, period.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 21, 2008 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

CHONE disagrees with you...

There really isn’t any reason he shouldn’t be acceptable in center field, because he’s legitimately plus as a corner OF.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Buck?

I’m always unpleasantly surprised by how many getable balls he misses. His instincts don’t appear to be great and he has the tendency to put his glove in places the ball doesn’t happen to be.

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 Dec 21, 2008 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Fan Scouting Report disagrees with Chone a little

They have Buck as a 53 OF in 2007 and a 49 in 2008. So they think he’s about average. Maybe he’s not really as good as his numbers or not as mediocre as he looks, but it’s not at all clear one way or the other.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 22, 2008 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, but the CHONE projection already incorporates that data

The baseline for regression to the mean for the projection isn’t league average, it’s an abstracted version of the player’s Fan scouting report. Buck scores very well on the metrics, and not so well on the evals, so the projection is somewhere in the middle.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 22, 2008 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Paul, YOU fail to account for the scenario where

Holliday hits .400, becomes the founding member of the 60/60 club, wins the triple crown, steals jessica simpson from tony romo, leads the A’s to be 2009 champs, hosts SNL, signs a 15 year contract with the A’s, moves into MC Hammer’s house, and runs for governor in 2023…

and carlos gonzalez is out of baseball in a year and selling used cars in San Bernardino

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Dec 21, 2008 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the chances of that happening:

I’d say even money in Vegas…

by stranahanahan on Dec 21, 2008 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You are oversimplifying this...

You are suggesting that people have changed their opinions since the trade. I agree, that would be mostly irrational, although one has to consider that it wasn’t an arbitrary flipping point – the front office signified they had given up on him and that should mean something to the faithful fans.

Really though, I speak from my own experience, in that my opinion didn’t suddenly change, but rather I became much more vocal about it because A) the front office now backed me up, B) I wouldn’t just be spewing negativity pointlessly.

It is only natural to tend to discuss the positive.

www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.

by ChadGod on Dec 21, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When did you stop being and ass?

;) all in good fun of course

"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane

by athleticsBB4life on Dec 21, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Taj can respond to your comment.....

I wasn’t even thinking about that, to tell you the truth. I see how that could be confusing in how a player was viewed one way a year ago, and how they are viewed now. I think it is still too early to tell what kind on player C-Gon is gonna turn out to be. I wish him nothing but the best.

by mrod on Dec 21, 2008 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the middle

Cargon proved himself as an excellent defensive center fielder. However his lack of pate discipline was concerning. I never saw the high average that Taj was right to contend was essential to having an OBP that was high enough to support his poor plate discipline. My view of the trade is simply that Holliday’s value is going to depreciate slower that a flukey fringe starter like smith, an injury and blown save prone closer with a increasing salary, and a centerfielder with a high ceiling and high bust potential.

Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom

by designatedforassignment on Dec 21, 2008 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A CFer who hits

.250/.300/.500 and plays top-of-the-line defense would be pretty valuable. That could be Gonazlez’ true ability going forward.

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 Dec 21, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with .250/.300 but not .500

the only guys who had .300 obp and .500 slg last year were Marcus Thames and Mike Jacobs, who both had kind of fluky seasons (and better eyes than cargon)… next closest was ryan braun at .330 obp

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Dec 21, 2008 6:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

At Coors, I'd give him a good shot at .500, but

elsewhere, more like .450. Long-term, I do think he has .500 slugging potential because as hard as he hits the ball and as capable as he is of hitting to all field, he should be a doubles masheeeeeen with 20+ HRs. Probably a better expectation, though, is that in fact he’ll slug .500, in a neutral park, against RHP, but will struggle enough against LHP to drop below .500 overall. Kind of like Blalock (probably the best slugging comp) and Chavez.

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 Dec 21, 2008 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you are optimistic

however considering that before this year there were alot of questions about whether cargon could in fact man the central garden for more than a couple of seasons, a regression in his center field defense would be extremely damaging. I think a slugging pct around .450 sounds like a good outcome for Gonzalez especially if he only hits .250. A .200 ISOP sounds too optimistic if he has never posted a .200 ISOP at any level that he has spent significant amount of time.

Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom

by designatedforassignment on Dec 21, 2008 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think eventually he'll hit more like .270,

but still with a low OBP (.320-.330) and high SLG (.450-.500). Blalock’s numbers offer a good comp in that he slugs over .500 against RHP but tanks against LHP to give him an overall figure below .500 … or .500 if you platoon him, which might be Gonzalez’ fate. I could definitely see Gonzalez slugging .500 in a full season where he is platooned.

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 Dec 21, 2008 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think hes more like a 150 ISOP player

which even if he hit .270 would make for a line of .270/.320/.420 player if you factor in his traditional ISOd of .050 which seems in line with his minor league. .740 slugging heavy OPS player is what youre getting… where as Swooney OPSed .733 last year.

Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom

by designatedforassignment on Dec 21, 2008 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dave Cameron put it well i think...

Well, to start, his approach at the plate can only be described as poor. In 316 major league plate appearances, he swung at pitches out of the strike zone 32% of the time and only made contact in 45% of those swings. In other words, he just swung and missed at a lot of pitches that were going to be called balls. Now, there are players who swing at pitches of the strike zone a lot – Vladimir Guerrero is famous for this, swinging at 45% of all balls he sees. However, he makes contact 70% of the time he swings at a pitch out of the strike zone.

In fact, among major league players who swung at balls 30% of the time or more, every single one made contact half the time (okay, Aaron Rowand’s 49.71% is not exactly half, but let’s round up). Most of them made contact 60-70% of the time, showing that they were chasing pitches because they could hit them, not because they didn’t understand the strike zone.

Perhaps it was just nerves, and he’ll adjust as he grows, but in his first taste of major league pitching, Gonzalez showed a minor league approach. That approach is going to significantly limit his offensive upside, and giving him a narrow path to success. Essentially, with that kind of swing-at-anything mentality, his upside is narrowed to something like 2008 Torii Hunter – a .280/.340/.470 guy who combines power and good defense to be a +3 to +3.5 win player.

There’s certainly a lot of value in having a 23-year-old with +3 to +4 win upside, but if that’s his peak, he’s not quite as shiny as he may have appeared previously.

The good news for Rockies fans is that he does appear to be a quality defender – the A’s fans rated him a 74 on the Fan’s Scouting Report, and the +/- rankings had him at +10 plays in only half a season of work, so while the sample is small, it looks like he’ll be an asset with his glove. That might be necessary to keep him in the line-up, however, because the questions about his bat look legitimate.

I just don’t see him hitting .280 with his approach. Valuable yes… star player probably not.

Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom

by designatedforassignment on Dec 21, 2008 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

link

oops

Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom

by designatedforassignment on Dec 21, 2008 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting read, thanks

I’m just assuming that “Gonzalez in the big leagues at 22” is not an especially accurate predictor of what he’ll be in three years – though the issue with plate discipline has been there from the start and could derail his progress beyond repair.

I think the comp to Torii Hunter is pretty fair, and I’m sure every team would be happy to have a plus defender in CF who put up a .270/.340/.470 line. I agree, though, that he’ll have to improve significantly before he can put up that line – and he’s young enough, and has the skill set, to do it.

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 Dec 21, 2008 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i think he was overhyped to begin with.

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

by Cheezombie on Dec 21, 2008 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i saw the change in opinion when he was traded as well

but is that really such a terrible thing? i dont think you can expect full 100% complete non-bias out of diehard fans, who tend to look for the good in every situation

"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"

by travdog6 on Dec 21, 2008 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Going further

Maybe we over-hyped him when we acquired him.

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

by Helloooo 1st on Dec 21, 2008 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Carlos definitely belonged at AAA in 2008 and the A's screwed up his development by moving him

up and down. Unfortunately he was their best CF option as long as Buck was out of commission and Cunningham wasn’t ready. I was ready to start him in AAA in 2009 and bring him up to be the CF for several years when he was ready.

But if Holliday can be traded for a premium SS prospect, I’d rather have that than Carlos. As of this moment, I’m not sure who this premium prospect is that I want, that would be available for Holliday though.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 21, 2008 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My opinion hasn't changed...

I still think his nickname should be Storage. Or Luggage.

99 MPH with as much control as a deflating balloon - CurveballKing on H-Rod

by Scottbass on Dec 21, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think I'm cherrypicking facts based on the information at hand.

Clearly, when I made those positive comments about Cargon they were based on his potential. After an almost full year in the majors it was clear that he has a long ways to go to get to that potential – if he ever does. In the OP I point out that both Smith and Cargon held long term value to the organization as cost-controlled players that were close to being or were/are better than replacement level at their respective positions. But that’s where they are right now…Smith is likely to stay that way or get worse, not better, while, like I said, Cargon still has a ways to go to make this trade look terrible for the A’s. If he reaches his potential (which yes, I defined as a strong defensive center fielder with good power and good speed) then the trade for Holliday might not look all that great.

But while Cargon is struggling to put all of his considerable gifts together and become a more complete ballplayer, the A’s, in exchange, received one of the most complete players in the game today. It was clearly a “presence versus potential” trade for an A’s team that had plenty of outfield prospects, left-handed starters, relievers and cash to throw around right when Colorado was looking to deal and I’m just glad the A’s pulled the trigger.

The only real “knock” on Cargon I stated in the entire OP was that I don’t think the A’s will miss him much…I should have clarified that as, “They won’t miss him much for the next several years while he struggles to hit left-handed pitching and to hit major league quality breaking pitches consistently.” That might be a slightly negative take on the current state of his abilities, but I I don’t think it qualifies as an “asinine” and “ridiculous” personal re-evaluation of a player that still remains a lot longer on potential than he does on immediate impact.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 21, 2008 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the criticism is more the idea of signifcantly reevaluating

a player’s potential as a 25 year old based on 1/2 year of struggles in the major leagues as a 22 year old. Which is fair, but it’s also fair to say Gonzalez has NEVER showed great potential to hit LHP nor has he ever showed plate discipline – so it’s not as if he had conquered his biggest weaknesses upon being called up.

