Lindy!!!

Cust and the dreaded "day to day"

I just saw that in Rotoworld.

I've come to dread that phrase.

by OaklandSi on Mar 8, 2008 3:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

who is chris gissell?

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Mar 8, 2008 4:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

He's a non-roster invitee

who pitched briefly - and horribly - for Colorado a few years ago, seems not to be wanted by anybody, and has been consistently unhittable this spring. Gotta love March!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gissech01.shtml

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 Mar 8, 2008 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow,

he hasn't played since 2005. Odd...

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Mar 8, 2008 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

he's been playing in Japan

by OaklandSi on Mar 8, 2008 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

this spring so interesting. You've got a lot of guys performing really well. Course I don't expect some of the talent Beane got in the deals to be suddenly jettisoned because some other players hit well. It's that small sample size thing again ;-)

by Blez on Mar 8, 2008 4:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Jettisoned, no

but optioned to AAA, maybe.

The key is whether the team loses control over the player or not. Casilla can't be sent down anymore, so he's staying until he proves that he can't get it done. But Ryan Sweeney could definitely get optioned down if Linden keeps dominating.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 8, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought Sweeney was out of options?

Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

by Blez on Mar 8, 2008 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

how bout brooks conrad

guy led the minor leagues in extra base hits a couple years ago.

"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane

by harendaman365 on Mar 8, 2008 4:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I've been noticing him too

Seems to be a now-or-never year for him, considering he's nearly 30. Is he our next Cust?

by muffinpryde on Mar 9, 2008 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, contending team or not

the A's certainly look to be more entertaining than last year. The HBP's are getting a little infuriating. I don't know why the A's take the approach that they do in regards to their players being hit. A little retaliation is in order....otherwise opposing pitchers will continue to pitch inside with impunity.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Mar 8, 2008 5:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Partly they're more entertaining because

they're younger and have more potential upside, but it's also partly because the A's appear - finally - to be doing smart things like taking good aggressive baserunning and execution seriously. Gawd I hope they keep it up in April for a change.

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 Mar 8, 2008 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As much as I hate running into outs

I have long felt the A's could be a better baserunning team. I don't mean stealing a lot or wasting everybody's time with the hit and run (don't get me started, but I despise the hit and run). I just mean reading balls to the gaps better, getting better jumps, having an extra step on the lead. When Big Frank was with Oakland, I was fine with him going station to station. But all too often it seems like most of the team runs the bases like Thomas. Maybe not as slow, as just as cautious.

by thejd44 on Mar 8, 2008 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Very well put and I couldn't agree more

To score a lot of runs, unless you just have tons of great hitters, you need to score a variety of ways and that includes runs created by taking the extra base - whether on a short wild pitch (as happened today) or first to third. You don't have to run into a lot of outs in order to run into some extra bases.

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 Mar 8, 2008 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I get the whole

"not running into outs" thing based on probabilities. But on the other hand, you only need to score one more run that your opposition to win the game. There are clearly times when trading outs for runs is called for. Unfortunately, the A's seem to have taken the attitude that they are philosophically opposed to trading outs for runs under any circumstances. Here's to hoping that they employ the running game a little more frequently this season!

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Mar 8, 2008 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is simply not correct

Bottom of the ninth, in a tie game, with a guy on first the A's will run the sacrifice bunt as often as any other team. If they have a pinch-runner or a good basestealer they will often run a steal there.

They just won't do it in situations (like bottom 9, down a run, with a non-awful hitter at the plate) where it's NOT the correct play.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 8, 2008 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with the scenario

you spelled out. However, sometimes I think the same situation in the seventh inning is a time the A's should consider trading an out for a run, depending on circumstances. For instance, a low scoring tight game where runs are at a premium. I'd like to see the hit and run....even if the manager is doing something as silly as "playing a hunch". The thing that annoys me about the A's style is that the other teams seem to "have the book" on the A's style of play. They seem to know what we will do and when we will do it. Even if on occasion it turns out to be the wrong judgment call, at least we force the other team to shift their defensive alignment on occasion. That can make all the difference between a ground out to the first baseman and a base hit.

By the way, props on disagreeing with what I said without making it appear like you think I'm an idiot. Your social graces are beginning to match your considerable wit! ;)

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Mar 8, 2008 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A couple things

1) Define "trading an out for a run." See, a sac fly is really the only thing that does that. Or maybe a soft ground out with a runner on third. But everything else: the hit and run, the stolen base, the sac bunt. Those things don't trade the out for the run. They trade the out for a base, usually second. The runner is still halfway from scoring that run. You make it seem like the sac bunt means the guy is scoring.

2) In a lower scoring environment (generally NOT the AL in the 21st century), giving up some outs actually isn't as bad. The problem is that you don't know a game is going to be low scoring until it's over. Even if it's 0-0 in the 6th, it could easily end 8-6 and if you only got 6 because you gave up some outs in the 7th inning to push across that first run, you look silly.

by thejd44 on Mar 8, 2008 10:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course this is true...

but my argument has mainly to do with the predictability of the A's. Even Giambi will lay down a bunt on occasion....mainly to keep the opposition honest. What's truly astounding is that it sometimes works.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Mar 8, 2008 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to second the hit-and-run hatred expressed above

It's a terrible play with a bad baserunner, and with a good baserunner it's pretty much strictly inferior to the run-and-hit.

I do think the A's could stand to bone up on their game theory a bit, but my objections there have a lot more to do with drag bunts and pitchouts than they do with straight sacrifices.

While we're on the topic-- a major, major pet peeve of mine is when guys sac bunt into drawn-in defenses and when guys who are fully capable of bunting for a base hit focus on "just getting it down" (and again, those objections aren't as major in true one-run situations like bottom 9, tie game).

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 8, 2008 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A couple thoughts in reply -

One major advantage of the hit-and-run, if you have a guy with great bat control, is that you have an entire side of the infield to nudge the ball through. With someone like Denorfia (or in past years Kendall) at the plate, this can be a great weapon. It's more about the hitter than the runner, because the hitter has to be able to handle most pitches and when the hit-and-run is successful the runner will get first to third with almost any foot speed.

Regarding "giving up outs" there's a huge difference between giving up outs (sac bunt) and risking outs (aggressive baserunning). I don't advocate the A's giving up more outs; I do advocate "pushing the envelope" more. This is a team that is usually way up there in LOB and not in runs scored, and the conservative approach is part of the reason why.

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 Mar 9, 2008 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

No one has "great bat control." Hitters have limited control over where they put the ball in play. That's just a fact of life. I don't think anyone has good enough bat control to make it a good play. And you're boned if anything goes wrong on the play (bad pitch, hitter misses, pitchout, etc.). Even something as simple as the pitcher putting the ball on the third-base side of home plate can screw it up. It looks great when it works, but it almost never works.

More aggressive baserunning is a great way to reduce the LOB, but it's also a great way to reduce the runs scored.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 9, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the runners not left are erased,

yes; if the runners not left are brought home, no. As for the idea that no one has "great bat contol" I guess we just disagree.

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 Mar 9, 2008 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since the runners not left are going to be erased

at a rate above the break-even rate for trying to take extra bases, the runs scored are going to go down.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 9, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To add to this

I'm not sure they'll sac bunt AS often. A lot of teams will have a decent htiter attempt the bunt, or they'll attempt the bunt with a bad baserunner. The A's will do it, but, like you said, only if it makes sense. Jack Cust won't be dropping down any bunts, and nor should he. Even in that situation.

by thejd44 on Mar 8, 2008 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Then again....

maybe he should. Just for the fact that the defense will be woefully unprepared for such an eventuality. You never know if it will succeed or not unless you try. At least you can keep the other team honest. But in that case, I imagine you would be trying for a base hit rather than a sac bunt. Still, there's advantage in not being totally predictable.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Mar 8, 2008 10:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

Players run at a given speed, yes? Jack Cust has a certain 40 time. His 40 time is not going to go up just because he tries to go first to third a few more times.

It only makes sense to criticize the A's for unaggressive baserunning if they actually have players on the roster for whom aggressive baserunning makes any sense. Jack Cust is only going first to third on balls hit very softly to right or balls where the CF has to go way to his left to field the ball. Those are not a very high percentage of singles.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 8, 2008 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But

you can still be aggressive without being a speed-burner. I would disagree with you if you're implying that one needs to be fast in order to be aggressive.
There have been many good baserunners that are not particularly fast ... they just pick their spots, realizing that it will take an above-average play/throw to get 'em. The problem with the A's is, they rarely make the defense make a play. In my opinion, if you make the defense think they're going to have to stay sharp -- that you may take the extra base whenever you have a decent chance to make it -- they won't make the play more often than not. Although the Angels have their share of fast players, they also put pressure on the defense with guys who aren't all that fast -- and it pays off more often than not.

VacaAsFan

by Vacafan on Mar 8, 2008 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's no game theory element to in-play baserunning

(Actually, I overstate the case. There is a very, very slight game theory element on certain plays with a cutoff man and multiple baserunners. But those are rare anyway, and I'm digressing.)

On any given ball/baserunner/out situation, it's either correct to go for it or not correct. Period. No ifs, ands or buts about it. We may not know what the correct play is, because our information is imperfect, but there is definitely a correct play. Now, I don't doubt that certain batters have good RECOGNITION of when it's correct to go for it (and the same for certain third-base coaches) and others don't. What I do doubt is that the A's somehow have a collection of guys with uniquely bad recognition and the Angels have a collection of guys with uniquely GOOD recognition. That would be both improbable and unmeasurable.

The Angels should be taking more extra bases, because they have faster baserunners. This is the correct outcome assuming the players and coaches understand game strategy. It's not something that needs to be explained by philosophizing about "aggression."

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 9, 2008 12:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No no no!

It's not all about footspeed. It's about coaching time spent on baserunning acumen, and prioritization given to teaching and working on these skills - some of which are recognition skills for wild pitches and balls squirting away while in play, technique for rounding bases efficiently and taking secondary leads, etc. Jack Cust will want to try to take extra bases less often than Travis Buck will, but that doesn't mean situations won't come up now and again for Cust as well. It's a team approach that starts with a buy-in philosophy, continues with emphasis in practice time, and ends with a commitment in games.

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 Mar 9, 2008 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

What makes you think the A's aren't doing this? Have you been videotaping their workouts? Had some off-the-record conversations with Tony D?

Do you have actual evidence, from game charting, that the A's routinely miss chances to take extra bases? This is selective memory at its finest here. You can keep SAYING "The A's miss chances to take extra bases" all you want. I flatly do not believe it without seeing any proof of it, because this is exactly the kind of data summation that the human brain sucks worst at.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 9, 2008 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a team approach that starts with a buy-in philosophy, continues with emphasis in practice time, and ends with a commitment in games.

I see you've met my ex-wives.

Cactus

by Ice Cream on Mar 9, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your ex-wives must be toppings -

so let's see...They're nuts, right?

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 Mar 9, 2008 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correction: After further review...

and a sworn and notorized affidavit, the term "ex-wives" is hereby stricken from the above statement with apologies and a promise to the court that there will be no more fabrications regarding previous spouses in poorly designed attempts at humor.

For the record then: Mrs. Ice Cream remains my one and only.

Signed,
Ice Cream

(Of course, Nico, these restrictions do not appy to you or any ungulates, implied or otherwise, you may have known or now know.)

Cactus

by Ice Cream on Mar 9, 2008 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

When Lindy comes to town and all the bands are playing
Lindy comes to town and all the flags are waving

I would be pleasantly astounded if anyone else recognizes that song couplet...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 8, 2008 5:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Nothing a google search of the first line

can't make me look like I know.

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

by Nico on Mar 8, 2008 5:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, this one isn't easy

Unless you're a big fan of British historical folk rock troubadours, you're not likely to come up with this one.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 8, 2008 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"Lindy Comes To Town" by Al Stewart

is what google guesses when you search for "When Lindy comes to town and all the bands are playing.".

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 Mar 8, 2008 10:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And we have a winner!

Unfortunately, like the bowl-game-halftime-show fan who chooses to kick the ball from the 10 instead of the 30, you only get a small bear. Or in his case, $10000.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 8, 2008 11:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sadly, the winner is google, not me

Send the bear to:

google.com
P.O. Box 600g13
Google, GO 94621.com

(The P.O. Box was pretty clever, no?)

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

by Nico on Mar 9, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Herbert Hoover's

(he of Stanford's Hoover center it is worth noting) official campaign song was "If He's Good Enough for Lindy, He's Good Enough for Me"

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Mar 8, 2008 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting stuff on Harden and Duke

in this writeup - it will also make fans feel better about Harden's outing today:

http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080308&content_id=2413277&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=oak

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 Mar 8, 2008 5:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

for some reason

i actually feel like the A's might possibly be over .500 this season and contend at some point in the season, not including the first month.

This Is A's Brand Country

by DyeLongJustice on Mar 8, 2008 6:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree - as long as all players are healthy

I think this is a plus-.500 team that can hang in there in the race. Only when guys go down will I give up on the division.

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 Mar 8, 2008 6:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

that seems to still be the problem

although we traded away a ton of players, it seems we can't get through one spring training game without an injury leading to at least a Day-to-Day status for someone, and its not just the usual suspects (Crosby, Harden)...although I would have thought Chavvy could have made it a little further than he did

We've never been in that position. We wouldn't know how to operate, I mean, do we get him a corsage?-Billy Beane on signing a high profile FA

by DyeLongJustice on Mar 8, 2008 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Comments on the game

I'm just sitting in my hotel in Scottsdale resting up before heading out to dinner. My first trip to spring training is going great. Couple of comments from watching the game behind home plate sitting just behind the scouts:
The cubs sent their jobber squad, the only real starters out there were theriot and marshall.
Harden got hit around pretty good but his velocity was fine, consistently in the low to mid 90s with his fastball. it looked like he wasn't throwing much breaking stuff which is why i think he got hit so hard (probably working on a few things).
Cust took a soft curve ball directly on top of his head. I've never seen anything like it. He ducked out of the way and the ball managed to drop down smack dab on the top of his helmet. I can't imagine he hurt anything permanantly but it probably didn't feel so good.
Crosby looked great at the plate, make good contact, hit the ball hard, and was actually laying off the outside pitch.
Dan Johnson looked lost at the plate and in the field.
Buck may a huge grab on a ball that looked destined to fall in the back corner of RF moving away from Buck. Crowd went nuts, it was awesome.
Had a great day, gonna catch the Brewers game tomorrow. I guess all the young guns were in the other split squad game, hoping to see some of the new blood tomorrow.
If I can figure out how, I'll throw up some pictures tomorrow.

by Livermore on Mar 8, 2008 6:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the update, Livermore!

I think it was Ryan Sweeney who made that huge grab (though it may have been baseballgirl making a huge grab at Buck). If you ate at Applebee's tonight, for sure you will be throwing up some pictures, and then some, tomorrow. Happy spring traininging!

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 Mar 8, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

it was Sweeney

Vince was swooning as he made the call

by OaklandSi on Mar 8, 2008 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ESPN radio is interviewing

Scioscia right now...(ewww)

by OaklandSi on Mar 8, 2008 8:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

No mention of the triple Lindy?

Rodney still gets no respect.

by WaddellCanseco on Mar 9, 2008 7:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Interesting musing about Harden

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/025172.php

Plus, AP mistaking wrote that Cubs beat the A'S.

It's never easy with the Oakland A'S.

by pachydermOAFC on Mar 9, 2008 9:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

about baserunning, etc.

I think it's a good thing if the team is not so predictable as they have been in the past. All of the so-called 'smallball" skills are part of baseball that it's wise to have in the team's repertoire, even it they aren't used that often. The manager needs to know that in certain situations he can call such plays, and he needs to know which players are best at which plays.

By the way, I really enjoyed Marty Lurie's interview with Ray Fosse, where they talked specifically about catching. (For NRAFs and anyone who missed it, Marty usually puts his shows on his website.)

by OaklandSi on Mar 9, 2008 12:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly - even if you DON'T use the

"small ball / aggressive baserunning risks" 90-95%% of the time, it's still improtant to use it 5%-10% of the time, partly because occasionally game conditions require it in order to be successful and partly because in general you will succeed more when you are less predictable.

That's why in sports like basketball (or soccer or lacrosse), teams will occasionally flash different defenses - they may not be the team's best defenses in general but it's easier to break down a defense if you see it for 40 minutes straight than if you can't always predict what you're about to face.

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 Mar 9, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hm. I'm confused. The A's stat sheet shows that they had a nonzero number

of sacrifice hits and stolen bases. They ran a squeeze play last season. I can recall at least one hit-and-run offhandedly, and I'm sure there were others.

It would seem to me that this would meet the definition of

it's still improtant to use it 5%-10% of the time, partly because occasionally game conditions require it in order to be successful and partly because in general you will succeed more when you are less predictable.

If your argument is just "well, they don't do it often enough", my response to that-- again-- is "how do you know what "enough" is?"

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 9, 2008 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm glad you brought this up

I agree with Nico in the sense that, based on Game Theory, you do need to do some things that might not be the by-the-book "smart" move every now and again just to keep the other team honest. As much as I hate the hit and run, doing it a few times a year is fine (As long as it's done with the best possible options on base and at the plate). But you accurately point out that they already do this. I tend to think doing it any more would go past the point of game theory into the realm of "doing inefficient things that will end up hurting the team."

by thejd44 on Mar 10, 2008 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Apropos of this topic:

I'm assuming some of the other AN people have read "The Book." Was anyone else really amused by the fact that a sacrifice bunt attempt was much better than a sacrifice hit? If the opposing manager offers to literally trade an out to move a runner to second, in preference to attempting a bunt to move the guy over, you take the trade every day of the week.

This is also why I've come to think that all bunters in non-bottom-of-the-ninth situations should be at least attempting to place the bunt in such a way that they can get a hit out of it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Mar 10, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Todd Linden

there is an article on the A's website where he is complaining about lack of playing time. he doesn't think he will make the team and is upset about it because of his "experience". He sounded kind of whiney for a part time player.

A's all the way in 08 . . . oh never mind!

by micdog2001 on Mar 9, 2008 2:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Part time players usually have the most to whine about.

by WaddellCanseco on Mar 9, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a little unprofessional of him.

He should stay quiet and focus on making himself irreplaceable. If he continues to hit well, and plays solid defence in the outfield he's going to make the team. From what I've seen there are outfield spots up for grabs.

Complaining to the press about a 'vibe' he's getting that he has no shot at making the roster isn't the best way to go about things.

by OldhamA on Mar 9, 2008 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Linden

If he plays good defense (?) he has my vote over Brown at this point. Linden could be a breakout guy if given the chance in my opinion.

by ChadGod on Mar 9, 2008 4:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The problem with that

is that Brown has a major league contract. Linden does not. Linden costs nothing to option/designate for assigment. Based on that alone, Brown has the advantage.

As for that article, I was bothered by it. Linden is acting like he was promised something, but he was only given a minor league deal with a spring training invite. That's the exact opposite of a promise. And the thing is, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to make the team. I don't think the PAs going to Ryan Sweeney or Gonzalez are a sign he won't. I think Mike Sweeney having a good spring are what's going to hurt him. If Sweeney's on the roster, Cust moves to the OF, and a guy like Linden might get squeezed.

Can Brown, Buck, Denorfia, R. Sweeney, Cust, and Linden all make the team? Where does this leave Fiorentino? And has Gonzalez played his way onto the roster?

I guess this is a good problem to have, except the guy I think who has the least to offer (Brown) is one of the two most likely to make the team.

by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2008 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Outfield

Another point of view on the Linden Article....maybe this guy is just a dirtbag grinder type that has always been the hallmark of the A's. Really he has nothing to lose by speaking up...if he's earmarked for AAA. Maybe he's just a competative guy who takes pride in what he believes he can contribute and won't take a limited opportunity in ST without putting up a fight.

I saw him play a little with SF and in the PCL. He always played hard and has a monster athletic body...he looks like he should be in the NFL. If I'm not mistaken he's an above average runner and could hold his own in CF...its always a bonus to get run production from CF.

I read somewhere he had a monster power year in 2005.

When it comes to making the team another factor is he is a switch hitter.

I really like R. Sweeney as an athlete, but he might not be ready for the Big Leagues quite yet...but I see him in the A's future ahead of Fiorentino and Denorfia (plus these names are too difficult to deal with ;) ). I think 2009 will be the year for R Sweeney, CoGo and Buck...that's a pretty sweet set of athletes!

Everyone talks abaout rebuilding, like this year is a write off...BS...you put your best team out there and play to win...if by mid July its not going to happen, THEN you bring in the young guys to learn over the last two months.

CoGo should start in Sac along with R. Sweeney and see how the big club does and how they do in SAC

Buck, Cust, Brown, Linden, and ? (the best Defensive guy - keep him on the bench in case Linden/Brown struggle in CF) go to Japan.

NOTE: I would also like to see them make room for Conrad....like Linden, he's mashed in the minors (extra base POP) and a guy with juice doesn't suddenly become a singles hitter because he moves to a higher level. Conrad also seems like a good ol' Grinder type typical of the A's.

Anyone clear on the deal with moving guys on and off the 40 man roster; which guys have options, etc?

by BleacherGuy on Mar 9, 2008 9:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Fiorentino and Denorfia are spelled exactly how they're prounced. There's really nothing tricky in there at all.

Why should Brooks Conrad be on the team? His minor league numbers really, really aren't that good. He was 24 before he could get to AA and had a couple seasons way old for his league in AAA where he hit homers but couldn't sustain a decent OBP.

As far as I know is a 2B who isn't anything special defensively. I hope the guy does well and all, but honestly, he'd have to hit about .800 in the spring for me to take him over younger, more established, better players. He'd also have to show he can play great defense somewhere other than second base.

by thejd44 on Mar 9, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

how do you pronouce them ;-)

A's all the way in 08 . . . oh never mind!

by micdog2001 on Mar 10, 2008 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My take

0% chance of Gonzalez making the roster, there is just no reason to rush him. His spring his been good, but he isn't THAT polished yet so he would have to be playing way over the heads of the other guys to have a shot, and he is not from what I've seen.

Denorfia is sucking...but can anyone else play CF decently? If we have Cust in RF we can't slack in center.

I don't see Sweeney making the team over Linden as Sweeney appears to be the undeveloped version of Linden for the most part.

Brown is probably a shoe-in to make the team because of the contract, but not only that, he is also a great defender and clearly with Cust in RF that will come in handy off the bench if nothing else.

Buck, Cust, Brown...check!
Denorfia and Linden on the roster? hmmm probably not.

It is the question of 4 spots between the 6: Denorfia, Linden, M. Sweeney, DJ, Murphy, Hannahan...unless I'm mistaken.

I suppose if Chavez is out of the picture you can keep all but 1.

my vote: dump DJ

by ChadGod on Mar 9, 2008 9:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Outfield

Is anybody down there watching the games?

My buddy told me he's watched Denorfia and says he's nothing special on Defense (factor in how many beers were consummed prior to making those judgements), just a skinny fast dude who looks like a HS kid at the plate.

Has anybody REALLY seen him play CF, or is it all the hopeful hype because we don't have a Big League CF? I'm curious to hear from people down there watching.

What about Sweeney and Fiorentino in CF? Anyone seen them enough this spring to provide a legit report?

How about Brown? He's stolen a few bases in the past...can he handle CF?

First hand (sober ;) ) reports please.

by BleacherGuy on Mar 9, 2008 10:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Dunno about Denorfia's defense yet,

but I wouldn't worry about his lack of hitting - to be expected after a year off. Of all the players, he should be judged by the A's strictly on what the A's believe he can do at the plate, not by what he shows in spring training.

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 Mar 10, 2008 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

UZR sez

Denorfia is +35 runs per 150 games in right field. He hasn't really played enough in center in the majors to get any kind of accurate measure, but if he's +35 in right he can't be too bad in center. Although, really, he hasn't played enough in right to make the +35 reliable.