Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jon Jones, Rashad Evans Reignite Rivalry

Josh's Meanderings: Holliday Edition

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> <object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui> </object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

Or, an attempt to read Billy Beane's mind.

At the beginning of the offseason, it looked like Billy Beane would continue to stockpile talent in preparation for a run in 2011 and beyond, and possibly sign a few short term deals (the A's have the payroll flexibility) to try to steal a weakened AL West in the interim without sacrificing future success.

Then, the A's traded Carlos Gonzalez, Huston Street, and Greg Smith for Matt Holliday.  Because the A's don't have a strong track record of keeping their best players into their free agency years, many fans assumed that the club would use Holliday as further trade bait, or sign several other free agents to make a serious run at the weakened AL West.  Then came the Furcal debacle.  There have already been many pixels wasted on that situation, so all I'll say is that it sent mixed signals.  Were the A's intent on contending this year?  If so, why not sign Furcal, a 3-4 win upgrade that would make the A's the favorite in the West?  If the A's wanted to build towards 2011, why trade Gonzalez, a valuable long term asset, and two nice pieces of trade bait for a one year upgrade?  Draft picks? CarGon, Street, and Smith are worth more than two draft picks. Is Beane planning a future trade? Would the A's really be able to get much more for Holliday than the Rockies? It didn't (and doesn't) make sense.

It doesn't make sense, that is, unless the A's are willing to sign Holliday to a long term deal.  This would be consistent with the idea of the A's competing in 2011-2012, and explains their possible frugality w/r/t Furcal.  The A's have plenty of payroll flexibility for the next few years, and with Crosby coming off the books this year, and Chavez the next, the A's will have freed up an additional 15 million per year.  That money is available-but where to spend it?  More and more teams have been locking up their young stars to long, bargain basement deals.  Players like Albert Pujols, Chase Utley, Joe Mauer, and Evan Longoria are signed for the foreseeable future at bargain contracts.  The A's won't be able to trade for them, so they must look to the free agent market to add an impact player, by which I mean a player who will be demonstrably better than the legion of average to above average players who have come and will likely come out of the A's system during the next few years (Buck, Cunningham, Barton, Cardenas, Doolittle, Carter, Suzuki, Sweeney).  A premium talent, a dependable 6-8 WAR player, would go a long way towards giving the A's a core that could win 90-95 games multiple times.

But, as mentioned, that quality of position player hits free agency very rarely-one a year, if that.  Mark Teixeira and Carlos Beltran are the only two I can think of over the past four years.  If you wait two years, and it turns out that Teixeira only wants to play on the East Coast (just making stuff up), then you are truly up the creek without a paddle.  So, it seems that Beane is trying a more proactive approach: trade for a star player heading into a walk year, and try to keep him.  We just saw the downside of this approach with the Teixeira situation (from the Angels POV), but that is the worst case scenario. It's not necessarily the case that the same thing has to happen with Holliday.

The other question is whether or not Beane would be willing to sign a great player to a long term deal.  I think he would.  While he has a track record of dealing players once they become expensive, the last position player the A's had who was almost as good as Holliday was a young Eric Chavez.  Beane surprised many by signing him to a long term deal.  Beane also reportedly had a long contract offer to Jason Giambi, coming off of two great years.  While those two deals didn't work out so well because of injuries, the curse of Larry Davis can't strike everyone, right? Right?

Assuming Beane's strategy, as hypothesized by me, succeeds, and Holliday signs a 7 year 160 million dollar contract (or thereabouts); was it a good move?  I think so.  While it limits the A's ability to keep players like Buck and Barton once Cahill, Anderson, Cardenas et al hit arbitration, it makes them a much better team over the next several years, including in the hypothetical targeted peak of 2011-2012 without crippling team payroll.  The improvement will likely increase fan interest, which will increase revenue, and make it more likely that the A's get a stadium deal, which will bring in even more money.  Now we just need someone on the A's to convince Holliday to stay in the Bay Area for the next 6-8 years.  Let's get those Nick Swisher trade rumors started!

 

Comment 94 comments  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Sorry for the formatting

I couldn’t figure out how to get rid of the mess.

by Josh Deletchi on Dec 24, 2008 9:24 PM PST reply actions  

I thought all that was you, attempting to decipher Billy.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Dec 25, 2008 3:38 AM PST up reply actions  

heh

I mean, of course that’s what I was trying to do…:)

by Josh Deletchi on Dec 25, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions  

well with a new stadium we should be able to do better then what could be done in the past years. The problem is the players development, are they the real deal or are they just a bust?

by Wreckonized on Dec 24, 2008 9:31 PM PST reply actions  

This is why depth is such a huge thing.

If one fails, you always have another. Anderson, Cahill, Gio, Simmons, and Mazarro, and Gallagher won’t all reach their ceilings. However, its a safe bet to say that about half of those guys will almost definitely pan out, since all of those guys are either MLB ready or a year or less away. If three pan out, the A’s are in decent shape, as then the A’s could fill the last two spots using Eveland, Braden, Outman (perfectly fine BOR candidates), or an outside acquisition. At least with the pitching, that is.