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 Dec 21, 2008 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think there's anything in the OP that shows I'm significantly re-evaluating Cargon's potential.

In fact, I didn’t mention his “potential” even once. I think all of us on this site that saw Cargon play more than 10 games last season (especially in games that were not played in August) believe that he has a very high ceiling. But he’s clearly got a ways to go to get to that high ceiling, which he may never get to.

I just don’t appreciate Paul “calling me out” on my re-evaluation of Cargon when in essence, the only point I made was/is, “I personally would take 1-year of the sure-thing Holliday when the team is fully prepared to spend money in free agency to put a competitive team together” rather than wait through Cargon’s (and the rest of the team’s) growing pains just to reach some mythical golden age when all these young players rise to their full potential and become the difference makers that Holliday has already proven he can be.

Do I still think that Cargon can be a difference-maker at some point with everything i said before (good defense, 15-20 homers, high-average and some stolen bases)…yes I do, but I’m still glad we traded him for a guy who has already demonstrated he can do those things many times over.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 21, 2008 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Apparently the team is not fully prepared to spend money in free agency to put a competitive team together

They just whiffed on the biggest upgrade available on the market, and they did so because they came at it with an attitude of “Do you want to play for us?” instead of “We want you to play for us,” with all the necessary salary implications of those two attitudes.

Apparently it’s OK to take risks with talent, but not with money. It might as well be the Schott/Hoffman days all over again.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

By now, we should all be able to agree that

the A’s lost out on Furcal primarily because Furcal wanted to play for the Dodgers, and if that wasn’t possible, the Braves. For the A’s to have made a deal Furcal signed, they would have had to overpay the overpay and offer something like 4/52 – which would have been a HUGE risk for a 31-yo coming off of back surgery.

We can debate all we want about whether Furcal would have considered 4/44, but can’t we all agree that the A’s were NEVER Furcal’s choice and that the #1 reason the A’s didn’t sign him was that Furcal wasn’t interested?

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 Dec 21, 2008 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, I really cannot endorse that statement

I think he was offended by the initial offer. I think he was even more offended when the A’s, even in their “second offer,” wouldn’t even match other clubs in per-year salary. And I think an initial offer of 4/44 would have gotten a signature on the dotted line by Thanksgiving.

It is rarely going to be the case that your team is the absolute #1 choice destination for a free agent. The way one gets around that is by paying the guy more money.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess that's where we just have to disagree

I don’t think Furcal would have signed for 4/44 and I don’t think Beane feels Furcal is a good enough health risk to spend 44 million on. As usual, time will tell.

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 Dec 21, 2008 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How is 4/38 a good deal while 4/44 is a bad risk?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 21, 2008 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

For the 16,000,000th time,

you have to put a cap somewhere and say it isn’t worth it to go another x million.

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 Dec 22, 2008 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And for the 16,000,001st time, Beane capped too low

He misread the market and it cost the A’s a player they wanted.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or you capped it too high

You never entertain that possibility.

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 Dec 22, 2008 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I considered that, then I looked at what the market was saying about FA SS and I got real

4/32 is a cut throat offer. 4/36 is at best a low ball offer. Two weeks of negotiations later, bumping it to 4/38 was a weak offer in comparison to what Furcal favorites Atlanta and LA could do.

All your protestations otherwise fall flat in the face of the economic reality. The A’s final offer was the only one to even match the annual salary of Renteria, which is where the A’s needed to be starting from to begin with.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not if they felt that paying Furcal 4/44

made the potential risks outweigh the potential gains. You’re acting as if Sabean gauges value better than Beane does.

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 Dec 22, 2008 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Again 4/38 being wonderful vs. 4/44 being hideous is a ridiculous assumption

Furcal was the premier FA SS on the market. You don’t get bargains on premier FA’s.

As much as Sabean’s signing of Renteria helped Beane go after Furcal (by removing one of Furcal’s suitors) the downside was setting a floor for what Team Furcal would be looking for in terms of annual dollars.

Renteria got $9.5 million guaranteed, the A’s offer prior to the Winter Meetings was under $9 million. And if the A’s really did open at 4/32 and then bumped it to 4/35 take-it-or-leave-it, then Beane was playing cut throat with Furcal and it cost him his #1 FA project.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So you believe what Furcal said then?

Do you think Frank Wren and John Scheurholz were going ballistic for no reason?

To me, Furcal’s camp has absolutely zero credibility.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's not split this discussion

I replied below

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds good.

I replied to your reply below.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Then why not just say "screw it" and offer him 4/52 guaranteed?

In the end, what’s 9M vs 13M anyway? That’s less than Crosby gets paid!

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because Beane didn't need to go 4/52

He screwed himself when he lowballed the initial offer.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He made the highest 4 year offer twice

Just curious, grover – if Furcal has injury issues over the next four years, what will your position be? That Beane was right after all, or that he still should have thrown $44+million into the cause?

Aren’t you one of the many saying “don’t count on Chavez”? Do you remember how Chavez looked in his first month back in 2008? He looked absolutely terrific. Whereas in his most recent game, Furcal looked like he couldn’t bend down to field a routine ground ball. I still wanted the A’s to take a chance and sign him, but not for the kind of money you’re talking.

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 Dec 22, 2008 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My position will be the same as it was at the start of this whole mess

I don’t like Furcal and if the A’s hadn’t traded for Holliday I’d have wanted nothing to do with the guy.

But trading for Holliday and pursuing Randy Johnson means one thing… the A’s want to contend in 2009. OK, if you’re going to contend in 2009 you have to do something about SS. Furcal is/was the best option to improve production from that spot.

If Beane was going to commit, he had to actually commit. Arguing 4/38 is justified but 4/44 is too much is a middling argument. I’ll paraphrase Beane yet again… the A’s die if they play the middle ground. They’re either going for it or they’re building to go for it, playing for an 82 win season is stupid and pointless if it costs you resources (CarGon, Street, Smith) that could help you win more games in 2010 and beyond.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I just don't see Furcal as the only avenue

Trade for Miggy and sign a veteran starter (Johnson, Wolf still options, plus Sheets, Lowe if you want to open up the pocketbook a bit) and you’re there without dealing top prospects or breaking the bank. Trading for Nick Johnson isn’t a bad move either, since if/when he breaks down you have Barton ready.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 22, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, he's not the only option

But trading for a SS costs the A’s talent. Signing a FA like Furcal only costs the A’s money, money they have.

OK, let’s trade for Miggy. What happens at SS in 2010? And how much money are the Astros willing to eat vs. the A’s willingness to part with prospects? Let’s think about this practically. If the A’s have the cash to take on Tejada’s entire 2009 salary ($13 million) thus enabling them to acquire him at the lowest possible price in terms of prospects lost AND sign Johnson or Sheets or Lowe, then why didn’t they make a realistic offer to Furcal (who almost certainly would have cost less than $13 million a year) and keep their prospects?

Something’s not right there.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here again, btw

If the A’s are going to trade for a SS they should forget about Tejada and go after someone who can play the position for 2-3 years.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That basically leaves Hardy as the most available target, yes?

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't use the term "available" but yeah

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, talked about as potential trade bait at least.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How do you know?

Didn’t Furcal ultimately sign for 3 years and 30 million plus incentives? According to Cots’ contracts, Furcal’s salary structure is 6.5, 8.5, 12M, 12M (option) with a 3M signing bonus to be paid in 2012.

That’s a 3/27 deal with an option to make it 4/39. Not far off from a guaranteed 4/38 deal, which is what Beane apparently offered.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's 3/30 guaranteed with a vesting option

The total pushes it to 4/42 assuming the option kicks in. This from the team he played for the last 3 years and wanted to stay with.

All of which means the A’s should not have low balled their original offer. If you believe Furcal at all, the A’s offered 4/32 then 4/35 take-it-or-leave-it then after two weeks of talking… 4/38. If even half of that story is true then the A’s screwed up. Offering 4/32 after the Giants guaranteed Renteria $9.5 million annual is either insulting or stupid, you decide.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe Furcal at all, though.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What don't you believe?

4/32?

4/35 Take-it-or-leave-it?

4/38 as the last offer?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe 4/32 and then 4/35 take it or leave it.

I do believe 4/38 was the last offer, and it was too low.

That said, I also believe that if Beane had offered 4/44 at any point, that offer would have immediately been used to get LA to give up the 3/30 guaranteed + option that was eventually signed.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I scratch my head at 4/32 as well

I don’t see what it buys Furcal to make up that figure but it does seem particularly obtuse on account of Beane.

I do believe 4/35 guaranteed take-it-or-leave-it, because when Furcal didn’t sign the A’s pulled the offer off the table. That much was pretty well confirmed by both sides.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I highly doubt 4/32 was ever offered.

Remember the first rumored deal was with Oakland and it was for 4/48.

I’d say it’s very well possible that was leaked by Team Furcal in an attempt to get LA and/or Atlanta to perk up and get into the bidding and to try and set a market value at 12M per season.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oakland and 4/48 were never rumored together

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely were.

Here’s the link

Furcal revealed that he has been offered a four-year, $48-million contract by the A’s that includes incentives that could push its value to more than $50 million.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do we really want a SS

who has such a bad memory? First he remembers he was offered 48million, then he remembers he was offered 35million. And always when it’s to his best advantage to remember a fictionally high or low figure.

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 Dec 22, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno, I think he really (obviously) wanted to stay with LA

I think he wasn’t very tactful in the way he went about showing it, and that his agent is a completely unethical snake as evidenced by the whole term sheet debacle.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to play in a certain place, but the execution of whatever plan they had to do so was questionable.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That story was bogus

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How is it anymore bogus than Furcal saying the offers were 4/32 and 4/35

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't even have a position to defend anymore

You’ve lost this round.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me re-phrase

4/48 and the A’s were never rumored in any story that wasn’t shot down by Furcal’s own people.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He signed with LA for 3/0 plus an option, did he not?

If Beane had offered him 4/44, Team Furcal would have just gone straight back to LA with that 11M per year offer and said “make it close to this and Furcal will stay in LA”

by mikev on Dec 21, 2008 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We'll never know, since the A's wouldn't go 4/40

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 21, 2008 10:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Furcal signed for (potentially) more than 4/40.

by mikev on Dec 21, 2008 10:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe so

And maybe the Dodgers say uncle. Or maybe they don’t, and Furcal signs with the Dodgers.

Neither of them is worse than the current situation.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 22, 2008 1:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If he really signed for 3/0

Then Furcal screwed himself over….
Hell, we coulda just offered 4/1 and we woulda gotten him…

by stranahanahan on Dec 22, 2008 1:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is what happens when I post after enjoying several Makers Marks

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 7:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to clarify the air here,

“asinine” and “cherrypicking” were referring to me hunting up prior comments…

With that said, the first of those two comments was made in August, well after he had demonstrated a lack of present ability to hit at a high level. Very little changed between August and now other than, apparently, the determination of the front office to keep him around. So I’m still not seeing where this sea change in valuation is coming from.

Here’s what really pisses me off about this trade. To me, Carlos Gonzalez projects— right now, for next season— as a league-average player. Easily. A +10 defensive center fielder, which is what he showed last year, does not need to hit very well to be league-average. The projections I’ve seen for him have hardly been “out on a limb” with optimism— quite the contrary; they’re in the neighborhood of a .700 OPS. That, from him, puts him in the average-player range— at age 23!

I don’t think the A’s are knee-deep in outfield prospects, to be honest. I don’t see much above the A level at this point— after Holliday inevitably departs, you’re looking at a thin patina of Buck, Cunningham and Sweeney covering up a whole lot of mediocrity underneath. I’m president of the Chris Denorfia fan club but even I’m not ready to credit him as a long-term option until I see more out of him at the MLB level, in particular translating his solid-average minor league power into game-time power in the majors. If the A’s had dealt off Matt Murton, I’d be playing a different tune— but they so happened to pick the one guy to trade off who had any appreciable shot at rising above the “3rd outfielder” level.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re-reading your original post with a more keen eye...

I see where you weren’t calling my posts “asinine” or my facts “cherrypicked”. Overlooking that was truly asinine on my part, which is ironic….

Anyways, it seems like most of Cargon’s immediate value is in his defense, which is indeed above-average right now. But Rajai Davis’s center field defense is even better…his pure speed is even better too, so I’m thinking he’ll be better over a longer period of time. Of course, Davis’s skillset and overall upside pales in comparison to that of Cargon…but with a plus center-fielder already on the roster and under team control for several more seasons, it makes it easier for this team (as currently constructed) to part with Cargon in this particular deal…in my opinion.

I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!

by Taj Adib on Dec 21, 2008 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a question for PT and TajAdib:

How would you rate “the platoon of Ryan Sweeney and Rajai Davis” as one CFer, offensively and defensively combined? Figure it to be 3/4 Sweeney, 1/4 Davis defensively, with Sweeney getting 3/4 of the ABs and Davis getting the benefit of batting almost exclusively against LHP. How does that compare overall to Carlos Gonzalez, do you feel?

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 Dec 21, 2008 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My take

Sweeney projects at, about, a .750 OPS against right-handers. It’s his career mark, and it’s more or less in line with his projections for next season. In Oakland, that’s about 3 runs above average when you discount for playing time. His defense is just about league average. He gets 2.5*.75=just under 2 runs for being a center fielder. And he gets 15 runs for being above replacement level. So he’s about 2 wins above replacement.

Davis looks to have an Oakland OPS of around .680 against lefthanders. That would be about 10 runs below average over a full season, so 2.5 below for 1/4 of a season. His defense is about 10 runs above average, or 2.5 above. Replacement level credits him with being worth about 5 more runs.

Overall the platoon is league average or maybe a little better, but the vast majority of that comes from Sweeney. Personally, I see little if any point in bothering with it— you might as well just use Sweeney as the everyday CF and keep Davis solely as a defensive replacement and pinch runner. Your run differential will be slightly worse but you can leverage your runs better by using Davis as a runner in key situations.

As for comparing it to Gonzalez— it’s a fraction of a win better, if that. The difference will be dwarfed by variance of one sort or another (luck, inaccurate projections, or the rates at which the various players develop).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if Rajai can improve / is improving as a hitter

His approach looked a lot better to me later in the season than earlier, or in previous seasons. Post ASB was the only time I’ve seen Rajai actually look like a major league hitter. Wouldn’t it be fabby-wabby if he figured stuff out right about…now?

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 Dec 21, 2008 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh

Personally I thought his approach was far better with the Giants in 2007 (and it seemed like the results were better too). He’s got to be the first hitter in recent memory to come to the A’s and immediately STOP showing any plate discipline.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 22, 2008 1:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: +10 defensive center fielder

1. I’m constantly reading about the vagaries of defensive metrics, how it’s necessary to assess several seasons worth of data before drawing any dramatic conclusions, etc.

2. Prior to last season, many smart people on this site expressed doubt as to whether Gonzalez projected to be a CF at all. (this comment and the discussion surrounding it, for example)

But now, all assertions of his present and future value seem to assume – as an accepted, empirical fact – that he’s an upper tier defensive CF. Shouldn’t we be a bit more skeptical of this?

by 74mk on Dec 22, 2008 4:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Those doubts were well founded...

and Gonzalez pulled his head out, straightened his routes and played up to his full potential defensively. He did it so easily that it really makes one wonder why he couldn’t do the same with the bat in 2009. There is still some question as to whether he can stay in CF as he gets older (and bulkier) but he’s improved the defensive part of his game so much that any possible position switch is some years off.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 22, 2008 7:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

You may have misinterpreted my question slightly. Or possibly I phrased it poorly.

In any event, what I’m trying to get at is this:

I agree Gonzalez will stay in CF for a few years at least. I also agree he looked very good out there. But PT (and others, but PT has been the most vocal) seems extremely confident about attaching a number to that presumed/observed excellence.

This is always how these discussions go … Gonzalez is a plus X defender, a minus Y hitter, insert positional adjustment voodoo, and voila, his value is Z, six cost controlled years of which equate to 462 $13M years of Matt Holliday (or whatever), and Jesus Beane has his head up his ass why didn’t we offer Furcal a hundred million dollars.

I just wonder whether PT/we ought to be asserting the “plus X defender” part with such certainty, given that we only have 85 games worth of data to go on.

And if the answer is “yes, we should”, then what’s the deal with all the SaberPeople admonitions about taking single season defensive numbers with a grain of salt? What am I missing?

by 74mk on Dec 22, 2008 9:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're not missing anything.

PT is in love with Sean Smith’s projections, not without reason because they’re very good considering the lack of good defensive data.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Most of this is correct

However:

a. The +10 projection is building in a LOT of regression to the mean from what Gonzalez showed last season, where he was about 10 runs above average in only about half a season’s worth of innings, maybe not even that many, and

He LOOKS like a +10 fielder out there. Good routes, good speed, catches the majority of the balls he gets to, and a great arm.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 22, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Jesus

Why is it impossible to post a f***ing list on here without having some part of it fall into some stupid autoformatting pit trap?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 22, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The same reason that I can't unsubscribe from Viva El Birdos.

clockwerks hates us.

by mikev on Dec 22, 2008 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If it were McCovey's Chronicles,

I’d suspect a clockwerks orange.

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 Dec 22, 2008 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You do realize

that calling Gonzalez a “slightly above replacement level” player for the rest of his career relegates him to Bobby Crosby territory?

And when did he turn from a future cornerstone player to a “slightly above replacement level” and “non-crucial piece”? Right after he stopped being an Oakland A, huh.

"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."

by lenscrafters on Dec 21, 2008 2:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Cargon is gone

For those who think he will suck you will be wrong. I do see him hitting about 30 jacks and bat around 270/320. Most of his bombs will be in colorado. He will be a ok player but no allstar. That being said Street will choke in home games and will be traded 2 months into the season.

by Arcman on Dec 21, 2008 3:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I sit firmly in the WTF @ Holliday trade/why the hell did we do this camp.

I haven’t been the biggest CarGon believer, never was, although I think he develops into an decent regular with plus defense (slightly below average with the bat). From a centerfielder, that’s pretty good. At best, he’s OMGholyshit good. At worst, he’s a late inning defensive sub who provides nothing with the bat. And, those stick around on MLB rosters for a while. But, CarGon’s got the tools, he’s just gotta put ‘em all together. I think his upside is more Aaron Rowand than Carlos Beltran, and look at the contract Rowand got. However, I’m one who favors results over more tools/higher ceiling, and would’ve been doubly pissed/enraged had the A’s traded Cunningham.

I know Smith’s 2008 was a fluke. If Dan O’Dowd was willing to take him in a deal for his best player, I don’t see why the A’s couldn’t have fleeced another GM and/or built a package with him in it to get something that would be of more use.Package him with something to get Donald. Or use him in a package for something that the A’s have controlled for a while.

Now, we go to Street. This was the absolute worst offseason to sell him. Either wait till the ’09 trade deadline or use him in a package for something cost controlled.

I love Holliday. If we were trading for someone like Magglio Ordonez (expensive, but the A’s have him for a few years), that’s one thing. But a guy who’s gone after 2009, when the A’s are only fringe contenders? No thanks.

It’s a horrible, horrible usage of resources. You could use those pieces in a trade for someone who might impact the 2010 club, or prospects that work down the road. I understand the “butts in seats” argument, but building a perennial winner does more for butts than one cornerstone player for one goddamn year. If you want butts in the seats on a one year commitment, go get Bonds and keep the prospects.

In conclusion, my point is, even if you think CarGon is a bust, Smith is a fluke, and Street will never ever rebound, you could’ve gotten more value in terms of long-term control/benefits with those pieces.

I’m perfectly ready to eat crow on all this, and hopefully I’m eating some by next October.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 21, 2008 4:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

you make some good points

but at the same time it’s MATT FUCKING HOLLIDAY. at worst we get draft picks, at best we get MATT FUCKING HOLLIDAY. look at those biceps and tell me your not in love. plus we can always flip him for more players. and did i mention he’s MATT FUCKING HOLLIDAY. ok im done i promise. MATT FUCKING HOLLIDAY

by travdog6 on Dec 21, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree here

My opinion on Cargon was never firm, so I feel now is the appropriate time to state my opinion:
I think he will be a fine major leaguer. He’ll get the job done, and if he plays half his games at Coors his stats are going to look mighty fine, still I have said before he is not major league ready yet, and he possibly needs more time than Cunningham, maybe not being serviceable until Cardenas, Carter, and co are ready. That aside, if he gets some of the attitude problems worked out, I think he’ll be a good player, but he’s no Matt Fucking Holliday…

by stranahanahan on Dec 21, 2008 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

6 years of him is absolutely worth one year of "Matt Fucking Holliday"

I don’t think I’d even have made that trade straight up, much less with two other chips included. He already projects as a league-average player next season, at age 23, despite all of his flaws— and odds are he’ll continue to improve for some time.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and you're probably right there...

IF Holliday is in fact a 1 year rental and the A’s don’t win it all then you are 100% correct there…
BUT, if the A’s do end up winning the World Series or signing Holliday to an extension than this was the right move…
But still, it’s exciting to see the A’s make a move like this.

by stranahanahan on Dec 21, 2008 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OR

if his value once he leaves is better than Street, Cargon, and Smith (aka we get better value for him at the deadline, or the draft picks he nets us end up being more valuable players…)

by stranahanahan on Dec 21, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

strannahanahan, c'mon -

the A’s don’t need to win it all for this to be a good trade. If Oakland makes the playoffs, it was a good trade because no way do they make it without Holliday and making the playoffs, then rolling the dice from there, is as much as you could hope for in year two of a rebuilding stretch on a fixed budget.

I say if the A’s win 90 games, it was a successful trade. If they win 85, you could say it wasn’t worth it.

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 Dec 21, 2008 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough...

My point is just that this is a high risk move, obviously. And something mighty positive must come out of it to be worth what we could have potentially held on to for years to come.
I have been and will be a fan of the trade, I would just love to see this manifest into somethin’ real good…

by stranahanahan on Dec 21, 2008 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm skeptical too, just because

to me the questions are still many, from another hitter, to SS, to the rotation, to Duke’s/Chavez’ enduring health. But as long as Cahill, Anderson, and the other long-term keys stay put, I want to give Beane a chance to put together a projected 90-win team before I say the Winter dealings didn’t add up.

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 Dec 21, 2008 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I'm just weird

but I wasn’t excited at all, unless you’re using it in the abnormal sense of “intensely interested.” It irritated me at the time and it continues to irritate me. I had kind of moved on to some extent until the A’s suddenly and incomprehensibly started playing the cheapo rebuilding team again in the Furcal negotiations.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're not weird, PT.

I was pretty much the same way. WTFing the whole time.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 21, 2008 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

dont listen to him Paul

youre still weird in my book. (though not for your lack of Holliday excitement)

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Dec 21, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He is Matt Fucking Holliday, yes.

But he’s a one year rental. We have CarGon for Six Fucking Years.

We can flip him for more players, yes, but who knows if we’ll be able to get more value for him than we gave up, especially since if we flip him at the deadline, the team will have control of him for HALF the time than the amount we traded for? “Good value” relative to those situations might not be good value when comparing to the CarGon/Smith/Street package.

And, draft picks don’t really have a crazy chance of panning out. So many fail, its not even funny. Absolute best case scenario is that we end up with the team with the 15th best record’s pick. Most likely, its somewhere in Picks #22-30, especially if the Yanks/Sawx get involved. Or a crappy team signs him and we get a 2nd rounder (plus the comp pick).

Yes, the A’s chances of extending him increase, but by how much? Just look at what just happened with the slegnA and Teixeira. And, those loathed Angels even made it to the playoffs and won 100 games!!! The A’s might not even do either of those things. Way too much of a wild card to tell.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 21, 2008 6:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see how you can acknowledge the option of losing Holliday,

but downplay the option of extending him and the option of flipping him for more players. Holliday isn’t a “one year rental,” he’s a player with one year left on his contract. That fact comes with chances to lose him, re-sign him, trade him mid-season, and so forth.

If the A’s lose him after 2009, they’ll have gotten a year of his services and two high draft picks, and that’s a worst case scenario that assumes they couldn’t get more in return mid-season and couldn’t re-sign him beyond 2009.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 21, 2008 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not trying to downplay anything

just trying to assess the chances of things happening

I want Matt Holliday in an A’s uniform for years and years to come. Who doesn’t?

If the A’s don’t make the playoffs, the “year of his services” is absolutely worthless. Why? Because it did not improve the results. Exceptions made for if the margin by which the A’s missed was tiny.

Can the A’s afford a Matty extension? Yes they can! Should they do it? Depends on circumstances and his demands. If he demands a full NTC? Fuck no.

There just isn’t an equal chance for each to happen. If I were to divide up the pie, here’s how it’d go.

10- A’s extend Holliday
30- A’s flip him at deadline
40- A’s make playoffs, lose him to draft picks
20 – A’s don’t make playoffs, lose to draft picks

And that’s giving the A’s a 40-50% shot to make the playoffs (assuming that if the A’s are flipping him, they aren’t in contention).

And, as I said about the deadline, “good value” at the deadline could very easily be less than what the A’s gave up to get him, due to the amount of time which the other team has control of him. Which means that overall, the trade was a loss in terms of value.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 21, 2008 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

WTF happened to my percent signs?

10% – extension
30% – flip at deadline
40% – make playoffs, draft picks
20%- no playoffs, get picks

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 21, 2008 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Your own percentages show a 50/50 chance

of the A’s either making the playoffs or keeping Holliday long-term, both of which are outcomes that completely vindicate the trade. Just keep that in mind. (And the other 50% shows the A’s getting value back in trade or value back in draft picks.)

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 Dec 21, 2008 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really

Most of the “make playoffs” percentage is seasons they would have made the playoffs anyway. Most of the “extension” percentage is situations where they’d have signed him as a free agent anyway.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2008 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points both

My rebuttal, however, is that 2009 might a lot more PHUNNN with Holliday!

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 21, 2008 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, I think there's a greater than 10% chance

that the A’s keep Holliday, especially now that Furcal signed elsewhere. The A’s have a lot of money, and Holliday is really the only free agent (apart from Teixeira) who would be a significant improvement over what the A’s could field without him.

by Josh Deletchi on Dec 21, 2008 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I do too - if Beane decides to try to make Holliday a centerpiece

for the “(hopefully) championship years” I’d put it at more like 25%. Not the best odds, but certainly in the realm of “real possibilities.”

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 Dec 21, 2008 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see no way that Holliday would prefer to sign with the A's rather than succeed

Bay with the Red Sox unless the money was substantially better in Oakland. I see the odds that the A’s will be the high bidder by a substantial margin as miniscule.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 22, 2008 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

while Cargon and Smith had a little value to the team long-term as cost-controlled, fairly healthy, slightly better than replacement-level players, they will surely not be missed

come on. do you seriously believe this?

I’d like to echo the frustration of others above: since when did Cargon turn from “solid everyday centerfielder with an all-star ceiling” to “slightly better than replacement-level, not to be missed”?

are you basing this off of his first 300 major league ABs? please help me understand.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Dec 21, 2008 5:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

At the very least, he's the only guy Oakland had

who had proven he could play a superior CF and who also had the potential to hit better than Rajai Davis.

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 Dec 21, 2008 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Incidentally, fangraphs projections have CarGo and Rajai nearly identical in wOBA next year.

Just saying.

by mikev on Dec 21, 2008 9:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ya but those are based to a high degree on their crappy major league performance in 2008

For someone to believe Carlos is going to be a useful hitter, they’d have to believe that his 2008 major league performance is unusually bad because he wasn’t ready yet.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 22, 2008 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

An interesting tidbit about Furcal...

ESPN:

Furcal also had been negotiating with the Oakland Athletics.

“They offered $32 million for four years and later raised it to $35 million and told us to take it or leave it,” Furcal said.

If the highest offer was 4/35, bad on Beane’s part.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 22, 2008 10:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

That's very inconsisent with everything we heard at the time

“35-40” followed by “the A’s have upped their initial offer.” CW is that it was 35, then 38. I’ll believe Furcal when I see him on the Braves – you know, the team he told he was signing with?

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 Dec 22, 2008 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah. I kind of don't buy this.

"And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic..."

by Blicks on Dec 22, 2008 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Regardless of whether it was $35M or $38M I believe that Furcal's highest potential payday

of $46M was with the Dodgers. If the A’s didn’t give him the chance to earn $46M if he was healthy and played most every day, it’s easy to see why Furcal saw their offer as not close to good enough.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 22, 2008 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs