Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Steve McNair Dead - Former NFL QB Shot and Killed


Garret Anderson?

What is it about Garret Anderson that interests Beane?

I just don't get it -- not even if the intent is to have him being in a platoon situation, batting only against RHPs.  The guy just doesn't seem like a typical Beane target.  And isn't GA also a type "B" free agent?  I'm pretty sure that he is.  Adding insult to injury, the team would cough up a supplemental pick for the 'pleasure' of adding Mr. Anderson [Agent Smith voice] to its roster...a roster already jammed with OF-types that may or may not develop but who are cheap.

I mean, heck, if nabbing an OF/DH is Beane's priority and he's considering Anderson, why not just trade with the Dodgers for Andruw Jones [there'd be no pick lost; nothing that lasts longer than 2009; and seemingly not much difference in crappiness the Athletics' fan could expect].  Maybe when LA agrees to pay the bulk of AJs salary to make the deal happen, they'd also be kind enough to take a SS in return [I don't do emoticons but if I did, I'd probably insert one here].

I've heard the conspiracy theorists suggest that this Anderson talk is just a ruse to push Giambi into making a hasty decision (as he'd see another suitor's window closing) but this strikes me a way way to just piss players off and begin to hate Beane for being duplicitous.  Does anyone really think that this supposed ruse has merit?  If you do, please comment

But the most pressing question is sort of like the one that grover asked on a different thread: why Garret Anderson?  Will someone that participates here explain that one?

0 recs | Comment 154 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

My guess is that Boras is using the A's here...

Perhaps Beane called Boras to kick the tires. Boras, being the good agent that he is, tells the world “the A’s are interested” even though a simple phone call doesn’t actually mean they’re interested.

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

by brenarlo on Dec 30, 2008 8:49 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think he sees GA in the Emil Brown/Jay Payton/Jose Guillen role.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 9:04 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agreed

So one who is not a typical A’s player as far as hitting approach goes. But I still do not see the need for GA unless he can play above average at first, which I doubt he can.

by A'sfaninNC on Dec 30, 2008 9:13 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But, that's not a good role

That’s a role you don’t want!

The only way it makes sense is if an OF or two are about to be traded.

by thejd44 on Dec 30, 2008 10:38 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nobody does, except Beane for some reason.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 10:58 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Smoke screen

  The A’s are hoping that the angels will see it and resign him. The intrest comes from Boras and it only said that the A’s asked about some of Boras clients. Boras of course makes the statement because nobody asked about Anderson and he wants Anderson name in the news. If Anderson was to come to oakland it would be on a heavy incentive base contract as a last man standing. Griffey Jr has a better chance of coming to oakland.

by Arcman on Dec 30, 2008 9:20 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If Garret Anderson becomes an Athletic

I’ll become Vegan……and like it!

by mrod on Dec 30, 2008 9:28 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

don't do it

  I tried it for a week. Nothing worse than tofu dishes 3 days in a row. The meatless pepperoni will make your stomach turn.

by Arcman on Dec 30, 2008 9:58 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Did you eat yuba and yudofu? Yummy!

You can also try South Indian food. Also yummy! I’m a carnivore, but vegetarian food is often delicious.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 10:59 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Actually, I love eating veggie!

Mostly, I try to stick with poultry and fish as much as possible.

But, man, ……sometimes you just gotta have a big, fat, juicy steak!

by mrod on Dec 30, 2008 1:42 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I am a vegan

and I like it.

More Rajai Davis & less mount Davis

by Athletics fan and runner on Dec 30, 2008 9:25 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I have a hard time imagining Anderson as an A

I’ve spent too many years disliking him as an Angel. He’s one of those guys who will forever be an Angel unless he does something monumental like hit a game winning home run for the A’s in the World Series.

As for why Beane might be interested in signing Anderson, well, Anderson would’ve had the second highest slugging percentage of any Athletic regular in 2008 (behind Cust). He also would’ve had the highest batting average of anyone with any number of meaningful ABs. That’s probably more of a commentary on just how bad the A’s hitting was last year as opposed to something positive about Anderson, but those facts remain. He was better than what we had last season. He may be a marginal improvement, but he’s an improvement.

Now I know that most people don’t care about batting average, but I’m convinced the A’s have issues with scoring runs in part because they seem to continue to try and acquire guys who want to work the walk more than they know how to use their bat to get hits. Someone mentioned it earlier, but I think putting someone like Anderson in the lineup who has a career BA of .296 helps the A’s address this issue, especially if you load up on guys like Giambi and Cust who like to walk a lot. You need someone besides Holliday in the lineup who knows how to actually get hits. Abreu is a better solution given that he has a better eye and hits for more pop, but you know the A’s and their tendency to go for the cheaper option.

All that being said, I’m not going to really love signing Garret Anderson. But I don’t buy into the argument that one of the young guys can hit close to .300 immediately. Buck and Cunningham are good and are maturing, but I’m just not sure that they’re ready to come through just yet.

by Blez on Dec 30, 2008 10:43 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agree...

… with the comment about batting average. As valuable as players with high OBPs have proven to be in terms of run scoring, a walk can only advance a baserunner (at most) one base. A hit, on the other hand, can advance baserunners multiple bases… I think the A’s run-scoring woes over the last few seasons have been attributable, in large part, to their inability to advance runners once they are on base. Even with a high OBP, you need the high BA and SLG to move those guys around.

As for whether Garrett is the man to do that job… err uhh, no.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 11:05 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Totally agree on batting average, and have been preaching it for years

I just can’t see Anderson producing an OPS over, say .750, at this point in his career (.320 OBP, 430 SLG), which he would do with poor defense and no speed.

One would expect Buck and Cunningham to be able to combine to OPS .750 (if not one, then the other, probably is ready to do that on their own, and you have “two to make one” on readiness), with 20 SB and better defense.

So it’s not, in my mind, an upgrade, just more money. That’s the part that perplexes me – I’m not convinced it’s even a marginal upgrade, certainly not when you factor in defense and speed.

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 30, 2008 11:16 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just to back all this up, in three of the past four seasons

Anderson has had an OPS between .743-.758, slugging between .433-.435. So a line of .320/.430 seems about right for 2009, as he has been right there three of four seasons – and was younger then, a factor that offsets the anomalous fourth season (2007, when he was .336/.492 for an .828 OPS).

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

by Nico on Dec 30, 2008 11:20 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It actually might make sense if they plan to trade Holliday

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:21 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ughghghghgh...

… replacing Matt Holliday with Garrett Anderson. I think I need some Rolaids.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 11:22 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It does sound putrid.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:27 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not really

If you trade Holliday, you’re obviously not trying to compete, so throw Buck/Cunningham/Sweeney out there and hope for the best. At least it’d be a good defensive outfield.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 11:34 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ya, I guess GA is the Aaron placeholder and 4th OF in that scenario.

Although I’d just as soon throw Rajai and Denorfia and Ben Copeland! out there just to see if they’re at all useful. Even Javier Herrera before he loses his roster spot.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:42 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Re: poor defense

The (arm strength ignorant) UZR Supercomputer thinks he was one of the better defensive left fielders in baseball last year. Which is enough to make me skeptical of said Supercomputer. But who knows.

by 74mk on Dec 30, 2008 11:34 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Angels watchers rated him a 55, mostly on the basis of his arm on

Tango’s Scouting Report by the Fans. So they think he’s about average.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:46 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is a fallacy, has always been a fallacy, and will always continue to be a fallacy

The extreme end of the OBP/SLG relationship at which adding more slugging would actually improve a team more than adding more OBP has never been achieved by an actual baseball team and never will be achieved, either.

It really cannot be emphasized enough that the reason the recent A’s offenses have sucked is not because their hitters have the wrong approach, it’s because their hitters have been frigging terrible hitters.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 11:40 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yep.

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

by brenarlo on Dec 30, 2008 11:54 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't think anyone is disputing that

“the reason the recent A’s offenses have sucked is not because their hitters have the wrong approach, it’s because their hitters have been frigging terrible hitters.” I also think once you have better hitters in general, a team which is too OBP heavy at the expense of AVG will have some other problems.

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 30, 2008 2:10 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Can you think of an example where a team has ever been too OBP heavy at the

expense of AVG? It doesn’t make sense to me when phrased that way.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:13 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I've talked about hitting vs. walking here before...

…and had both my fair share of supporters and people who disagreed with it.

I also believe the A’s need more people who are better at hitting over watching pitches go by outside the zone – in specific situations, at the least.

I think when you have a team made up mostly of people who are looking more for the walk it adds extra pressure on people who aren’t very good at actually swinging the bat.

Yeah, I’m looking primarily at Jack Cust. Still can’t think of anyone else I’ve seen who’s as good at getting on base via the walk as he is while having such a tendency to strike out. Ryan Howard gets a number of walks along with a high strikeout rate but last year 21% of his walks were intentional (29% career). Last year only 2.7% of Cust’s walks were intentional (2.1% career).

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Dec 30, 2008 11:28 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And when you think about that...

