The 40-Man Roster Problem
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 12:52 AM PDT
Email
PrintThere's been a lot of talk here lately, and even on the A's official site, about some of the players who might play their way onto the 25-man roster. Guys like Greg Smith, Mike Sweeney, Todd Linden, and, I guess, even Brooks Conrad are all playing well and there's a good chance a couple of them are going to be on the 25-man roster (or even the expanded 28-man Japan roster).
But there's a problem: None of those four guys are on the 40-man. Neither are Kirk Saarloos, Gio Gonzalez, or a third catcher (Powell is, but he was already optioned). So what will the A's do?
Without going into the 40-man roster details for those who are unaware, here's the simple explanation: For any one of those guys who the A's want on the Major League roster, somebody on the 40-man has to go. This means risking losing that person to another team, or, in some cases, having that person choose free agency over a minor league assignment. I'm looking up and down the A's roster trying to figure out who might be the odd man out.
I'm not sure when Kiko Calero is going to be ready, but as far as I know he hasn't done anything yet. If that's the case, I could see the A's putting him on the 60-day DL to start the season. If he is, that opens up a 40-man spot without losing anybody (players on the 15-day DL are still on the 40-man, those on the 60-day DL are not - without the risk of losing that player). At this point, it doesn't appear the A's really need Calero, so I could see this happening.
If Fernando Hernandez doesn't make the 25-man roster, the A's have to offer him back to the White Sox. Hernandez has been solid so far this spring, and I can't imagine the A's would offer him back unless he really blows it over the next week and a half. As far as I'm concerned, he's going to be on the team. There's a spot that could be freed, but likely will not be.
There's the possibility of a few trades before the season begins. Aside from the big names like Blanton and Street (who would almost certainly bring back players who were on the 40-man), Alan Embree and Dan Johnson could be moved for low minors players that would free up a spot. Johnson seems to be on his way out anyway, and Embree is a guy who could probably help another team more. I want to see the kids. Some of those guys who lose out on the 5th starter spot need to take a spot in the bullpen, and they all seem to be left-handed anyway.
When I look at the pitchers, none of the ones who are on the bubble have been awful. Even Dana Eveland has been alright, but he might really need to prove himself over his next couple outings to make the team. I think he's out of options, so if he struggles he could go, unless Beane wouldn't want to lose a player from the Haren trade so quickly. I can see them releasing Foulke if he can't get himself ready in time, but that's sunk cost and Beane doesn't want to do that, either. I honeslty can't find one pitcher who I can definitely see being designated for assignment. Maybe Dan Meyer?
When I look at the position players, guys like Mellilo and Petit could probably be designated and then outrighted, but with the left side of the infield perpetually day-to-day, you want some infielders ready to step in.
The only player on the 40-man I think is totally expendable from management's perspective is Jeff Fiorentino. He was a waiver wire pickup, cost the team nothing, and is really just a body in camp. He might have some potential, but he's behind so many guys right now and with Todd Linden playing well, Fiorentino is certainly a possibility.
Most of this is just thinking out loud, and I'm not sure I came up with much in the way of answers. Trade Embree and Johnson, I guess. Put Calero on the 60-Day DL. That frees up 3 40-man spots. Will the A's end up needing more than that?
164 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
looks like they've got plenty of room to keep...
what they want...
Dan Johnson is gone.
Foulke may not make it.
Who is Jeff Gray and why do we need him?
Melillo? Do we need him? Doubt it.
There ya go... we can keep Smith, Sweeney, Linden and Conrad. Without even having to put Calero on the 60-day DL.
Go A's!
The A's need Melillo
if they're not planning on re-signing Ellis (or if they trade him). If he gets an extension, Melillo is expendable.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
i see this happening
just a guess
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
Even Dana Eveland has been alright, but he might really need to prove himself over his next couple outings to make the team. I think he's out of options, so if he struggles he could go, unless Beane wouldn't want to lose a player from the Haren trade so quickly.
The A's are not gonna give up on Eveland because of a mediocre spring training. Plus, I think he still has an option left, though I'd wager he'll be in the rotation to start the year at least.
Petit not going to be allowed
to become a free agent... He is very talented infielder and was placed on 40 man roster for a reason. He would not get through waivers IMO.
Nicely written article. Definitely there is some trade bait there in order to get down to the right 25 players, including Mike Sweeney
Charlie Brown GO A'S WIN
Absolutely would not get through waivers
He was put on the 40-man to protect him from Rule 5, which requires the claiming team to put the player on their active roster for an entire year.
You think no one would spend even a 40-man spot on him? Heck no. And there's no reason to risk it anyway. His downside is Scutaro with a better glove, and obviously he could be much better than that.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Really?
I was never much of a Scutaro fan, but I'm not sure Petit can do what he did offensively. I know Petit is still really young, but he can't even slug .400 in the minors. He doesn't walk a lot and he does strike out a fair amount. I just don't see him being much more than the slick fielding utility infielder type. I guess he has some value, but I'm not certain he wouldn't get through waivers. And if he didn't, I'm not certain it would be a huge loss.
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
What he did offensively?
What, hit for a .720 OPS during his peak years?
Petit's a much superior hitter for average. (Check minorleaguesplits.com-- he had a line drive percentage of over 20% last year.) He has less power at present but is sufficiently young that he could develop more of it. The same could be said of plate discipline, something Scutaro never had much of anyway.
I think he has a pretty good chance of developing into an above-average MLB shortstop in the Vizquel mold. Even a .700 OPS should make him a net-plus player.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If he can do that
then that'd be great. But just looking at his numbers I don't see it, yet, anyway. I'm not saying he's useless, but I could see him slipping past other teams if he were to be designated.
To me, it looks like Petit's upside is Scutaro + defense, but I hope you're right. And I hope he starts to achieve that potential sooner rather than later.
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Have you surveyed the state of shortstops
around the league?
I mean, Tony Pena? David Eckstein?Julio Lugo? Jason Bartlett? Christian frigging Guzman?
You don't think any of those teams would take a flyer on a 23-year-old prospect with a great glove who they don't even have to put on the MLB roster?
If Petit were to be DFAed today, heaven forbid, I'd give odds of 9-1 that he would not clear waivers. Especially after blowing his cover by hitting like crazy this spring.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I never, ever underestimate the stupidity of MLB GMs
And for that reason, Petit passing through waivers, while unlikely, wouldn't shock me at all.
Seriously, I have zero respect of the baseball acumen of at least 2/3 of the GMs out there. I think those guys are all completely replaceable and nobody but their wives (who would see lots more of them) would even notice.
There's really two separate questions here: How valuable is Petit? and How likely are other major league GMs to recognize his value?
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I wish there were an edit button
So I don't have to reply to myself.
Adam Everett signed a bargain basement deal this offseason and he's one of the best defensive shortstops anybody has ever seen. He should've gotten 2-3 times what he got, at least.
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Didn't he have a pretty horrific break in his right
leg last season? Are you sure he's fully recovered from that?
Ok, but why take the chance?
Why not DFA someone who, you know, sucks? Like DJ?
There's enough chaff on the roster that I would have no trouble cutting as many players as were needed to fit the new guys on without getting close to Petit in the pecking order on the current 40-man. Heck, I'd DFA Crosby before I did Petit, not least because his contract pretty much ensures that no one is going to claim him.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Oh, if that's the whole point of this
then that's fine. I wasn't saying he had to go or anything.
I'm all for DFAing Crosby!
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions
If Gregorio Petit becomes
Jason Bartlett, the A's should be happy. Seriously. Bartlett's a pretty decent, above average player with acceptable offense: will take his walks, good baserunner, who plays good D, who is underrated because of his lack of HR power.
Not saying that Pettit cannot. He has outperformed Bartlett at similar ages. But, Bartlett's hitting jumped forward, fairly impressively at age 23. At age 23 and older, Barlett's performance relative to league improved significantly. Petit as he has gone up the ladder, has yet to improve his performance relative to league significantly as he has gotten older. And Bartlett was / is a plus runer. Petit GIDPs quite a bit, and does not really steal many bases. Obviously, Petit still has time to develope.
Julio Lugo's 2007 was the worst year of his career, caused apparently by a stomach virus that sapped his strength.
And Eckstein, has his uses. a 350 OBP out of SS is for most teams, useful. He has become a useful offensive SS, if paired with a great D SS.
As for Petit's upside, PECOTA, yes I know it's only a projection system etc, is not very sanguine about him. His 2008 90th percentile forecast is a 257 EQA. Next 5 years, 50th percentile, 227, 233, 240, 248, 238.
Scutaro last 3 years with the As, 257, 275, 262.
And Bartlett, same period, 246, 274, 267.
Also, are we looking at the same players? Petit is a much superior hitter for average compared to Scutaro? And while Scutaro did not have great K / BB rates, they did improve pretty significantly as he went up to AA, AAA. His K / BB rates improved to the point that he was close to a 1:1 K / BB player in most years.
Petit is obviously younger and still has time.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
I'm not going to get into the business of trying to project Petit's future
for a variety of reasons, most of which could be summed up by saying "it's just guesswork."
The point I was trying to make wasn't even that those guys I listed were necessarily bad players in the context of shortstops. The point is that the context for shortstops is so lousy that someone like a Cristian Guzman or an Adam Everett can actually be a tolerably decent player.
Or to put it another way, "Scutaro plus defense" at shortstop is actually a damn sight better than your average MLB player.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Yes of course Scutaro plus D would be a good player
Bartlett is basically Scutaro with D. The issue is if he becomes Scutaro offensively.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Everett might be a top 10 defensive shortstop of all time
He could walk up to the plate without a bat and still be valuable. [/exaggeration]
Also, this is all pre-injury. If he's lost a couple steps because of it, then he might actually not be worth having.
by thejd44 on Mar 13, 2008 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
AN 3.0 suggestion/idea
I feel as though someone has suggested something like this idea before, but I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to build a WikiRoster. That would allow us to compile the communal wisdom about each player in one place for reference -- so, for example, Eveland's option status would be there, contract info, links to/snippets of scouting reports, etc.
clockwerks et al -- would this sort of thing be do-able, or is the tech plate full as-is?
I wasn't thinking about anything. I'll have to try to do that more often. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Mar 12, 2008 9:29 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
tech plate currently full until we get all blogs migrated to SBN 2.0
but that idea has certainly been floated before and I think it would be really cool
I'm one of the guys that built the new SB Nation
by Trei Brundrett on Mar 12, 2008 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions
They only need to be on the 40-man ...
if they are going to be on the 25-man -- otherwise we can just send them to AAA (Except Sweeney, more than likely, who is probably MLB or bust).
Of the four you mention, I'd only expect Sweeney to have a real shot at making the team. Smith is almost certainly behind Eveland for both service time and roster reasons. Gio is behind Smith due to age, lack of AAA experience and the greater desire to preserve his service time.
Linden is likely competing with Sweeney for a final spot on the roster, unless Dan Johnson is traded.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
It doesn't make sense that the A's would keep Mike Sweeney AND DJ
That's a pointless waste of bench space. Linden's competition is Ryan Sweeney, not Mike.
I can't see any scenario at this point where DJ can escape a trade or the waiver wire. I wouldn't even be particularly surprised if he survived an outright, given that Chris Shelton-- who's better-- got through waivers on the second try.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Jack Cust in the OF, Sweeney starting at DH, DJ backing up 1b, DH ...
plenty of PAs for everybody ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Plenty of PAs for everybody
except the 29036264 outfielders in the organization...
You don't need a backup first baseman when your DH is already a first baseman.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Exactly
I've said it in posts here before a few times. I don't like the idea of having all those 1B/DH types on the roster. Barton, Cust, and Sweeney is plenty (I really, REALLY don't want Cust in the outfield unless it's interleague). I don't think Johnson is horrible, but at this point I'd rather see them have an extra outfielder or Hannahan and Murphy (which will happen anyway if Chavez is not ready).
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I think the A's still think Johnson has value
The reason for keeping Johnson is that there might be some value either on the field or in trade for him and it would be a shame to lose that for nothing. Although, personally I am starting to doubt if the A's will be able to get anything out of him.
Also, for arguments sake; MLB games played at 1B for our projected guys over the last 2 seasons:
Daric Barton - 18
Mike Sweeney - 6
Jack Cust - 0
There are plenty of PAs for the outfielders ...
in AAA.
No need for a backup 1b, true ... but there's from for it if that'll result in the best team.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Actually...
think about how many outfielders are at that level.
Robnett
Putnam
Blasi
Sweeney
Gonzalez
Herrera
Cunningham
Fiorentino
You could make an argument for starting a couple of these guys at AA, but that's a LOT of outfielders for one minor league team.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
can't argue with that ...
Brian Stavisky is also in the mix ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Fiorentino is out of options, right?
Since he bounced from Baltimore to Cincy to the A's this offseason, I assume he is. I'm sure another team will claim him once he officially doesn't make the roster (and I assume he won't).
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
No, Fiorentino has at least one option remaining
He was pushed off of Baltimore's 40-man roster by the Tejada trade, then off the Reds roster by a free agent signing if I recall correctly.
He was called up to the majors so soon after being drafted that he has a fourth option available this season.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
What's the big deal?
Your starting 3 OF are:
Robnett
Gonzalez
Fiorentino/Sweeney (Which ever isn't in Oakland)
Putnam can DH
Blasi is roster fill
Herrera and Cunningham belong in AA
The monster at the end of this blog.
If DJ is still on the roster,
then neither of those guys (Fiorentino/Sweeney) is going to be in Oakland. There simply isn't enough room (unless the team carries only 11 pitchers, which would necessitate DFAing a reliever).
Which is kind of my point. Why create a roster crunch at AAA just to hang on to a backup 1B who's not even platoon-capable with the starter?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
DJ won't be around
Not is Mike Sweeney makes the roster, anyways.
Which admittedly is how I see the roster shaping up at this point. The A's won't carry Barton, DJ, M. Sweeney and Cust. DJ gets dealt in a minor deal and one of R. Sweeney/Fiorentino (my guess Sweeney) sticks around to back-up in the OF and/or Challenge your boy Denorfia for playing time in CF.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yeah, I know it wasn't your argument
Devo seemed to be the only one who thought that all three of them could make the roster, at least on this thread.
"My boy" seems to be suffering from Slow Bat Syndrome, so I'm actually not even 100% sure he's going to start in the majors. They may send him to AAA as a kind of extended spring training to get his timing back. Probably depends a lot on what he looks like as of March 30.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I have to really squint and turn my head to the side to see it
but I suppose it's there.
Buck to CF, Hannhan and Murphy as the back-up OFers when not playing infield. Denorfia in AAA. You'd still have a 12 man pitching staff.
I don't know WHY you'd want to go that route but you could. More likely Gaudin starts on the DL freeing up a roster spot for a couple weeks. I can also see Calero getting cut and going with an 11 man staff.
The monster at the end of this blog.
A little indefinite there
Are you squinting and turning your head at the notion of DJ, Sweeney and Barton all making the roster, or at the possibility of Denorfia having a slow bat and/or getting sent to AAA?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Just like to note that it's "could"
not "should" ...
I maintain that they could. Unless the idea is to hopefully build DJ's value for a month or so then trade him they probably shouldn't.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Thing is
I don't see how 3-4 weeks of DJ in the line-up is really going to boost his trade value. Maybe if he absolutely raked, but even then any GM with at least half a functioning brain would look at past performance and see that DJ is prone to short runs like that.
The monster at the end of this blog.
BB has a better idea of what's bouncing around the minds of ML GMs ...
so I trust that he'd only do it if there'd be a point to it.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I didn't mean to imply those guys were all locks to make it
I just think they've all made a case, and I'm sure the A's are considering all of them to some extent. And in the next week if Linden continues to get a hit 2/3 of the time or Smith continues to shut down opponents or somebody gets hurt for a few weeks, these could be some tough decisions they have to make.
by thejd44 on Mar 12, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
and you don't need a backup DH
when your OF is already a DH.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
40 Man
Thanks JD...this is great insight and may help clarify some of the A's decision making regarding PT and decisions that are made at the end of ST.
Prospective trades
What is the incentive for a team that needs Johnson as a semi-reliable option (re: the Mets) to make a deal for him? Anyone can clearly see that the A's are in a bit of a bind and are going to have to let go of somebody, and with the severe lack of talented right-handed hitting in the organization, I have a hard time seeing M. Sweeney being that somebody. Other GM's can just wait it out, right? As much as I would like to see Omar Minaya give the A's some C- or D-level prospect for DJ, how can Beane make it worth his while?
He has to convince him
that someone else earlier in the waiver claim line will get him.
That's what happened with Bradley last year-- someone could have gotten him for free, but San Diego (which was close to last in the claim order) gave up Andrew Brown in order to cut in line.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
what PT said, and ...
... remember, this is the GM who convinced the Cubs to give up Blevins for Kendall.
I mean, yes, your argument is entirely logical, but logic crumbles in the face of Beane's Blackberry-mediated Jedi mind tricks.
I wasn't thinking about anything. I'll have to try to do that more often. @('.')@
If M. Bradley, Kendall, and Kotsay
can yield us A. Brown, Blevins, and Devine - three plus arms - and our backup catcher, I will not underestimate what we could get for Dan Johnson or anyone else who has no place on our team and everybody knows it. I'm still amazed at what we got from those three trades.
As far as clearing up space on the 40-man roster, I think a couple guys might just get pushed off and if we lose 'em we lose 'em - Jeff Gray is probably first in line, I expect DJ to be traded (just my best guess) and I expect Calero to be placed on the DL. And there's always the unfortunate reality that a player expected to contribute gets unexpectedly hurt. That's 3-4 spots right there.
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
so, plenty of room...
right? Please, Jeff Gray ain't makin' this team. Everybody knows DJ is gone. So, we're arguing over Foulke, Melillo and a handful of extraneious outfielders we don't need. I know, I know... PaulThomas thinks we need Melillo, but we don't... he's a dime a dozen.
This isn't high on Billy's list of priority worries. Keeping Harden and Crosby healthy... okay, that's high.
Go A's!
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 13, 2008 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions
PaulThomas is a dime a dozen?
how much for only one please?
"Doesn't play well with the other children." Ms. Darias, principal, Broad Ave School
I'd guess .83 cents, unless there's some bulk discount involved
by thejd44 on Mar 13, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions
"THE PaulThomas?"
"No, just A PaulThomas. Didn't you hear I come in six-packs?"
Man, I'm all OVER this site tonight with the random allusions...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
OK, I'll give you Brown for Bradley
But Kendall, Kotsay and SEVERAL million dollars yielded Blevins, Bowen (who the Cubs were going to DFA to make room for Kendall) and Devine.
The monster at the end of this blog.
And useless players were taken off the roster
Something that could actually be worth several million dollars.
by thejd44 on Mar 13, 2008 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Several million dollars less than what we were paying initially.
I'm pretty sure that we didn't pay the full salary for Kendall or Kotsay, so it was a net savings of a few million bucks.
Not really
The A's saved about $750K by shipping Kendall and another $2-ish million on Kotsay. Round numbers... $3 million in saving which is not an insignificant number by any means. But the A's could have saved even more money if they hadn't insisted on Blevins and Devine as part of the deals. how much money? Hard to say but (probably) no more then $1 million a pop.
So the question becomes are Blevins+Devine+$3 million > $5 million?
TBD
The monster at the end of this blog.
No, it's not TBD ...
Blevings + Devine will each most likely either be worth $0 or considerably more than $2m. With a sample size of two, we've got some problems analyzing it based on results.
Would you draft them in the supplemental portion of the first round and give each a ~$1m signing bonus? Absolutely, every day of the week and twice on Sunday -- especially for Devine, you'd draft him four times on Sunday, maybe five times.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Drafting Devine 4 times on Sunday
Only if you ignore his 4.09 BB/9 minor league performance, his absolutely putrid to date big league numbers and his bad back.
The monster at the end of this blog.
HIs 8-1/3 innings in 2007 were spectacular
okay, except for the 8 walks ...
Over the last year and a half (in AA and AAA) his walk rate is a much more reasonable 3.17, which compared to a 12.71 k/9, is more than acceptable.
If you check out his game logs, you might also notice that Devine has given up a grand total of 1 run over his 16-2/3 career innings that weren't his first two appearances (call-up jitters?) in 2005 and 2006.
No question, he has some work to do on controlling the strike zone -- but he's still a great guy to have, easily worth a million ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
That's like saying
The sex was great except for the part where you had to go to the doctor's office for a shot of penicillin.
Everything else you said is why I said TBD. Beane essentially "bought" Devine for (for the purpose of this discussion) $1 million. Is that a good deal regardless of Devine's ultimate success? I don't know, this is sorta new territory.
The monster at the end of this blog.
No, it's saying the decision to have sex was great ...
because sex is enjoyable and the risk of needing a shot of penicillin later was sufficiently minimal the risk did not outweigh the reward.
Bad decisions that work out are still bad decisions. Not pulling out that night you were drunk and unwrapped wasn't any less stupid because you later found out it was her first time and yet miraculously she was on the pill.
Similarly, good decisions that don't work out are still good decisions.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I'm confused
Should we be having Devine Sex or not?
by thejd44 on Mar 13, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd say you should ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Actually, it's more like the end of the first round
Corey Brown, who was picked 59th in the supplemental round, got $550,000.
$1 million is basically the 30th-35th pick.
And yeah... a good bullpen prospect for that kind of money? Absolutely. And it's not close. The White Sox paid 19 times that amount for 4 years of Scott Linebrink.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
You're dreaming on Devine
And I mean that in the "I foresee him becoming..." sense.
I, on the other hand, would hesitate before signing/drafting/whatever a 24 year old relief pitcher with a bad back and iffy control for $1 million. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, just that Devine isn't the slam dunk you and devo are making him out to be.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Who said he was a slam dunk?
I think he has maybe a 33% chance each of being quite good, serviceable middle relief, and a bust. Even throwing out that "serviceable middle relief" section, that's a fantastic deal for $1 million.
My back-of-the-envelope calculations (I can go into more detail if you want) lead me to believe that if you were to repeat this experiment three times, you would end up paying out about $21 million total and reaping about $42 million worth of value from it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Wait a second
Quotes like "Absolutely. And it's not close." Or, "you'd draft him 4 times on Sunday"
Those quotes do not leave you with much room to equivocate. You've all but called Devine a sure thing.
Here's the thing PT, you DON'T get to run this experiment 3 times with Joey Devine. You get one chance and if he busts you lose.
I openly wonder if Devine or Blevins was worth the extra cash, that is all. What else could the A's have done with those funds? I don't know but I think it's an interesting question.
The monster at the end of this blog.
then his expected return...
Would be $14mil for a $7mil investment per PaulThomas calculations.
I'm sure that comes out as a much better value than our draft history post -02 has produced.
No Harden and No Chavez make the A's go, something something...
Unless he busts
And I'm not really seeing where the $7 million figure is coming from but that is neither here nor there.
My point is the tone PT and devo have adpoted towards Devine and Blevins would be much more appropriate for players who have actually accomplished something in the big leagues.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You can't buy sure things for a million bucks.
If someone with Devine's stuff and six years of mostly successful play (say a fairly standard looking learning curve to a very good setup man) you'd have to pay$20-30m to acquire him -- and, thanks to health and instability of relief pitching, he wouldn't even be that much safer of an option than the real Devine.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Exactly... you can't buy a sure thing for a million
There are significant issues that could ruin Devine, which is why I said his worth is TBD. All I did was say we need to see how he pans out. You and PT are the ones who jumped down my throat by wanting to declare success already.
The monster at the end of this blog.
you said the question of are Blevins + Devin + $3m > $5m
is TBD. It's not TBD. The ultimate career values of Blevins and Devine are still TBD but as prospects, in today's dollars, they are absolutely worth more than $2m.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Not if they bust
No one, not even the Yankees, should be spending $1 million a pop on AAA arms.
And if you want to talk pure value as prospects, in 2007 the top amateur in all of Latin America signed for $1.5 million. He's a 16 year old 3B projected to hit for a "ton of power". Blevins and Devine profile at best as set-up men. I realize that Blevins and Devine are more likely to make the Show then Boston's bonus baby, but if you're going to drop a million on a prospect, wouldn't you rather go after Miguel Cabrera instead of Jay Witasick?
The monster at the end of this blog.
That's just not true ...
I don't know what else to say except that you're wrong.
And plenty of folks think that Devine can be a closer.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
How am I wrong?
I got set-up man from you. C'mon devo, I'm trying to use the same measuring stick as you are.
In 2007 there were 3 L.A. prospects that received $1 million or more in bonus money.
I acknowledge that Blevins and Devine are more advanced then any of those guys and are more likely to have careers in the Show by virtue of knocking on the door right now.
For the sake of this discussion, we're supposing that it took $1 million each to pry Blevins and Devine away from their original teams. Blevins spent most of last year in AA. Devine spent about half of 2007 in AA. If I've been wrong on any of the facts its been calling them AAA arms.
I wonder if spending $1 million per minor league bullpen arm was actually a wise move. If they pan out the answer is yes, it was. If they don't make it then the question becomes more poignant.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You're wrong in saying
No one, not even the Yankees, should be spending $1 million a pop on AAA arms.
As well as the general ideas and principals behind it.
Your facts, I have no doubt, are correct.
Your interpretation, sadly ... not so much.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
My interpretation is a question
How is my asking the question wrong?
I'm not sure if "buying" two AAA bullpen arms at $1 million a pop was a wise move. If the pitchers pan out then the answer is an obvious yes.
If they don't, is it a move that should be tried again if the opportunity presents itself?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Here's where your fallacy lies
If they pan out the answer is yes, it was. If they don't make it then the question becomes more poignant.
This is simply not a correct statement. The value of a relief prospect with good stuff, a proven track record and success at the AAA level is more than $1 million. If you are offered the chance to buy it for $1 million, it is the correct move to take that chance (assuming you aren't at the extreme end of your budget, which Oakland clearly is not) regardless of the ultimate outcome of the player's career.
Whether a decision is correct or not may not be KNOWN at the time it's made (in much the same way as you don't know whether a bet you made in a poker hand was a good one at the time you make it, because you can't see your opponent's cards), but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the right or wrong decision. If you make the right move and get unlucky, too bad. If you make the wrong move and get lucky, that's not a credit to you. At the end of the day, you can look back and say, yes, that was a good bet even though I lost the hand-- and in the long run, that's all that matters.
My mantra, when it comes to poker or GMing, is very simple: There is always a right move and a wrong move. It's up to the player to figure out which is which.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Decisions are rarely so black and white
You are correct that a more accurate statement on my part would be to say: If Devine and Blevins pan out then the decision to buy them worked out instead of saying that the ends prove the decision correct in the first place.
I think the play was/is questionable, I don't think the acquisitions are as clear cut Right or Wrong as you make them out to be. At this point I don't know if buying a AAA arm for $1 million is a good play, if Blevins and Devine succeed then their success would support me changing my mindset towards calling it a good play.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Here's the thing PT, you DON'T get to run this experiment 3 times with Joey Devine. You get one chance and if he busts you lose.
So I take it you retract your exhortation that they spend more money on signing bonuses/Latin American guys?
The A's colors are green and gold.
whoops, meant to blockquote
My point is the tone PT and devo have adpoted towards Devine and Blevins would be much more appropriate for players who have actually accomplished something in the big leagues.
The A's colors are green and gold.
No one is saying Devine is a sure thing ...
just that he's a very wise investment.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
In that case,
all they're saying is that it's a sure thing that it's a wise investment, not that Devine is a sure thing, which no one would say. For instance, Kershaw is not a sure thing, but he is "absolutely" worth a million dollars to pick up, and teams would be wise to do so every few minutes on a Sunday.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I'm sorry but no
I'm drawing a line here.
Phrases like they used are exuberent for use as "wise investment" lingo.
Lines like that are used when you're trying to convince the local mob boss to back your play, knowing that if you're wrong you'll end up sleeping with the fishes.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I have no idea what you're saying here ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I'm saying you're way too enthused on Devine
Especially if you'd drop $1 million on him 4 different times a day.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'll just defer to my latest post, above ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
It's actually not that exact
That is correct as an average, but the expenditures and returns for the three scenarios are very different.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Huh?
Let's say Angel Villalona was still a free agent. And he made it known that he would sign with my team, the PaulThomas SabrCats, for $500,000. Should I do it? What would my response be?
"Absolutely. And it's not close."
Because it isn't. That would be a ludicrously favorable deal, even given the pretty substantial odds that Villalona never reaches the majors at all.
You'll have to excuse the poker metaphors, but when there's $100 in the pot and you have a 50-50 chance of winning, you call your opponent's $10 bet. Whether or not you happen to win that individual hand is utterly irrelevant to whether it was the right decision or not.
I don't think that Devine is a sure thing. I do think that the decision to bet $1 million or so on Joey Devine turning out as a prospect is about as close to a sure thing as there is.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well put ... I haven't been playing enough poker lately ...
can't believe the analogy didn't occur to me ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
As far as metaphors goes... yours is a lousy example.
Villalona was a $2.1 million signing, getting him for $500K is a steal of a deal.
Beane "bought" Devine for $1 million. Given Devine's track record and health issues I don't think anyone can say Beane got a similiar bargain.
PT, you need to remember that I can only respond to the words you actually type... I don't know about the stuff you keep in your head. This comment shows some moderation regarding Devine's chances, the one that started all this does not. If you had led off the post above I'd have still chastised you on the Villalona angle but would have been fine on the stuff about Devine.
BTW... last I heard the Giants have decided to move Angel to 1B permenantly.
The monster at the end of this blog.
The issue that really started this ...
isn't about Devine/Blevins, specifically ... it's whether you should be judging the merits of the trades today or in __ years after Devine and Blevins are established (either as MLers or busts)
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
When it comes to "buying" prospects
I have a hard time justifying $1 million a pop for bullpen arms.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Huston Street will be cashing nearly as large of a check as Joe Blanton
twice a month, this season. If he had been healthy last year, it'd probably be the same size.
While you may have a problem with spending money (and draft picks) on the Huston Streets of the world coming out of college, when they've already been successful at AAA and you can acquire them without spending a draft pick, you've eliminated a substantial portion of the cost and the risk.
You also completely ignored the post you replied to.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
That not entirely correct
You have not eliminated a significant portion of the cost (Street cost $800K as a Sup 1 draft pick) when you're paying $1 million a pop. What, are you counting the savings from not paying them a minor league salary for a couple years?
I've acknowledged that the risk has been reduced... but so has the ceiling. We're talking a couple bullpen arms, set-up men (again, using your own phrase) at that.
Are the A's really getting a bargain out of this deal? For the same $2 million you could theoretically sign the top 20 minor league relief arms to $100K bonuses and you'd probably have better odds of finding 2 effective pitchers in that group.
As for your specific post, I'm not sure the trades were as cut and dry as you make them sound.
We know that Kotsay + X = Jaime Richmond because the Braves were going to have to send someone to the A's to make the deal kosher.
X = the $$$ the Braves would need to take Kotsay.
We also know that Kotsay + X + Y = Richmond + Devine because Devine had to be the 2nd piece in this equation.
Y = the extra $$$ needed to get Devine as part of the deal.
We're assuming in this thread that Y = $1 million, I could be wrong about that. In a way, these are two seperate but linked deals because it is extremely rare for one team to flat out "buy" a mid-range prospect from another team. Now if my intuition is correct and Y is greater than zero then Devine did not need to be part of the deal to make Kotsay an Atlanta Brave.
If that is true, that Devine was not part of the Kotsay deal until Oakland offered to include more cash, then it's right to question if the extra cash outlay was a wise choice WITHOUT waiting for Devine to prove himself. Was the risk worth the potential reward?
Sometimes it is even if the prospect flames out. Take PT's Villalona example. He's talking about a $500K investment on a $2 million talent. That's not quite as good as playing with the House's money but it's close. Devine is more like a $1 million investment on a $1 million talent. Even if you win you don't do anymore then break even.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Street would have cost more or less $1m in today's dollars.
If it's only $945k, though, my bad ...
Plenty of experts still think Devine has the upside of a closer.
I'm a little too tired to read any more of your reply than that, though ... you wrote too much ... sorry ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
since i'm the president of the fan club
or maybe not since PT and devo are arguing well on his behalf...i think the $1 million was a good bet. he's a guy that throws 95 and projects as a closer. the fact that we are spending almost nothing on salaries this year, without even going into all the specifics, makes it a good deal to me. the fact that we control so many players' salaries that are worth more than what they are making gives billy the freedom to maybe take that "gamble". i put that in quotes because everything is a gamble, but i (and i guess PT and devo) think it's a good one to take as well.
i see where you're going with it grover, but i guess we have different opinions on the guy. no problem.
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
Even if we bump Devine to potential closer quality
Is it really the best move to spend $1 million on an advanced bullpen prospect vs. spending that same money on a high ceiling SP or position prospect.
Devine and Blevins represent less risk/less ceiling. Is that extra security worth it?
The monster at the end of this blog.
First, it's not an either/or ...
second, if someone is selling a quality SP or position prospect, sure, we should probably go that we first ... though we should probably do both.
I don't think it's a coincidence, though, that we've acquired all of these relievers in salary dumps, though.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Of course it's not a coincidence
Beane has been loading up on college relievers in the draft for about 2 years now. The price for FA relief pitching is always nuts and as bullpen arms are always volatile.
Still, Beane spent more on Blevins then every reliever he's drafted in the last two years and Blevins and Devine combined cost more then Street plus all those guys.
The monster at the end of this blog.
cost in dollars ...
but those other guys come with a severe opportunity cost as well. In the draft, BB could potentially be drafting the SP/CF/SS of the future ... it's unlikely he could get that for Mark Kotsay or Jason Kendall.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I never said that
Beane had to get a CF or SP or whomever from the Braves or Cubs. Just that those moneys could be spent elsewhere.
When the Kots rumors first started floating some of us asked how much cash would Beane have to kick in to have a shot at Lillibridge. I think we can safely deduce it was more then what was tossed in for Devine.
'Cause if the cost was the same and Beane still chose Devine... I'd have to break down and cry.
The monster at the end of this blog.
That's true ...
but it doesn't change the fact that buying Devine does not come with opportunity cost of drafting a similar player to Devine.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
You save a draft pick
Well, not really because the only way you can lose a draft pick is to sign a highly rated FA and you aren't going to get one of those for $1 million but I digress...
You're still spending a lot of money on a AAA arm when there are cheaper alternatives available. You are still spending $1 million on a pitcher who does not project to ever throw more then 80 IP a year and while you have a better read on Devine then you would a draft pick his control is a question and his back could sabotage it all.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You save a pick relative to drafting a similar player ...
you can "buy" Devine and then draft someone else too.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Technically, sure
But like I said, the A's had already drafted a bunch of college trained bullpen arms as recently as the 2007 draft. Yes, Devine is more advanced then the newbies but we've seen how quickly a good bullpen arm can advance up the food chain.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Less ceiling than what?
The Braves were willing to give up Joey Devine because he had struggled in Atlanta and because Bobby Cox disliked him. There is a very specific reason why Joey Devine, in particular, came to Oakland in that trade. It's because his value to the Braves, for whatever reason (bad memories, bad blood, whatever) was significantly less than his value to Oakland.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That's dense
Less ceiling then what?
PT, I'm sure you're aware that a good bullpen arm has less value/ceiling/worth/whatever then a good SP or position player.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Absolutely, but he has a higher ceiling
than a bad one.
Joey Devine has a higher ceiling than Graham Godfrey, Godfrey's SP status notwithstanding. By predicted runs above average, it's not even close. By predicted runs above replacement, it's closer... but Devine's AAA status still gives him a decided edge.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I never said, nor did I imply
that Devine was a non-prospect.
It's interesting that you mention Godfrey, as he was a draft-eligible sophmore taken in the 34th round and signed for $200K.
I think everyone agrees that Devine's pro experience is a plus, that the odds of him making the Show (permanently) are higher because of the trials he's already passed.
Devine is a B-grade prospect, Godfrey earned a C. But let's not forget that Godfrey has only 1 year of professional experience so it's very possible that he could take a big step forward in 2008. To get Godfrey the A's traded a back-up infielder they had no intention of paying in 2008. Devine cost (we think) $1 million in cash.
Godfrey currently has the lower ceiling and is further away but he also cost significantly less then Devine. He's at a point in his pro career where a break-through is possible.
Devine is a potential high risk/high reward type that required a major investment. Godfrey is a low risk/medium reward type that required a minimal investment.
I'm not sure if Devine was worth the investment.
The monster at the end of this blog.
It's not clear how
a potential million dollars saved from Kotsay was going to somehow how turn into a high ceiling SP or position prospect. Obviously we weren't getting that from the Braves. Would you really rather that they still have an extra million to spend on something or other (or nothing) instead of a pretty good relief prospect.
The A's colors are green and gold.
That one million dollars
could have gone towards signing amateurs out of Asia or from L.A. or gone towards draft picks and their over-slot demands.
I admit, there's an aspect of penny-pinching on my part of the arguement but given the team we're talking about... that's sorta habit by now.
There is a larger issue at play here. Is it a fiscally sound plan to spend $1 million a pop on a AAA bullpen arm? You could stock up on a dozen 6-year minor league FA's with that kind of money, might that not be the more prudent play when talking about bullpen arms?
I don't know.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I doubt it ...
how many minor league FAs become plus relievers? I don't know ... but I'd guess it's substantially less than one in six.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Is the security/assurance provided by Devine
Worth 10 times the $$$?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Maybe not, but the talent is ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I don't think talent is the right measure
More like potential to grow/refine existing ability.
Command issues can be overcome but the added worry of his back problems makes me uncomfortable.
If we're stilling using poker metaphors it's like betting on an inside straight.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Devine is hardly an inside straight ...
betting on an inside straight draw has either a 4% or 2% chance of working out (turn, river, respectively).
BP, on the other hand, says that Devine will most likely be worth $3.75 million (if given a chance in the bigs) in 2008.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
just a titch ...
2-4% v probably about 75% ... (with an extra chance or three to hit after 2008)
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Ironically
I've only gone for the inside straight once, made it on the river and knocked out the other guy. If the guy had raised me before or after the flop I would have folded but he didn't so I didn't.
The monster at the end of this blog.
passive play is a great way to win small and lose big ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Other guy had a garbage hand too
And it was early in the game, I think he was pacing himself, feeling the rest of us out. He only went all-in because he couldn't see the straight and he thought I was bluffing when I raised him.
Oops.
Bringing us back to baseball, Devine is a hefty stack bet on a marginal hand. Too rich for my blood, I'd prefer better odds.
The monster at the end of this blog.
If he didn't like his hand enough to bet on the flop or the turn ...
and it didn't improve, it's generally a pretty bad idea to start liking it on the river.
There are three things that can happen there:
1. You were bluffing
2. You made your hand
3. You've been slow playing a huge hand
If it's early in the game and you don't know your opponent well (which I assume is the case) you don't have a lot of reason to have that much confidence in your read.
Furthermore, since there wasn't much betting going on, as neither of you liked your hands until the river, the pot probably just wasn't there for it to make any sense that you would be bluffing.
It was a bad decision, plain and simple.
A million bucks is a pretty minimal bet in MLB and, given the fact that it only needs to hit about one in 10 or 20 to work out (in terms of value to dollars invested to this point).
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I wasn't clear
He flopped high pair but it wasn't the face card, I think it was the 6. Like I said, he didn't have a strong hand but since he had to bet before me he wasn't in position to push me. He bet, I called, everyone else was out and when the river came he was toast. I ended up raising him, he raised me, I went all-in and he thought I was trying to bluff my way out.
And sure, $1 million isn't a big deal if you're viewing it in context of a $4 billion industry but for the A's it's significant scratch. Ask yourself, when was the last time the A's dropped $1 million on a non-1st round pick/prospect?
The monster at the end of this blog.
That's still a terrible play ...
if you were that reckless of a player, he should have known that he'd have better opportunities to take your money later.
If you weren't that reckless of a player, he'd definitely lose.
Like I said, passive play is a good way to win small pots and lose big ones.
I imagine the A's never have. That doesn't mean they shouldn't.
Think of it this way, would you sign Devine to a 3-year, $700k per year contract with a team option on all three years?
You absolutely should.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Question for ya
Did Nico get his pony when you made up that fairy tale of a contract?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Still waiting...
WHERE'S MY PONY???????
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
3 years at $400k
+ the $1m prorated ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Any minor league arm
promoted to the Show would be making $400K for 3 years, that includes everyone who was already in the A's system.
So you're asking if it's a good idea for the A's to drop (essentially) $333K a year for the next 3 years on the chance that maybe Devine could be that guy.
They've already got Street to close, he's backed by Embree, Brown, Casilla and potentially Duke if they ever get over their flirtation with him in the rotation. Mix in Calero, Hernandez, Foulke and whoever loses out in the 5th SP race and I'm wondering were the real need is in the bullpen.
Then Blevins whom I believe is out of options just like Casilla and Brown and then Devine who'll probably get sent down to Sac just because of roster issues.
The monster at the end of this blog.
My bad
Blevins is not out of options, mrain just froze up on me.
Sorry.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm not gonna nail you for not having the proper inflationary numbers
I just question where you see the significant cost savings.
We're completely in agreement on the reduced risk factor.
The monster at the end of this blog.
The location of the cost savings is exactly the same ...
as with any pre-FA player under cost control ... I don't see where the confusion is coming from ...
Thank you for the leeway and I'm glad we can agree on something.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Wait a second
So your savings are assuming that Devine and Blevins make it in the Show.
If they crash and burn the A's are out $2 million and they don't get your precious savings.
The monster at the end of this blog.
When did I once mention the term savings
up until that last post?
That's how prospects work ...
risk/reward
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Link will be provided
"you've eliminated a substantial portion of the cost and the risk."
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/3/12/257573/the-40-man-roster-problem#1272223
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think I was referring to opportunity cost -- the saved draft pick ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Sure ... my bad ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I'm sorry, but you simply misread my post
There's no other way to put it.
It's very, very clear from rereading it that my exuberance was over the act of purchasing Devine, not over Devine the player, about whom I had not said a single word to that point in the thread.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I gave your relief prospect a name, that's all
I did not misread your post.
How could I, when I so completely thrashed your Villalona example?
:-)
The monster at the end of this blog.
That's unfair, and you know it
I was speaking about Devine as an archetype of a certain kind of prospect (let's say, relievers with good stuff and good minor league track record who've struggled in small MLB sample sizes) in much the same way that, say, the A's front office (ultimately ineffectually) used Jason Giambi as an archetype of a certain kind of draftee (corner players with good size and strike zone discipline but with below average power in college).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
What's so unfair?
That I specified a specific individual?
Putting a name, face and history to the archtype should make the discussion easier. Having more information should never be a detriment.
Devine has good stuff, a pretty good minor league track record albeit one that does contain a warning flag (control) and a brief major league track record of not-so-goodness. He has one option left and he's had a recurring back injury.
That's who Joey Devine is. If you find that unfair then you are obviously on the losing side of this discussion.
I am not convinced that paying the extra cash to get Devine and Blevins included in their respective deals was worth the investment.
The monster at the end of this blog.
i guess all we can do
is hope you are proven wrong then ;)
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