A’s are set IMO in corner OF/DH/1B positions in terms of depth.

But, a heck of a lot is resting on Cardenas’ shoulders. He’s the A’s primary 3B prospect. And, he’s one of two top 2B prospects in the system (I’m not counting fringey guys, I’d say guys who could crack the A’s top 20). Who knows how Ellis will be 2 years from now, when its time to make a decision on his option. And, Chavez will probably walk after 2010.

But, I’m perfectly comfortable in the thought that out of 14 primary spots (8 position players, 1 DH, 5 SP), the A’s will be able to fill at least 9 of those spots via the farm system (not including trades).

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

by Blicks on Dec 24, 2008 9:48 PM PST up reply actions  

From the Community Prospect Thread

The Prospect Depth Chart below should help, at a glance, to tell how deep the A’s are at each position, in terms of quality and quantity. List is ranked by order they appear in the Community Prospect List.

A’s Top Prospect Depth Chart:
Starting Pitching:
[SC] [FG] [137+] Trevor Cahill, RHP
[SC] [FG] [133+] Brett Anderson, LHP
[SC] [FG] [119+] Gio Gonzalez, LHP
[SC] [FG] [114+] James Simmons, RHP
[SC] [FG] [126+] Vin Mazzaro, RHP
[SC] [FG] [000+] ]Michel Inoa, RHP
[SC] [FG] [136+] Henry Rodriguez, RHP
[SC] [FG] [000+] Fautino De Los Santos, RHP
[SC] [FG] [136+] Arnold Leon, RHP #
[SC] [FG] [107+] Josh Outman, LHP #
[SC] [FG] [076+] Brett Hunter, RHP
[SC] [FG] [114+] Tyson Ross, RHP
[SC] [FG] [118+] Craig Italiano, RHP
[SC] [FG] [124+] Carlos Hernandez, LHP

Relief Pitching:
[SC] [FG] [136+] Henry Rodriguez, RHP #
[SC] [FG] [136+] Arnold Leon, RHP
[SC] [FG] [107+] Josh Outman, LHP
[SC] [FG] [131+] Sam Demel, RHP
[SC] [FG] [083+] Andrew Carignan, RHP
[SC] [FG] [118+] Craig Italiano, RHP #
[SC] [FG] [080+] Andrew Bailey, RHP
[SC] [FG] [127+] Jared Lansford, RHP
[SC] [FG] [081+] Travis Banwart, RHP

Catcher:
[SC] [FG] [087+] Josh Donaldson, C
[SC] [FG] [102+] Petey Paramore, C
[SC] [FG] [099+] Landon Powell, C

First Base/Designated Hitter:
[SC] [FG] [117+] Chris Carter, 3B/1B #
[SC] [FG] [115+] Sean Doolittle, 1B/RF #
[SC] [FG] [106+] Matt Spencer, OF/1B

Middle Infield:
[SC] [FG] [107+] Adrian Cardenas, SS/2B #
[SC] [FG] [122+] Jemile Weeks, 2B
[SC] [FG] [000+] Nino Leyja, SS #
[SC] [FG] [086+] Gregorio Petit, SS
[SC] [FG] [103+] Jason Christian, SS
[SC] [FG] [000+] Dusty Coleman, SS
[SC] [FG] [105+] Cliff Pennington, SS

Third Base:
[SC] [FG] [117+] Chris Carter, 3B/1B
[SC] [FG] [107+] Adrian Cardenas, SS/2B
[SC] [FG] [000+] Nino Leyja, SS
[SC] [FG] [109+] Jeff Baisley, 3B

Centerfield:
[SC] [FG] [116+] Aaron Cunningham, CF
[SC] [FG] [000+] Rashun Dixon, CF
[SC] [FG] [111+] Corey Brown, CF
[SC] [FG] [101+] Javier Herrera, OF

Outfield:
[SC] [FG] [115+] Sean Doolittle, 1B/RF
[SC] [FG] [109+] Matt Sulentic, OF
[SC] [FG] [106+] Matt Spencer, OF/1B #
[SC] [FG] [101+] Javier Herrera, OF #
[SC] [FG] Robin Rosario, OF

[#] Some players may be listed at multiple positions. # indicates that this is their most likely position, or best position they can stick at. Other instances of the player mean that they can/might shift over to that position eventually, in either best case or worst case scenario. This does not take into account other players/prospects pushing them out of that position. [#]

The System has gone in several places from a position of need to a position of depth, and visa versa. Middle Infield, as soon as mid 2008, was a barren wasteland, with only Petit and Pennington there who could amount to anything. Since then, we’ve seen a haul of Middle Infield draft prospects as well as Adrian Cardenas from the Joe Blanton trade. The Problem for the A’s, however, is that pretty much all of this Middle Infield Depth is in the low minors, quite a few years away, while there is a pressing need at the MLB Level for a quality Shortstop.

Starting Pitching has also become a place of massive depth compared to 2007, when the system had great pitching in the Majors, but almost nothing in the minors-when Jason Windsor, Shane Komine and Mike Madsen were being touted as our top prospects.

But just as Pitching and Middle Infield depth has grown, the system is completely barren of Corner Infield depth. The only real true Corner Infield prospects the team has are Chris Carter and Sean Doolittle, both who are 1B prospects, though the team is trying to get Carter to stick at 3B. If he does somehow manage to play average, or slightly below, at 3B in the Majors, he would be a great welcome, but thus far it is not known if he can stick there, or even at First Base. Doolittle looks like a Gold Glove 1B, and a good hitter, but not quite as good as Carter with the bat. But aside from those two, there is no one else there (unless you count Matt Spencer and hope that his 2nd half of 2008 was the real Spencer). Compared to years past, when 1B/DH was the teams position of strength, this is definitely a change.

The System also has a rather amazing amount of Center field depth in the system, though somewhat a lack of Corner Outfield depth up the chart. This is made up for, though, by the slew of young outfielders on the 25 man roster (Sweeney and Buck), and OF depth on the 40 man Roster (Denorfia, Davis, Murton, etc…).

Catcher is also somewhat thin, but with Kurt Suzuki installed in the Majors, it is not a pressing need. Galarraga and Powell should battle for the Backup Catcher spot in 2009 or 2010, whenever Rob Bowen becomes obsolete or too expensive. And by the time that Suzuki is ready to leave, Josh Donaldson or Pete Paramore should be ready.

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Dec 24, 2008 10:29 PM PST up reply actions  

corner outfield is also buffered by both carter and doolitle

both played RF this season and both held their own.

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 24, 2008 10:39 PM PST up reply actions  

true

but if you were really in a pinch in the corners of the outfield there are always players who can find their way there. I mentioned it more for the possibility that barton t;urns out as good as we thought he was doolittle starts providing great 1b d and carter can’t hack it at third.

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 24, 2008 11:15 PM PST up reply actions  

BB

1. Holliday is a 5 win player at best.

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

by Blicks on Dec 24, 2008 9:50 PM PST reply actions  

WTF. Ignore this please.

Holliday is NOT a 5 win player at best. Went back and checked that. He’s worth a lot more. My computer just blows sometimes.

And I didn’t finish my comment anyways.

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

by Blicks on Dec 24, 2008 9:51 PM PST up reply actions  

No, you're right.

Holliday should be expected to be a 5 win player for the next couple years. If they give him 7 years, he’ll probably be 1.5 to 2 wins at the end of that.

by thejd44 on Dec 27, 2008 6:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Let's try this post comment thing again.

I am all in favor of a Holliday extension. He’s in his prime, plays great defense in a cOF position, et all. He’s easily a 6-8 win player.

The monetary difference between Eric Chavez and Matt Holliday is incredibly, incredibly huge. Like, close to 3 times as much money to get Holliday.

I’m very wary of abilities to get equal/greater value to the package we gave up to get Holliday at the deadline.

If the A’s can get him for 8/160, without a no trade clause, that’s all fine and dandy. However, we all know that Boras’s clientele for next year’s FA season is weak, and that he’ll milk every penny out of suitors. Knowing that both the Yanks and BoSox might be in the market for OF next year and actually need OF (unlike the Sox and Teixeira)…this could get ugly. 200MM, opt out clauses, full NTCs, etc. could be in play. Holliday WILL hit the free agent market, barring a firing of Boras (pleasepleaseplease Matty do it do it do it). The Rally Monkeys didn’t get a discount for having Teixeira for half a season before he hit the market.

I have to join you in the “I don’t understand this Holliday trade shenanigans” camp now.

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

by Blicks on Dec 24, 2008 10:06 PM PST reply actions  

Agreed

I gotta love what Beane did for the fans by picking up an All-Star bat to jumpstart the current squad. However, barring any more FA pick-ups & Beane’s aversion to long term contracts, it looks like Holliday might be a wasted rental next year.

The only logical solution would be (as suggested in the post) he’s either traded or signed long term.

The A’s will be in need of a franchise player to bring in the fans for the current seasons and the new stadium. I would bet Wolff sees the frustration of fans and their inability to link closely with any particular player. We can’t, because we know we’ll just get hurt again when they’re traded/dropped to the FA market. I applaud them for signing Ellis, but we need a big bat and our system doesn’t appear to have one coming soon.

I would love to see Holliday enshrined in the Green/Gold for the next 8 years, even if it does take a large contract around 160-180. Our pitchers will be cheap, our infield looks fairly cheap and our OF is spotted with good (not great) talent. If this is our big money player, then lets do it and try not to bend over too bad for Boras.

It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.

by ru155 on Dec 25, 2008 8:04 AM PST reply actions  

I've said this before, but it's worth saying again

There is no contract which makes sense for the A’s to sign whereby it does not make sense for the Red Sox/Yankees to bid higher.

So you’ve got a choice— advocate a contract that you know to be an objectively bad idea, or acknowledge that Holliday is gone after this season. Anything else is pure denial.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 25, 2008 9:16 AM PST reply actions  

Why is the same not true of the Furcal situation?

The A’s only hope of landing him was to offer an objectively bad contract – say 4/52. Yet it seems like you advocated going this route with Furcal but not with Holliday, who is younger, better, and a whole lot healthier. Just because Furcal plays SS? What about the fact that Holliday is really really good and that health is such a key factor in the success or failure of a long-term deal?

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 25, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not speaking for Paul or anybody else on this, but speaking for myself:

the A’s SHOULD have “overpaid” for Furcal, too.

Sometimes, in order to field a competitive team, you have to bite the bullet and go beyond what you think a player is objectively worth because the realities of the marketplace and the player’s own affinity for another team/destination dictate that you have to clearly outbid everybody else if you want to get him.

As for Holliday, what I think Paul is saying is that there is no reasonable justification for believing that the A’s will get him on as “fair” or “reasonable” a contract as they, or even as the fanbase on this site, would find acceptable. That doesn’t mean the A’s can’t or shouldn’t go after him and try to sign him- it just means they have to decide if they’re willing to outbid others for his services, either by offering him such a huge deal now while he’s under contract for an extension that he says yes to it, or by offering him the most money over a comparable contract-length as anybody else in the marketplace is willing to offer in the 2009 offseason.

It’s easy to criticize teams for “overpaying” for players, but it’s also true that if you need a particular piece badly enough and have the money to make it happen and then you don’t get it done… well, you’ve failed in my view. The whole Furcal thing was a failure. It was a failure of the A’s front office to pay what they had to pay to get the serious upgrade to the shortstop position that they needed, when such a player was readily available and ready to be signed.

So they need to learn from this experience, vis-a-vis Holliday… if they really plan to try and keep him, that is. And if they want him, then they need to pay what it takes to keep him, even if bloggers and the press disdain them for “overpaying” to do it.

I would also submit, by the way, that Teixeira was eminently signable if the A’s had wanted to pursue him, and he probably would’ve been an even better FA target than Holliday who will likely be the lone bright star of a middling-to-poor FA market next offseason, far as position players go at any rate. We, as fans, look at the Yankees swooping in at the last minute to sign him for more money and cry foul and are unhappy that a team can do that. You know what? The A’s had the payroll flexibility this offseason to do that, too. And they could’ve done what the Yankees did… if they wanted to, and if they thought it was a smart decision going forward. Obviously they didn’t feel he was the player they wanted to go after, which is understandable since Doolittle and Carter are coming up and Barton is somebody they still believe in. Do they feel like Holliday is worth paying what it’ll take to keep?

We’ll see.

by still bills kingdom on Dec 25, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions  

I have a thought...

What if the A’s offered a contract that started this coming season?
So, instead of making $13.5 MM this season, he gets a brand new contract that adds an extra year, say 9 (if you really thinks it will take 8 to get him), and that way he already has 7 extra million that he wouldn’t have expected to receive.
Is that bad business?

by stranahanahan on Dec 25, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions  

I don't think that's a bad idea at all- it would probably help considerably

in closing the deal if the extension effectively increased the money he’s making right away too. That IS one competitive advantage the A’s have in negotiating with him right now, and you’re right in thinking that they should try and maximize that advantage… if they want to keep him in the first place (which is still very much a mystery at this point, I think.)

by still bills kingdom on Dec 25, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions  

What I wonder about Teixeira, though, stillbillskingdom,

and what I imagine PT would say (if he were with us today), is that by outbidding the Yankees the A’s would just have given Teixeira a yet higher bid to go back to Yankees with – and the Yankees would have outbid the outbid. I think Teixeira was determined all along to wind up on the East Coast, just as I think Furcal was determined to go to LA, or Atlanta as Plan B.

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 25, 2008 1:32 PM PST up reply actions  

I think he was determined to end up at NY

In the past 2 days a lot has come to light on his situation, and it’s clear he wanted to end up there or maybe Baltimore. But clearly, the Angels, Boston, and the Nationals were never going to sign him. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
For some reason I can never link because my computer sucks, but this first quote is from Roch Kubatko at MASN sports:

Anyway, just one more note on Mark Teixeira: I’ve heard from a reliable source that the first baseman turned down about $5 million more from the Nationals to sign with the Yankees. And the Nats would have gone higher, but were never given the chance. Teixeira jumped at Brian Cashman’s first offer.

Of course, his “reliable source” could be the same “agent” who said that nobody wants to play for ghetto Oakland.
BUT! Even more interesting is this little tidbit from the NY Times:

As one of the nation’s top high school prospects, Teixeira relied on that perspective to help guide him through another difficult time, when the Red Sox asked him to forgo college and agree to sign a $1.5 million bonus before they selected him with their first-round pick. Teixeira declined, and the Red Sox spread word that he was going to Georgia Tech. Every team passed on him in the draft until the Red Sox nabbed him in the ninth round.

    Incensed at Boston’s approach, Teixeira called Georgia Tech Coach Danny Hall to accept a scholarship offer and wound up recruiting three players who would become his roommates.

Anyway, thought those were both interesting little tidbits.

by stranahanahan on Dec 25, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Again, more proof that players / Boras clients

don’t always go for the top financial offer. Top money is still the most common indicator, but there are other considerations that do come into play.

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 25, 2008 2:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Once again, huge massive big gigantic difference between a guy who has always had Boras

And a guy who fires his agent and hires Boras a year before he hits free agency.

by thejd44 on Dec 27, 2008 6:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Nico, that's probably correct in the end.

I suspect, and the information we’re reading and have been hearing all along for the most part indicates stongly, that he really preferred to play on both an East Coast team and one that he felt has a decent chance to be competitive year in and year out.

The point I was trying to make was that, if the A’s had wanted to, they certainly could’ve gone after him. They do have the resources and financial flexibility, at the moment, to take on that kind of contract… if they want to. Or I should say, “if they think it’s a good idea.”

By that token, I mean to indicate that if they want to do so they can certainly make Holliday an extension offer right now that would be very hard for him to reasonably pass up- if they offer him something comparable to what Teixeira just got from the Yankees. He’s bound to look at what Tex just got, and say “well, I can probably get at least that much if I have another good year and hit free agency next offseason, too” so if the A’s want to keep him they’ll have to, in my opinion, offer him that kind of deal (or close to it) right now.

Because if he gets to the open market, and either the Yankees or Red Sox want him badly enough, they will be able to outbid the A’s on many levels to lure him to either of their respective teams.

The A’s, if they want to keep him, should make their best offer now before the season even starts and make it good enough that the certainty of that deal (including an increase in his 2009 salary too as stranahanahan suggested) and the value thereof is enough for him to say “you know what? I can’t really expect to do much better than that, and it’s a fair offer- I’ll take it.”

But the wishcasting of figures below what Teixeira got isn’t a worthwhile pursuit, in my opinion- so talking about “sign him to a 6/120 or 7/140 extension” is a pointless exercise. And crying about “overpaying” based on what one can statistically analyze to be the “objective value” of a player is also a pointless exercise- if the market is there for a player’s services that takes that player’s perceived value higher than what you objectively think you should pay for him then you do one of two things: you say forget it and seek another solution to your roster issues, or you “overpay” because you think the overall value to your team, and its ultimate success or failure, is great enough to warrant said “overpayment.”

by still bills kingdom on Dec 26, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree - I think 8/200 might get his attention,

but whether the A’s are in a position to make that offer, I don’t know.

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 26, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions  

That's not entirely true

The A’s have an ace up their sleeve-they can give Holliday extra money this year. People tend to be risk averse, so if Holliday can get an extra 10 million now in exchange for 2 million less than a hypothetical free agent contract, I think it would make sense for him to do it.

by Josh Deletchi on Dec 25, 2008 10:51 AM PST up reply actions  

I think it all depends

how much extra the A’s are willing to give him, and if the overall deal they offer him meets his expectations for what he might get on the free agent market after the season.

I do not believe he will give the A’s a discount from what he expects he can make as a free agent after the 2009 season. He already rejected Colorado’s offer of a high value extension previously.

If the A’s want to sign him long-term before he hits free agency, I think they will need to offer him enough money and years that he can say “you know what? even if I could get a tiny bit more on the open market, this is probably about as good as it gets… I’ll take it.”

You won’t get that sort of reaction/acceptance with a 6/140 deal or a 7/160 deal. You might get it with an 8/180 or 8/200 deal, though. So it’s just a question of whether or not the A’s are really willing to pay top dollar to keep him or not, and if they really think it’s in their best interest to do so. We can debate the wisdom of that move, but to think it won’t take that kind of money to get it done is, as Paul indicated, pretty naive or an exercise in wishful thinking.

by still bills kingdom on Dec 25, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions  

Paul, I don't know what calculations you're using to arrive at the conclusion that it never makes sense

for the A’s to sign Holliday at a price higher than it makes sense for the Yankees or Red Sox. The calculation I’d use is as follows:

Plan A — Sign Holliday. I’d then figure out what would be my roster with Holliday, figure out what my revenues and expenses would be, based on my estimated ability to win games, draw fans, negotiation new media contracts, get public support for a new stadium and other revenue sources

Plan B — Make the next best option my LF (say Cunningham or Buck). Repeat calculation from above. The difference between the profits in Plan A and Plan B is my maximum for Holliday.

I can easily conceive of a situation where Holliday has a greater impact on the A’s than teams that aren’t trying to negotiate a new cable contract, new radio contracts and get a stadium built. I haven’t done this calculation, but I don’t see it as clear cut at all.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 5:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Oh, well, if we're talking a team-profits basis

there’s absolutely zero chance that signing Holliday is a good idea… No possible way are his 6-odd wins actually worth the $23 million or whatever in gate receipts. Not going to happen, no way, nohow. Your calculation would lead you to an “A’s max offer” for Holliday of about $15 million at most, which isn’t even close to competitive.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 26, 2008 7:07 PM PST up reply actions  

What about gate receipts plus media contracts plus stadium?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 7:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Don't think it has any influence on the stadium, and think the media contracts influence is minimal at best

$15 million. That’s my max offer from a “profit neutral” standpoint. The A’s fanbase sucks, remember? Extra wins provide LESS than normal revenue enhancements.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 26, 2008 7:54 PM PST up reply actions  

What about promoting him as

BEING January 1st, the first Monday in September, December 25th, etc.?

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 26, 2008 7:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Sure the standard operating procedure since the Haas years has assumed that the A's

fanbase sucks and that demand is inelastic. Wolff even announced on AN that no matter what they do, attendance will range between 1.7M and 2M or some such thing.

What if they want to change that, and actually exploit the fact that they’re in the fourth largest media market in MLB by GMP? What if they actually want to get on CSN CA and KHTK and have a major league business operation? What if they think this will improve the chances of getting a new stadium? Imagine the following conversation:

Luis from CSN CA: Hi Luis here.

Crowley: Hi, Mike Crowley, Oakland Athletics. I’d like the A’s to be the top banana on your station.

Luis: A’s? Aren’t you that proud of being stingy, second rate outfit that can’t compete with the Giants for the Bay Area fanbase? Why would I want you as top banana?

Crowley: That was last week. We thought we’d try to be a major league operation for a change. We could catapult your ratings and draw in viewers to your other programming!

Luis: But you have no star players and you can’t keep the ones you develop. Besides Moneyball is all about boring three hour games based on walks. I read it in Billy Beane’s book. Well I didn’t actually read the book….

Crowley: We’ve changed now…really. We’ve just signed the best Free Agent hitter in baseball to an 8 year $1billion deal.

Luis: Wow! Cool. I want you to be our top banana!

And then the next day:

Steve, Kingmaker and Factotum of San Jose: Hi, Steve here.

Crowley: Hi Steve, Mike Crowley, San Jose Athletics

Steve: Hey Mike! How’s that Fremont move coming?

Crowley: That was last week. We think we’re better off moving to San Jose and being your city’s biggest sports franchise. We all know you’re the real engine of the Bay Area, much more vital than that self-important city to the north that shall not be named.

Steve: I dunno Mike…we like the major league baseball idea, but your fanbase sucks — Lew said so himself in that excellent interview with Tyler.

Crowley: That’s where you guys come in. You’re our new fanbase!

Steve: But you’re a small-time stingy operation that doesn’t even have a decent cable TV or radio contract….

Crowley: You havent’ heard? We’re on CSN CA and KHTK now. We’re about to announce stations in San Francisco and Santa Rosa too. I can’t announce their names yet (whispers letters in Steve’s ear). We figure you could put in a good word for us at K___ in the south Bay as well. Cisco’s already on board you know.

Steve: Wow! You could put us on the world map! I’ll call the mayor right away! You’ll have your stadium before you can say Bye Bye Fremont!

Crowley: Awesome!

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 10:48 PM PST up reply actions  

If they think that, they're insane optimists who will rapidly be bilked out of their money by agents

Hell, I’d love that— I couldn’t care less if an ownership group loses money if they’re putting top talent on the field— but it has about as much chance of happening as I do of sleeping with Melissa George. And, frankly, I’d prefer to imagine the latter fantasy.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 27, 2008 2:18 AM PST up reply actions  

I kinda want entrepreneurs and inventors to be optimists. They'd never take risks

if they weren’t. I’d love it too, and it’s high time that the A’s began acting like the big market team they are. Good luck with Melissa, but right now I’m really glad I don’t know what you look like so I don’t have to imagine this.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2008 3:29 AM PST up reply actions  

It's not that they have eleventy billion dollars, it's that they are leaving

eleventy billion in revenue on the table by not running a major league operation business wise.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2008 7:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Exactly.

I’m now reduced to living vicariously through Paul’s dreams.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions  

That's more or less true ...

which is why trading for such a player and, potentially, locking him up BEFORE they hit free agency could be key …

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

by devo on Dec 26, 2008 10:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Ha! I refute your claim!

You left out option C: The A’s deal Holliday before the trade deadline.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 27, 2008 1:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Beane could be playing some jedi mind tricks with Holliday

And I actually mean this somewhat seriously. This is pure conjecture, and I know we get that out of plenty of posts and comments every single day, but you wonder if there is a motivation other than just competing behind Holliday and maybe signing Giambi.
What I mean here is that Beane knows if he doesn’t acquire Holliday before he hits FA he has absolutely no chance of ever seeing Holliday in Green and Gold. Now I don’t have a direct line to Beane’s brain, but I’m assuming he’s one of the few “superstar” guys that he salivates over. We all know his man crush for guys like Milledge and other up and coming or under the radar guys, but you have to think Holliday is that guy he thinks comes once in a lifetime.
That being said, if he wants Holliday around long term, he has got to convince him that the clubhouse environment is something that is really appealing to him. He has to show him that Oakland has some great spots and that the Bay Area is one of the best places to raise a family (IMO). So, Beane would not be able to accomplish any of this by wining and dining him during the offseason as he tried with Furcal. Therefore, he’s going to show him that we really do have the best clubhouse, some of the most loyal fans, and, like the ugly girl who you paid attention to before she got really hot, there’s a real beauty on the inside.
So, does this mean Beane will begin a year long courtship? I don’t know. But I really think he talked to Wolff about offering him something long term even before he made the trade. While there is very little evidence of this, there was one comment in particular that made me think that they’re mulling this internally, when he made a comment publicly about how they would keep Holliday ’til the end of the season, and then something about “in the case he walks.”
Obviously, I could be reading wayyyy too much into it, but it almost implied that they would attempt to keep him…

by stranahanahan on Dec 25, 2008 11:13 AM PST reply actions  

I don't have much doubt that Beane will try to keep Holliday

I have, of course, a lot of doubt that he will. But thanks to not over-overpaying for Furcal, the payroll flexibility still may exist for the A’s to make something like an 8/180-8/200 offer if they see fit.

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 25, 2008 1:35 PM PST up reply actions  

And I think Beane felt that 4/48-4/52 for Furcal,

whom I’d personally give a 50/50 chance to be healthy and productive through 2011, let alone 2012, would have been a stupid contract.

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 25, 2008 2:11 PM PST up reply actions  

According to Fangraphs new stats

Matt Holliday, last year, was worth 6.1 Wins. The year before he was worth 7.8 Wins.

Those seasons were worth $31.8M and $27.6 respectivly.

So yeah, Billy, Sign him NOW!

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Dec 25, 2008 3:01 PM PST reply actions  

Sign Holliday and Coors together!

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 25, 2008 4:17 PM PST up reply actions  

I wonder if that can be done as part of a transaction?

“Ok, we’ll give you Cahill AND Anderson… but we want Holliday, and Coors Field. Oh, and you have to take Crosby, too. And the Coliseum. If things don’t go well with Fremont, just blame Dan Johnson- everybody else does.”

by still bills kingdom on Dec 26, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions  

I hear DJ's big in Japan now....like Spinal Tap.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 5:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Those dollar figures are based on average contracts given out to past free agents. The A's are in a

unique situation where they’re trying to upgrade their media presence on TV and radio, as well as get public support for a new stadium. That’s a potentially very different calculus than those underlying past averages.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 5:09 AM PST up reply actions  

Josh: Just FYI, I could get rid of the garbage at the beginning of your post,

but I don’t like to tamper with a fanpost without permission (plus the early comments wouldn’t make sense!). However, I think you can fix it too if you want to by clicking “edit” and then deleting or re-writing that paragraph as you wish.

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 25, 2008 4:20 PM PST reply actions  

I think I'll leave it because of those comments.

When I was posting it, I tried to delete and rewrite the first paragraph, but when I hit “preview” it kept creating even bigger versions of the mess you see now. I posted from a flash drive on a computer I haven’t used to post here before, so I’m not really sure if that had anything to do with it (or if that’s a sentence).

by Josh Deletchi on Dec 25, 2008 4:31 PM PST up reply actions  

That garbage is awesome.

(Recommends post)

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 7:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I like this idea more and more

Try and sign him up to a contract now/wine + dine him to show how much the BA rocks!

Sure we may have to deal with teams like Yankees/Angels/Red Sox being able to offer more money if we fight during the FA period, but looks who’s saddled with contracts.

Yankees just jumped on the top 3 FAs and ate a ton of salary to do it. If they perform well this upcoming season, they may decide that they’re not in need of adding another $20m per year to their payroll.

Red Sox could really go after him and this would be the team I’d worry most about.

Angels, we have 1 season to turn Holliday against them. haha.

It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.

by ru155 on Dec 25, 2008 4:26 PM PST reply actions  

Feed him at the Angels' concession stand!

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 25, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Yankees have $30M in LF contracts coming off their books after 2009 in Damon and Matsui

That’s plenty for Holliday.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 5:10 AM PST up reply actions  

I think the point is

They’re still saddled with the 4 largest contracts in history, Holliday would probably get close to that. With all their other guys assumedly getting arbitration raises, etc. maybe they don’t want to spend that money on LF, or perhaps they resign Damon…

by stranahanahan on Dec 26, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd be shocked if the Yankees deliberately chose Damon over Holliday.

But then I was shocked when they chose Wright and Pavano over Beltran too.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 5:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Also I'm not sure I'd call having A-Rod, CC, Jeter and Teixeira on my team being "saddled"

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 5:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Then when they sign Holliday, the A's can trade to get Swisher back on the cheap

Hell, they could probably do that now because the Teixeira deal leaves Swisher without a position in New York.

by thejd44 on Dec 27, 2008 6:49 PM PST up reply actions  

RF?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2008 7:01 PM PST up reply actions  

you know what is terrifying?

The fact that that right there is $805 MILLION invested in 4 players. FOUR (4). And you need 25 guys to field a full team. Add Posada at $52 MM, Damon and Matsui at the same, Burnett at $83 and Rivera at $45 and you are looking at your 9 most expensive contracts equaling $1.1 BILLION.
 The A’s current 4 most expensive contracts are:
Eric Chavez (6/66)
Matt Holliday (2/23)
Bobby Crosby (5/12.75)
Mark Ellis (2/11)
Equalling about $110 Million. Roughly 1/7th of the Yankees top 4.
Ridiculous.
Lets not even get into how the Marlins would shape up, there 4 most expensive contracts equal literally around 3-4% of the Yankees.

by stranahanahan on Dec 26, 2008 5:59 PM PST reply actions  

Why is that terrifying if they make a profit?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 26, 2008 7:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Just FYI, it's replying to every comment

with an annoying one-line retort question that irks me. But I’m not breaking up with you again. I wish I cud quit yew!!

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 26, 2008 7:57 PM PST up reply actions  

like this?

"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 27, 2008 12:43 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm OK with breaking up as long as there's the make up posting afterwards

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2008 3:31 AM PST up reply actions  

I make up all my posts

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 27, 2008 8:54 AM PST up reply actions  

been wondering this for a few weeks, didn't know where to put it:

I am in the camp that fails to see any sense in the Holliday trade. However, I began wondering this recently, and I’m hoping somebody can shed some light on the topic:

much of our valuation of Cargon relies on how we value his defense. Is it possible that the metrics we have available to us tell a different story from what the A’s use? My understanding is that defensive metrics still have a fair amount of proving to do. True? Untrue?

I realize I’m grasping at straws here, and this still doesn’t move me out of my wet-blanket camp, but it would help me believe that the A’s sold high on Cargon- which is a start.

Save Rajai Davis

by oakinboston on Dec 27, 2008 2:15 PM PST reply actions  

It's hard for me to envision Oakland's evaluation of CarGon's defense...

differing radically from the various metrics, the Fan’s Scouting Report, and the obvious physical tools he possesses. I think you can definitively say he’s at least an above-average defender with the potential to be great.

I think he was traded because the team doesn’t believe he’ll ever develop plate discipline. Plain and simple. If – and I don’t know this, but IF – he’s uncoachable, or wouldn’t have accepted a demotion to Sacramento in ’09 without creating a fuss, sulking, and lowering his trade value – that would be another reason to trade him.

Obviously the team has a very better handle on CarGon’s character and makeup than we possibly could.

Batting 4th for the 2014 San Jose A's: 26-year-old RF Justin Upton, in the 1st season of a nine year, $250M deal.

by notsellingjeans on Dec 27, 2008 6:34 PM PST up reply actions  

I also think this was a sell-high on Gonzalez

He’ll probably be an alright player. And he might develop into something great. But this is the last offseason where he’s going to be “unknown youngster with enormous potential.” If you think he’s not going to develop, now was the time to trade him.

Whether trading him for Holliday was the right move might depend entirely on if the A’s win the World Series in 2009.

by thejd44 on Dec 27, 2008 6:51 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd take a pennant.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2008 7:02 PM PST up reply actions  

I'll take a division crown

You really can’t set yourself up for much more than that.

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 27, 2008 7:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Felix Millan?

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 27, 2008 8:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Felix Jose?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 27, 2008 9:38 PM PST up reply actions  

OK, time for my funny Jose Rijo story

When I was sports director for KALX and had access to the A’s clubhouse on occasion, I decided to ask a couple players if they would voice promos for the station. I had written out a script that said:

“Hi, this is ______ and you’re listening to KALX, 90.7FM in Berkeley.”

I saw Rijo and asked him and he said sure, so I said thanks and handed him the script and turned on the tape recorder I had ready. He said, “Hi, this is…” and then just stopped, looking confused. At that point, I whispered “Jose Rijo” and he smiled and said “Ohhh!!!” and then read it from the beginning. It was very cute.

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 27, 2008 9:52 PM PST up reply actions  

who's Meggnon, and why should we fellate him?

I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Naturally delicious!

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:59 PM PST up reply actions  

but what about the vegans in the audience?

I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 1:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Fruit flavored....er.....containers.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions  

does that mean a corndog is vegan?

I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Sure, if it's organic.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions  

And you don't bite into it.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4

Recent FanPosts

Small
Comcast needs two Hotstove shows!
Small
Moneyball Part II: Billy Beane Shocks the World. Again.
Hahaha_small
Let's Make Some Nicknames!
Fubarcloud_small
Wolf being told to spend money
Small
The wRC+ Challenge
Pumpkin_small
Maybe this is a stupid stats question
Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late