…Howard has a better lineup around him than Cust does and pitchers still don’t fear dealing with Cust.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Dec 30, 2008 11:33 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Since intentional walks are called from the bench, the correct statement is that MANAGERS don't fear dealing with Cust

and, given how stupid the average manager is, that’s hardly an argument against Cust. It might be an argument FOR him.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 11:36 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Shrug

Most intentional walks are very value-neutral, although they tend to actually increase the win expectancy of the hitting team slightly (which is why it’s almost always a bad idea to do it). Still, they don’t do it nearly as much as unintentional walks. A hitter who draws a higher percentage of walks unintentionally is a much more valuable hitter.

What managers think really isn’t relevant to anything related to player value.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 11:46 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, it's good for Cust that so many of his walks are earned the usual way...

…but it also makes me wonder how many are of the ‘unintentional intentional’ variety, seeing if he’ll get himself out in the process.

Either way, and I guess this can go back to Blez’s points about Anderson in a sense, I believe the A’s need people who are better at hitting the ball than they are at drawing walks. Sure, there will be some opportunities lost where a GIDP takes them out of an inning, but there will also be more times they score a run because of someone being able to advance a couple bases on a hit where the walk doesn’t really help.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Dec 30, 2008 11:50 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Walks are always better than productive outs. Always.

(waits for obscure scenario where productive out is better)

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:55 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How about an out that scores a run vs a walk that leads to 12 runs

by keeping the inning alive. In fact the out ends the inning with one run scoring, while 44 walks in a row lead to 41 runs with no outs!

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:03 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But seriously folks...

the walk leaves it up to the guys coming up. For the A’s that’s been bad news. It’s Beane’s fault that Cust doesn’t have guys behind him to make his walks worth more.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:07 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Which kind of goes to the point

I don’t think the scenario is really effectively asked. In a line up of good hitters OPS, getting on base, is more important than average/contact (clearly). BUT, given the line ups we’ve been trotting out there, in an improve what we’ve got situation where we clearly can’t get 9 good hitters into our line up. Which is better, more guys like we’re currently sending out there who can sure get on base but suck ass bring in runs. OR, a few guys who suck ass getting on base, but put the ball in play and bring in runs?

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

by DMOAS on Dec 30, 2008 12:23 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ah which comes first....the suck ass guys not getting on base

or the good OPS guys not driving in runs?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:27 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sadly, it's a valid question to be asked

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

by DMOAS on Dec 30, 2008 12:32 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What they need the most is a good balance of both

Some of this problem is sure to be eliminated in a new ballpark with no foul territory, but they’ve got to have at least two or three hitters who are better at making contact and putting the ball in play mixed in around the people who can walk more.

If you have a team full of contact hitters you’re going to get enough outs, double plays and so on that it hurts more than it helps, but if you have a team full of guys who walk then there’s not really anybody to advance them except with more walks.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Dec 30, 2008 12:28 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Right

Short of getting 9 good hitters in the lineup, falling into a pattern of having only one side makes your offense one-dimensional and lopsided. Something that allows opposing defenses to exploit.

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

by DMOAS on Dec 30, 2008 12:31 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How do they exploit it?

Please, do tell. Have they taken to putting an extra catcher behind the plate against the A’s?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 1:01 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

By throwing strikes?

Exploit is an extremely bad word for what I meant. If it were possible, the A’s tend to exploit themselves. Most successful pitchers against us, tend to simply throw the ball over the plate and let our offensive do the dirty work of sucking. But if you’re looking at a way to exploit our offensive (that’s entirely separate from the patient/aggressive argument), our lack of speed allowed teams to exploit us by allowing their middle infielders to maintain their positions and the pitcher from not having to worry about the runner stealing. So it wouldn’t surprise me if someone far smarter than me could come up with an effective way to deal with an ultra patient lineup that sucks ass when they actually swing the bat.

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

by DMOAS on Dec 30, 2008 1:24 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I can't see the 9 Pennington lineup doing

anything but sucking.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:45 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

no kidding

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

by DMOAS on Dec 30, 2008 1:50 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

True

And looking at his numbers, I see that on average about 10% of his walks each year are of the intentional variety. That’s probably a pretty good rate for someone like him.

He’s also a 40-homer, 100+ RBI guy with excellent career power numbers. Cust could get there, but he isn’t that close yet. He does probably wind up hurt a bit by having fewer opportunities. They’re actually pretty close with runners on, in scoring position, etc.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Dec 30, 2008 11:54 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Andruw Jones... now that's interesting

I have very little confidence in Andruw Jones ability to return to form, but I’m intrigued by the trade idea because of the multiple enticements we could offer to the Dodgers.

For example, what about this offer… The A’s offer Mark Ellis for Andruw Jones, James McDonald, and Chin-Lung Hu. We offer to pick up Jones’ entire 2009 salary ($15M), plus half of the amount Jones is owed for his signing bonus for 2010 (i.e., $2.5M; according to Cot’s Contracts, Jones is still owed $2.1M of his signing bonus in 2009 and $5M of his signing bonus in 2010).

Why this deal works for the Dodgers: Jones is an expensive surplus OF for the Dodgers; they clear payroll room and roster space, and get a solid (and relatively cheap) 2B back in the form of Ellis (allowing them to move DeWitt back to a utlity role); Hu is blocked by Furcal.

Why this deal works for the A’s: The A’s may have payroll space, and possibily could absorb Jones’ 2009 salary for the possiblity of a return to form; moving Ellis clears room for Cardenas (assuming he’s ready) or for Hu (who could play 2B in 2009); McDonald provides us with another solid pitching prospect; we finally get the SS prospect we need.

Like I said, I’m not sure getting Andruw makes the A’s any better, but getting Hu and McDonald would be nice… Ellis will become expendable within a year or two due to the development of Cardenas and Weeks, so we could deal him.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 11:21 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Substitute Crosby for Ellis, add a couple more prospects (Gordon and Gallagher) and you've got a deal.

Jones is owed $22.1M. Dodgers don’t get back any decent players for getting rid of that.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:26 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Meant to reply to this...

… I don’t think the Dodgers would do it if it involved Crosby. Under my scenario, we’d only be on the hook for $17.5M of the $22.1M owed to Jones ($15M this year, $2.5M next year). We’d also be reducing payroll by $10.5M over the next two years (Ellis is owed $5M this year and $5.5M next). So, we’d be adding $10M of payroll this year (losing Ellis; adding Jones, Hu, and McDonald) and subtracting $3M of salary next year.

I’d rather not lose Ellis, but we’re not going to get decent prospects back (e.g., Hu or McDonald) if all we’re willing to do is take on Jones’ salary (especially if we want to dump a lump of crap like The Croz on them). Got to give to receive.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 11:40 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just Ellis for Hu and McDonald favors the Dodgers. Ellis is awesome.

Taking back Andruw is like dropping a boulder on the scale in their favor.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:52 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ellis is good... but awesome?

I would not describe Ellis as awesome. I’d also argue that Ellis is one of the more replaceable players we’ve got, given the relative depth at 2B in our system.

The fact is… if one of us likes a deal for the A’s, that probably means the team we’re dealing with won’t like the deal. Offering Crosby to the Dodgers is a non-starter. They could have had him last week without giving up anything; now you want them to take him and give up Hu and McDonald. Why would they do that?

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 11:55 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Because we're taking on the monstrosity that is Andruw.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:56 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My guess...

… if we offered Ellis for Hu and McDonald, the Dodgers would reject.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 11:57 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Then let them

I really don’t like the idea of bringing Andruw Jones here to take a problem off LA’s hands just to get Hu and McDonald out of it.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Dec 30, 2008 11:58 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So Crosby!

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:11 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So Taguchi!

"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby

by DyeLongJustice on Dec 30, 2008 5:24 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Except for the Ringzzzz

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 9:44 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

it might be

but definitely not a fan-friendly trade. Colletti would face serious heat if he did that.

"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby

by DyeLongJustice on Dec 31, 2008 7:39 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why? Hu was terrible last year and McDonald is a B+ prospect.

A 3-4 WAR player is worth more than that. If Hu was at all an option they wouldn’t have signed Furcal instead of Lowe or Manny.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:00 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Whoa!!

Tough to compare players when you’re using WAR for Ellis, a grading system for McDonald, and a subjective opinion for Hu. Try using the same scale for all three players… Where does Ellis grade out on your prospect scale? How about Hu? How many WARs are Hu and McDonald worth? How am I supposed to compare 3-4 WAR with a B+ prospect and the opinion that Ned Colletti not trusting a prospect means the prospect is worthless…

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 12:03 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Tricky isn't it? This is why Colletti gets the big bucks!

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:05 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Colletti is a B- GM...

… but he’s probably worth a few WAR to his team.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 12:08 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hee hee.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:21 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A 3-4 WAR player would grade an A on the Sickels scale

Hu would probably get a C+.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 1:04 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So that's gotta be worth way more than a B+ and a C+

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:13 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Absolutely

My rule of thumb is that a prospect at one grade is worth 2 prospects at the next lowest grade. That breaks down a bit at the edges (obviously one A isn’t worth 32 C+ prospects) but it gives a sense of the values involved.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 1:21 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I like that rule of thumb...

… but I cannot believe that Ellis would grade out as an “A” prospect (if he were a propsect) on anyone’s scale. If Mark Ellis is an “A,” then basically 30-50% of major leaguers are worth more than the tippy-top minor leaguers.

Would you deal Ellis for Jay Bruce? If so, then Ellis isn’t worth an “A”-level prospect. And if he’s not worth an “A”-level prospect, then maybe getting back a B+ (McDonald) and a C+ (Hu), along with Andruw Jones, wouldn’t be such a bad return.

Of course, it’s poissible I’m totally confused about how we’re valuing these players…

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 1:29 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I just re-read my own post, and even I couldn't understand it...

… my point was that I think we’re overstating Ellis’ value on this grading scale.

Players like Jay Bruce, Matt Weiters, Colby Rasmus, Rick Porcello, Clayton Kershaw, Josh Vitters… those guys, I would consider “A”-level prospects. I would happily deal Mark Ellis for any of those players.

Since that’s the case, then under my valuation system (and I assume other people’s valuation system), Mark Ellis cannot = “A”-level prospect. If he did equal “A”-level prospect, I think I would be more hesitant to deal him for an “A”-level prospect… does that make sense?

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 1:37 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I can't see losing Ellis and getting back Hu and

McDonald making the A’s a better team, unless McDonald beats the odds and becomes a big winner. I’m certainly not interested in paying $20M for the privilege of making that trade.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:48 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The only way I'd make that trade

is if we exchange Ellis for Crosby. We cover all of Jones & Crosby’s salary. In the end, we get the two prospects in return for the prospect of freeing up enough cash for the Dodgers to resign Manny.

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

by DMOAS on Dec 30, 2008 1:53 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Exactly!

And I’d still want Gordon and Gallagher.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:00 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Who is Gordon?

Are you talking about Sean Gallagher? Are we offering him to the Dodgers? I’m confused by your post RubeJose.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 2:08 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Devaris

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:11 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gotcha

We’re talking about Devaris Strange-Gordon and Austin Gallagher… I thought you were suggesting that we deal Croz, Sean Gallagher, and some dude named Gordon for Jones, Hu, and McDonald. I didn’t get why we’d be adding prospects to our side of the deal… Make sense now.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 2:14 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yes.

We’ll have two Gallaghers.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:24 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Right...

… as I’ve said a number of times before, if you, as an A’s fan, look at a trade and say, “Yeah, I’d do that deal in a heartbeat,” then it’s probably a good bet that the opposing GM would laugh in your face.

Crosby for Jones, Hu, and McDonald would never fly. Dodgers don’t need Crosby, and Colletti would be skewered if he have up Hu, McDonald, and Jones for nothing.

At least the Dodgers need a 2B… maybe that ought to be a consideration.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 2:05 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They're not getting Crosby. They can cut him.

They’re getting $17M for a B+ prospect and three B- to C+ prospects. Neither Jones nor Crosby have any value as players.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:09 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think...

… Hu, McDonald, Gordon, and Gallagher would be more valuable to the Dodgers than $15M-$20M of payroll room.

Might be wrong about that, but the Dodgers have some ability to expand payroll if they want to…

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 2:16 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Maybe. I'm not sure what B-/C+

prospects are worth in USD. I’d be happy to equalize it someone made that estimate.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:26 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Loosely speaking,

I’d estimate a C+ prospect as worth about $4 million and a B- prospect as worth around twice that.

Those are based on the fact that the average #20-#30 draft pick rates about a C+, the average draft bonus for that slot is about $1.3 million, and the average draftee gets only about a third of what he “ought” to get on the free market as a signing bonus.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 4:14 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So my deal favors the A's a bit

Drop Gallagher then.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 9:46 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So, the deal is....

… A’s deal Bobby Crosby and $5.25M (to pay for Croz to stink it up in Chavez Ravine for a season) to the Dodgers for Andruw Jones, James McDonald, Chin-Lung Hu, and Devaris Strange-Gordon?

Dodgers benefit: One free Crosby; clear payroll room to sign Manny.

Dodgers loss: Three prospects.

A’s benefit: Potential upside on A-Jones (in a contract year…); a #3-4 SP who is ready to go in late 2009 or early 2010; a great-glove-questionable-bat SS who is ready to insert now; plus one long-term SS play (Dr. StrangeGordon).

A’s loss: $22.35 million in 2009 ($5.25 million for Crosbone; $17.1 million for Jones); $5 million for Jones in 2010 (deferred signing bonus).

I still don’t see the benefit from the Dodgers’ perspective. I think LA has the $$$ to sign Manny right now; if they’re going to deal A-Jones, I think they’ll eat his salary rather than deal away prospects to unload his salary.

In order to get anything worthwhile from the Dodgers, I think Beane’ll have to do more than offer them Crosby and $$$ (even if the $$$ is significant). We’ll have to give up Ellis (or something else) that we don’t want to give up.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 31, 2008 12:51 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They might have the money

for Manny, but then they’d likely have zero budget flexibility to do anything after that. The ONLY reason for LA to consider it is as a salary dump and you’d need to give the team your dumping salary on a reason to do it. If they’re not dumping salary, no part of this deal makes sense for anyone. It especially makes ZERO sense if you replace Crosby with Ellis. The only addition I could see would be the A’s adding a couple of C- prospects on their end, but definitely nothing of importance, which is also why a deal like this won’t ever be done.

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

by DMOAS on Dec 31, 2008 10:16 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

DMOAS, you have no idea

how close your scenario came to being reality.

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 30, 2008 2:15 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And why can't it still happen?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:27 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My seals are lipped

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 30, 2008 2:29 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

WHAT?

Do you work for the A’s Nico? What do you know?

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 2:48 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Man, no fair.

I want to have an “in” with the organization too :(

by mikev on Dec 30, 2008 2:57 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm sure the only way that deal

would happen is if they A’s gave up a couple of very low level prospects. As much as freeing up the money to sign Manny and maybe a Lowe or someone like him might be (as well as practical from a team building view point) to the Dodgers, at face value (money excluded) it looks like an extremely ugly deal on paper for them. It’s the sort of surface level headscratcher Beane would would pull where afterward we see what he was really doing.

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

by DMOAS on Dec 30, 2008 3:01 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Is the deal we're talking about....

… Crosby to the Dodgers for Jones, Hu, and McDonald, with the A’s picking up Croz’s and Jones’s salaries?

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 3:06 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't recall

I might have dreamt the whole thing.

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 30, 2008 3:58 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

There are players among that group for whom I would trade Mark Ellis

There are also players among it for whom I would NOT trade Mark Ellis, suggesting that he’s somewhere around the middle of it… whatever, even if you call him an A-, it’s still a bad deal.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 4:12 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fair enough...

… Ellis is somewhere in the middle. I’ll settle on an A- grade.

How would Andruw Jones grade out on this scale? An F+?

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 4:24 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

By the way...

… I agree about Hu’s offense (which has never been very good above the AA-level), but he may be worth a shot based on his glove.

McDonald, from what I’ve read, is a stud (whether stud = B+ is a mystery).

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 12:12 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

B+ by Sickels system is a Top 50, but not Top 20 prospect or thereabouts

Goldstein gave him 4 Stars, meaning someone he’d consider for the Top 100 but not Top 50.

I agree Hu is worth a shot, but not at the cost of Ellis.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:21 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gotcha

I’ve always liked James McDonald. I think he reminds me of Stew (who also began his career with the Dodgers).

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 12:53 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'd have made Stew a B+ myself. He looked good in relief

with Howe. As did Alejandro Pena.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:55 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Let them then

If you’re set on trading Ellis, then shop him to every team in MLB. Don’t limit yourself to the Dodgers, and having to take on Andruw.

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

by rfloh on Dec 30, 2008 8:39 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Definitely

I agree with that… I was just following the Andruw Jones train of thought from the original diary post.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 31, 2008 12:53 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Also

I’m not dead set on trading Ellis. I was just throwing an idea out there.

That said, Ellis might be the most valuable trading chip Beane has right now (other than Anderson and Cahill). Probably able to get as much in return for Ellis (because of his 2+1 contract) as you would for Holliday.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 31, 2008 12:59 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yes and no

The defense Ellis brings to the table can’t be discounted. He’s been up and down with the bat, but if his pattern so far holds steady 2009 should be a good year for him offensively. He’s kind of got the old Bret Saberhagen thing of good/bad/good going.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Dec 30, 2008 11:57 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ellis cannot be traded right now, and trading him would do an incredible amount of damage to the team's rep even if he could be

It’s also a terrible deal for the A’s from a talent standpoint.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 11:42 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why can't Ellis be traded?

1. How would dealing Ellis do anymore damage to the team’s rep than has already been done by dealing Hudson, Mulder, Haren, Harden, Blanton, CarGon, or Street? We deal our “veterans.” If that’s damaging to our rep, then so be it. If there’s another reason this would be damaging, then let me know…

2. From a talent standpoint, I think I disagree with you. I love Ellis’ glove, and I think he’s a decent offensive 2B, but I don’t see the argument that two years of Ellis is better talent-wise than six years of Hu, six years of McDonald, and a year of Andruw Jones. Please explain.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 11:51 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ellis just signed an extension

I assume the rules are the same as free agency, so he can’t be traded until July or thereabouts.

by jdr on Dec 30, 2008 12:16 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Really?

I didn’t know that… If a player signs an extension, or a free agent contract, he can’t be traded until July of the following year?

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 12:50 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's true for FA, but I'm not sure whether it's true for extensions. Why assume it's the

same?

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:52 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A 2+1 option deal is a lot different than "two years of Ellis"

It’s the benefit of a three-year deal with the risk of a 2-year deal. That’s a very valuable commodity. By contrast, Jones has a severely negative value, as he’s overpaid by at least 2 wins worth of dollars.

On the A’s side of the ledger, we have Ellis, who I’ll rate as being worth 9 WAR over the contract (3.5 this year, declining by half a win per season). He’s being paid like a 4 WAR player over that time frame, and we can add one more WAR for the value of the contract option lowering the risk to the A’s. So his contract has a positive EV of about 6 WAR.

On the Dodgers’ side, you have Jones, who’s at least a -2 WAR player relative to his contract. Hu projects as a defense-first utility player, basically Cesar Izturis. I’d project him as worth around .5 WAR a season, or 3.5 over seven years. During that period he’d probably be paid for 1 of those, so he’s worth +2.5 WAR. McDonald projects as a #3 starter, roughly 2 WAR a season, but like most young pitchers he’ll probably take a few years to find his stride, so let’s say he’s 0 next season, 1 in 2009, and 2 from 2010-2015. Judging by how pitchers are paid in arbitration, he’ll probably make about 4 WAR worth of dollars. So he’s worth about 7. However, he’s also a pitcher, meaning we need to knock off some of that for injury risk and possible suckiness. I’m calling him a 5 WAR value.

Overall that’s 5.5 WAR for the Dodgers and 6 for the A’s, but here’s the thing— the A’s already have plenty of utilitymen and #3 starters. Those WAR are comparatively very easy to find. The above-average value that Ellis provides relative to his position is worth a talent premium, especially for a team that has designs on competing for the playoffs. It’s closer than I thought, but it’s still a bad deal for the A’s, especially since it severely damages next year’s team when Holliday is in town.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 1:19 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Good analysis

I meant to add to that… I agree with you on the numbers, and I also agree that (with Holliday in town and the emphasis being on winning in 2009), this is a deal we probably cannot make. This deal would have to be paired with shipping Holliday out of town for other pieces. In other words, deal for Jones to get Hu and McDonald, to clear room for Cardenas/Weeks, and to build for the future (when Cahill, Anderson, Simmons, Mazzero, Carter, Cardenas, and Hu are ready to take over).

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 1:40 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just a nitpick but Cesar Izturis was worth nearly

2 WAR in 2008.. If Hu can do that he’d be an average starting SS, not a utility player. I realize you said over the life of the deal.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:51 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What if you sign Orlando Hudson first?

Just playing devil’s avocado here.

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 30, 2008 2:17 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What if the Marlins offered Hanley Ramirez for him?

Then would it make sense. Are you opposed to dealing Ellis under any circumstances, or just under these circumstances… if it’s just under these circumstances, then reform the deal. Trading Ellis makes sense in some contexts… you just have to find the right context.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 2:07 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ellis for Hanley!

Do it Billy!

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:10 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Obviously if Hanley Ramirez was offered for Ellis

then clearly I would be having an acid flashback……..
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

:o

by mrod on Dec 30, 2008 4:17 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Add and subtract as you please...

… I don’t think the Dodgers would do it if it involved Crosby. Under my scenario, we’d only be on the hook for $17.5M of the $22.1M owed to Jones ($15M this year, $2.5M next year). We’d also be reducing payroll by $10.5M over the next two years (Ellis is owed $5M this year and $5.5M next). So, we’d be adding $10M of payroll this year (losing Ellis; adding Jones, Hu, and McDonald) and subtracting $3M of salary next year.

I’d rather not lose Ellis, but we’re not going to get decent prospects back (e.g., Hu or McDonald) if all we’re willing to do is take on Jones’ salary (especially if we want to dump a lump of crap like The Croz on them). Got to give to receive.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 30, 2008 11:39 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

People

Beane is not interested in Anderson. Boras said they talked about him, perhaps just mentioned him, could be a lie for all we know, but even if it isnt, it doesn’t mean Beane wants him. This is another tool used by Boras to get people to start talking about Anderson. He wants a buzz going, so it raises his price. It’s not complicated. Hasn’t anyone learned anything from the Teixeira fiasco?

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

by Cheezombie on Dec 30, 2008 12:13 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

We're buzzing but I doubt anything we're saying is raising his price.

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

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:22 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i didn't really mean us

but the fact that he was never mentioned in the media. When someone says Beane wants someone, the media will definitely jump on it.

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

by Cheezombie on Dec 30, 2008 12:43 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Andruw Jones:

If you asky any of the Dodger Fans that I know, Andruw Jones going to the A’s would be a guarnteed winner of “AL Comeback Player of the Year.” Likely one of the most pessimestic/realistic fan bases I’ve seen.

by MidwayCityLivestock on Dec 30, 2008 12:21 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The more I think about it, the more i think it comes down to what he's asking...

If he’s asking for 500 ABs, left field, and 5th in the order then he’s probably looking for $7 million. If he’s asking for 250 ABs, 4th OF, and any spot in the order then he’s probably looking at $2-3 million. I’d take him for $2-3 million to be the 4th OF and send Cunningham to AAA for awhile.

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

by brenarlo on Dec 30, 2008 1:50 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Aside from Anderson being a hated Halo for all of these years...

I don’t understand why he gets such a bad rap. A couple years back he had that planters facillitis which hampered his play…but last year I thought he played pretty ok by the end of the year. When his foot didn’t bothert him he got to the ball and had a good arm…and he’s got pop in his bat. He doesn’t seem like such a bad guy and Buck doesn’t impress me all of that much,anyway.

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 31, 2008 4:24 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

GA certainly had a fine 2007

I think he is generally quite underrated by ANers…and is now not worth signing as his career draws to a close.

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 31, 2008 5:01 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That may explain why he made Monkeyball sick last week

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 Jan 1, 2009 12:27 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

LOL funny stuff,

but seriously? We need a bat to contend(as well as a SP). Anderson has proven he can hit…Buck hasn’t. Sometimes signing a guy a little past his prime works out like it did with Hurt a few years back and sometimes it doesn’t a la Piazza. I think it’s worth a try. It’s not like we are frontrunners for anyone else besides maybe Giambi. I do agree with a post Nico made in one of the threads…Nick Johnson (if healthy) would be a terrific signing but if we can’t get him…the A’s shoud suck it up and hire Anderson.

by IM4Oakgal on Jan 2, 2009 11:40 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thing is, I'm not sure Anderson "can hit" in 2009

better than Buck/Cunningham could in 2009. I think either is good for about a .750 OPS but current guys have better speed and defense.

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 Jan 2, 2009 3:26 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

and neither have that amazing porn stache

altho i cant decide if thats good or bad…

"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 Jan 2, 2009 4:00 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I thought Garret Anderson was very good

in Beverly Hills Cop. I’ll give him 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 Jan 2, 2009 4:23 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I am not sure why you think like that about Buck...

his hitting hasn’t been too hot…but Anderson has a proven track record. I guess we just disagree on this one. I do hope Cunningham and Buck prove themselves as fielders and at the plate this season. I would rather have a good young guy than an old cast-off Halo any day of the week.

by IM4Oakgal on Jan 3, 2009 1:42 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My figuring is that even if Buck doesn't return to 2007 form,

he is likely to produce at least a .330 OBP because he does have a good eye, and he is likely to slug over .400 because he always has, even when hitting poorly overall. But with Buck, you will definitely get 15+ SB, good speed on the bases, and decent defense. It seems to me that Anderson would have to OPS over .800 to be more useful overall than Buck and I don’t see him doing that at this stage in his career.

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 Jan 3, 2009 11:10 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms
Start posting about the Athletics »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
2010 Oakland Athletics: Internal and FA Options
Small
Possible Trade Partners: Giants
Tsgirlbass_th_small
DLD 7/1/09: Less about baseball, more about baseball movies
Small
Possible Trade Partners: St. Louis Cardinals
Tsgirlbass_th_small
DLD 6/30/09: Pardon me if I'm sentimental

Recent FanPosts

Small
next A's philosophy: High $ International FA signings and High draft picks- pitchers only
Small
A's demands for Holiday
142564582_9b68f505fa_small
GOG 2009 #27
Small
Minor Athletics on vacation -- Minor League Dump
Ziegler160px_small
Quick Texas League All-Star Game Recap
Small
Does Sabean still like gritty veterans?
Small
A'S/Red Sox 2001 classic game on now on A's CSN channel 698 on direct tv
Ph3spec_small
doctorK invades PNC Park

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

SPONSORS


Managers

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

As_kings_cal_small louismg

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Martin_brodeur_300_small Blez

Ziegler160px_small Flashfire

Editors

Countdown_small Taj Adib

527918550406_0_bg_small notsellingjeans

Authors

P1010266b_small devo

Super_grover_small grover

The_baby_small salb918

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports