Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Pitching Staff/ 25 Man Roster-- Redux

Tiny by madmongoose on

With Foulke and Harden both scheduled to be activated before week's end, and Buck presumably not far behind, Beane and Co. face a pretty interesting set of decisions:

1. 11 or 12 pitchers? 12 is a good hedge against overwork, but the way the starters have been performing it seems like a luxury. And who would be the odd man out of the position players? Murphy's the only IF backup; Sweeney is hitting and provides an important PH/DH when Frank can't go/sub for Barton against certain lefties role; Bowen of course must stay; That means one of the OFers must probably go-- Obviously Cust and Brown seem safe. Does Buck deserve a slot? Or are we better off just going with Sweeney/Denorfia for a while longer-- at least until CarGon is ready, in which case you could jettison them both and bring Buck and Gonzalez up. Or should all 3 be given the chance to prove themselves before Gonzalez is ready, and thus we have to go with 14 position players?

2. And if it is 11 pitchers, then the 5 starters are:

Blanton-Harden and who?? One could make a case for or against any of the remaining four. I would think Duke might actually be the most vulnerable, given his smaller sample size track record and difficulty going deep in games, plus his ability to relieve. Smith might be the odd man out based on seniority, but if he does anything like yesterday next weekend how can you possibly send him down? I actually think Gaudin might be the least impressive of the six, but he did throw quite effectively for half the season last year.

The bullpen seems clearer. Casilla and Embree are joined by Foulke in the principal setup roles for Street. Devine and Brown are the middle-to-long men-- DiNardo or Saarloos would be a luxury-- if Duke gets put back in the pen, you jettison Brown or Devine or go with 7 relievers. That might be the reason to take Smith out of play, in that he can continue his role as a starter in AAA until the next pitching injury-- which would presumably be Harden.

I'll take a shot at this and predict that sometime next week, Ryan Sweeney is back at AAA, joined by Greg Smith.

2 recs | Comment 202 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Smith is pitching far to well to be sent down.

Braden will be sent down, and either Sweeney will be optioned to AAA or Davis will be DFA’d.

by mikev on May 5, 2008 9:02 AM PDT   0 recs

6-man rotation, or Duke/Eveland/Smith to the pen?

Or are you working on the assumption that Harden will throw

And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 5, 2008 9:34 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

%$$%#$^&*%

... Harden will throw less than 30 pitches in his first start back, do the whole “won’t miss his next start … pushed back 1-2 days … will skip his turn in the rotation but won’t ‘miss a start’ ... misses a start … back on the DL” routine?

And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 5, 2008 9:36 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Duke to the pen.

Braden optioned to AAA, making the rotation:

Blanton
Harden
Gaudin
Eveland
Smith

by mikev on May 5, 2008 10:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Thats what I was thinking as well

+1

When will then be now? Soon.

by Syphon on May 5, 2008 10:32 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

this idea sounds about right,

but how will Duke react? I mean, it’s no secret he wants to be a starter. He seems like a pretty easy going guy, so is it popular opinion that he would accept his role in the bullpen versus ‘pulling a Linden’ and complaining to the media?

"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink

by OrlandoAsFan on May 5, 2008 12:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If he could stay healthy and go more than 5 innings every time he starts

he’d probably have more of a case to remain a starter.

by mikev on May 5, 2008 12:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm wondering whether Eveland's tender elbow

might not be a concern. If he continues to have problems with it he could be a candidate for the DL.

I’d really prefer to see Buck start hitting consistently, playing every day at AAA, before he gets activated. (By the way, I noticed he started the game in AAA playing center field.)

by OaklandSi on May 5, 2008 9:12 AM PDT   0 recs

agree

I heard VInce say that. I hope he gets a couple of weeks there. If he does well, the send Sweeney back. Sweeney doen’t have a job when patrol craft is ready anyway.

by Future Ed on May 5, 2008 11:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

he sure looked fine tonight

"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006

by flipgatey3 on May 5, 2008 10:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Braden for Foulke, Sweeney for Buck, ? for Harden

There is not a chance that Brown or Devine goes anywhere. Foulke was a wild-ass play by Beane, but there’s no way he sends out one of the younger guys who are performing like studes for Foulke. I can see Braden going back to AAA, which does leave the pen righty heavy. Perhaps Smith or Eveland goes to the pen when Harden comes back? That’s a tough one because they really need those guys ready to start when Harden next goes down. I can’t imagine pulling Smith from the rotation at this point. So maybe Eveland to the DL if he feels anything funny on his next start. Buck in CF at Sacto tells me that Sweeney will get the boot when Buck is ready to come back. They could also try to slip Davis through waivers and go with 12 pitchers to see if Harden is really healthy.

by boilerdan on May 5, 2008 9:37 AM PDT   0 recs

Hard questions

My personal moves would be:

Sweeney to AAA
Davis to waivers
Braden to AAA

and go to a six-man rotation until Harden’s arm falls off again.

I don’t know that the team will do this, however.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 9:49 AM PDT   0 recs

What has Denorfia and Buck done...

...to deserve waiving Davis and sending Sweeney to the minors? Buck does not have the major league clout he thinks he has and did not do anything before going on thje DL. I am suspicious of AA players in Buck’s situation b/c he may need several weeks to determine 1) will his stroke return and 2) is he helathy enough given the nature of shin splints (think tendinitis of the lower extremities) to play consistently. He hasn’t shown that her could be an above average CF.
Davis is interesting b/c while he doesn’t walk much he hs hit for a decent average throughout his career and certainly is the fastest player on the team.

I agree about Braden. Wh are too deep with our staff to really need him at this point.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on May 5, 2008 10:06 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Denorfia is, despite the team's odd insistence on playing Sweeney over him in CF,

just better than Sweeney in all areas of the game right now.

There’s something to be said for cutting one of the DHs instead of Davis. I just can’t quite bring myself to cut bait on Mike Sweeney yet. But I suppose it’s the disciplined thing to do.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 10:43 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

what is up

with all the playing time for Sweeney?

I think Eveland and Harden should share a spot in the rotation, until its Evelands again.

by Future Ed on May 5, 2008 11:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I wonder if it's a Beane-Geren issue

We’ve all been presuming that Beane’s got a man-crush on RSweeney … but Geren, after all, is the guy writing out the lineups.

And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 5, 2008 11:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Prove it!

While I like Denorfia, there is no wayhe has proven himself superior to Sweeney. There may be a difference in degrees but there isn’t a qualititative difference b/w the two players. Denorfia has been injured for the past year. He should be the one in AAA playing every day so that his skills are sharpened.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on May 5, 2008 12:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Look at their stats over the past few seasons.

Denorfia is a better hitter for average, a better hitter for power, and a better on base guy. From watching them play center field, he’s a better outfielder. He’s a better baserunner, as well.

He’s also a lot older, so this situation may not last more than a few years. All the more reason to make use of CD’s most productive seasons rather than some of Sweeney’s LEAST productive ones.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 1:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Here are the numbers

Now at least support what you claim. Otherwise…choose your words carefully.

http://10804241258.baseball.sportsline.com/players/do-player-compare/392533:489807/ytd:p/standard/

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on May 5, 2008 1:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Error, this is a private fantasy league?

Not overly helpful…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 1:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i assume

it was this year’s stats, not career stats. in which case, denorfia would still win. hmm.

"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006

by flipgatey3 on May 5, 2008 10:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Why is Emil Brown safe?

I know he’s supposedly been “clutch” (which to me looks more like he’s a #5 hitter who gets up to bat a whole lot w/RISP), but his OBP is .296 and his SLG is .398, he’s 33 years old, and he’s one a one-year deal and isn’t going to be a part of this team after this season.

Sending Sweeney or Denorfia down could work, but I still don’t understand why Emil Brown is getting at bats. In my opinion, every at bat he gets not only typically hurts the A’s chances of winning now (Because he mostly sucks with a few bright spots), but he’s taking an at bat away from a younger, more talented, and more deserving player.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on May 5, 2008 9:53 AM PDT   0 recs

Someone should write a diary about that.

"Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher

by andeux on May 5, 2008 10:13 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Stop beating my drum.

I’ve been saying that since he was signed. He’s creating a roster crunch in the OF that is fairly unnecessary.

by mikev on May 5, 2008 10:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

really inconsiderate of him to be

one of the league leaders in RBI

by OaklandSi on May 5, 2008 10:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

runs batted in do help win games

although they might not look as pretty as a high OBP

by OaklandSi on May 5, 2008 11:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow, you were serious?

I thought that prior comment was sarcasm.

This comment is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. RBI’s are the “pretty” stat that means nothing. OBP wins ballgames, period.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 11:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

RBI's do help to win ballgames

I see it every time I watch a game, without fail. The issue is whether driving in runs is a skill or a matter of circumstance (maybe called “luck”) versus OBP, which is a skill.

by boilerdan on May 5, 2008 11:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

getting on base helps to win ballgames too

so do rbis.

Making outs helps to lose ballgames. Brown makes a ton of outs.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on May 5, 2008 12:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

but if no one made any outs, the game would never end

Emil Brown: helping us to ward off our confrontation with the Infinite.

And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 5, 2008 12:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd argue that both are actually just pretty stats

but I’m too lazy. By itself, all a RBI does is say how many times a run scored when the player had a plate appearance, which is utterly useless without a taking into account the number of opportunities weighted somehow with the level of difficulty in bringing that run in (i.e. runner on 3rd with no outs should be brought in, no runner and two outs, less likely to be brought in). By itself, OBP just tells us how often they got on, also somewhat useless without accounting for the circumstances they got on and how that relates to how often they wind up scoring (i.e. leadoff hr more important than the 2 out walk. both have value, but clearly the first circumstance as vastly more valuable than the latter, but that’s not reflected in just getting onbase). Clearly, this is useful on it’s own since getting on can lead to runs, but I don’t see the the standalone value nearly that special. In a way it’s in the same league as RBIs.

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

by DMOAS on May 5, 2008 6:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I guess...

I mean, I suppose you could say that all you need (hitting-wise) is EqA and plate appearances… but while that will tell you who’s benefiting their team, it doesn’t say much about how they’re doing it, which is also helpful info. OBP is a “semi-tool” stat in that part of its value is in informing you about what a guy’s capabilities are. It’s not a “pure tool” stat like isolated power, however.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 6:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i’m just of a sense that the majority of the stats that are being used aren’t quite as effective as they need to be and for the most part, many of them (esp. RBIs & BA) are severely lacking as a standard. OBP, SLG, & the like are certainly a generous step up from the what was used in the past, but i think (and i have absolutely nothing to back this up) that they’re still very weak in making evaluations. We’re just not smart enough or capable enough to record the necessary data that would be required to do a true evaluation, which is why we’re forced to use less effective means (all of which is probably stating the obvious or my ignorance, go ahead and take your pick). But that’s one of the reasons why something like clutch would be difficult to measure (which I believe in), but that’s nearly impossible to prove because we’re lacking an effective standard. People concentrate better under different circumstances. Some do better when there’s no pressure (unclutch) and some do better when they have the weight of the world on their shoulders (clutch). Some don’t matter (norm). Figuring out the exact extent of those situations and crossing it against the numbers of the opposition is problematic, you wind up with the fun on June 4 of odd years playing in domes above the 67th parallel we. In fairness, I’m clearly not even an expert on the current “most useful” stats, so really I’m left to intuition and finger crossing, but that’s worked well for me, .386 of the time.

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

by DMOAS on May 5, 2008 6:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

oh no.

you just guaranteed like 50 more posts in this thread

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 5, 2008 7:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's whats great about sports

No matter how hard the statheads try, there’s just no way to predict results 100% of the time. All of these stats help to differing degrees depending on infinite factors that can’t always be quantified and change from player to player, from minute to minute.

by Sacred#24 on May 6, 2008 9:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Oy

Statheads, with very few exceptions, do not run analyses on baseball as some sort of research project. They do it because they see baseball as a game. Reading an analysis of a player is like reading a book on chess—it makes you better at the game. The purpose is not Absoloot Trooth.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 6, 2008 10:15 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

What's funny is, the only people who would ever think that stats should "predict results 100% of the time" ...

are the people criticizing “statheads”. Of course they don’t. Sports would suck if there was ever a way to predict anything 100% of the time. Stats allow us to understand and enjoy the game better. Every baseball fan is a “stathead”. You don’t have to be EQAing it with me, PT or Sal to be into stats. Batting average is a stat too. So are RBIs. So are wins …

It’s just silly to criticize stats for not being something they are not claiming to be. Although I’ll tell you what, I don’t like Shakespeare because his plays don’t expand my understanding of particle physics. Nor do I enjoy the work of John Dalton, as it gives me little to no insight into the travails of Titus Andronicus.

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

by devo on May 6, 2008 10:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I did not mean that to be negative...

Just the opposite. You’re right, all sports fans have some stathead in them and sports would suck if there was ever a way to predict anything 100% of the time. But for some reason you must think that the word stathead has a negative connotation. Would it help if I rephrase the above statement to, “No matter how hard us statheads try…”
My point to Paul (and I know he understands this) has just been that stats are only part of the equation. While you can (and should) use statistical analysis to develop and prove your hypothesis, it does not change the fact that you’re still just hypothesizing.
Are you guys familiar with the cerebral hemispheres of the brain? Broadly speaking, the left side of the brain is responsible for more analytical, linear algorithmic processing, while the right side is responsible for more intuitive, holistic algorithmic processing. We each use these hemispheres to various degrees, but some of us are leaning more heavily to one side or the other.

by Sacred#24 on May 6, 2008 11:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

What's odd is, as a "stathead" ...

and someone who makes his living by doing analyzing hospital quality of care … according to the spinning ballerina test, I’m right brain dominant, while my brother, the musician, is left brain dominant … go figure …

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

by devo on May 6, 2008 11:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You have that backwards

A high OBP helps win games, though it may not look as pretty as a bunch of RBIs.

"Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher

by andeux on May 5, 2008 11:52 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Didn't you get the memo?

Paul is always right so take it back!

by Sacred#24 on May 5, 2008 11:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

OK

I’m getting a little sick of this line.

There’s a big difference between “thinking everything you say is true when you say it” (which I do… if I thought something was false, I wouldn’t lie and say it was true) and “thinking everything you’ve ever said has always been true” (which I most certainly don’t—I’ve made lots of errors in my time, and I’ll cheerfully acknowledge any correction).

One is ingenuous. The other is conceited. There’s kind of a big difference.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 12:24 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well I know my SH** don't stink, my breath on the other hand...

Dragon Naturally Speaking won’t even work for me anymore.

by theblackpearl on May 5, 2008 12:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not to mention the fact

that I was agreeing with you.

"Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher

by andeux on May 5, 2008 12:30 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

for the record, i appreciate you piping up when somebody makes a highly debatable comment, and im glad you do so with consistency so that I don’t have to.

by oakinboston on May 5, 2008 12:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Sorry,

But when you say things like “This comment is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. RBI’s are the "pretty" stat that means nothing. OBP wins ballgames, period.”

by Sacred#24 on May 5, 2008 1:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

...then?

What?

The fact that I hate RBIs as a stat proves that I think I’m always right?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 1:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I was leaving it as a fill-in-the-blank

... but since you asked…
“Exactly the opposite of the truth” is a lie so you’re essentially calling another ANer a liar for valuing a certain stat more than you. OK, you hate RBI’s, I get it.
But the argument could be made that in this post-moneyball era OBP is gaining as a more acceptable barometer for offensive production, and especially with OPS being so valued, could also be considered a “pretty” stat- especially around here.
And if “OBP wins ballgames, period” then what could possibly be a prettier stat than that?

by Sacred#24 on May 5, 2008 3:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hmm ... not quite a direct quote ...

or, to be even more honest, taken out of context.

Paul said, “Almost exactly the opposite of the truth”. I’m quite sure he wasn’t calling you a liar. I’m fairly sure he was calling you mistaken. I would certainly hope that he was giving you the benefit of the doubt, in that way.

In this case, though, I would say the real truth is somewhere in between. Brown has not simply been in the right place at the right time, as so many RBI champions are - he has been clutch (which I would suggest is largely a function of random distribution than actual skill) - so his performance, as represented by those RBIs has helped the team win ballgames. Of course, since he has been quite bad without RISP, and those performances are likely to even out over the long haul, I would not take those RBIs to mean much prospectively.

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

by devo on May 5, 2008 3:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I thought it was fairly obvious

that in this case “pretty” was being contrasted with “functional,” not “ugly.” (And if you dislike that contrast, blame it on the OP, not me.)

But more to the point—your first sentence is ridiculous, for two reasons. First, when someone says “A is true and B is not true,” the exact opposite of that is “A is not true and B is true.” Just saying “the original sentence is false” doesn’t mean “the opposite of the first sentence is true.” If both A and B are true, the original sentence (A true, B false) is false.

And second, much more importantly, false does not mean a lie. Lying involves intent and I did not, anywhere, imply that OaklandSi was attempting to deceive. I just thought (and think) that he was wrong.

Believe me, if and when I think someone’s being maliciously dishonest, they’re going to get a lot more out of me than “you’re wrong.” I hate liars and always have. But one of the more refreshing things about sports blogs (as compared with, say, politics…) is that people have very little reason to lie. Generally speaking, they just say what they think.

Still can’t figure out what this has to do with me supposedly thinking that I’m infallible.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 3:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Sorry you guys had to waste so much time trying to prove me wrong

When all I was doing was making a joke. Maybe if I threw in some statistics?
At any rate, could it be possible (just a question so don’t freak out) that sometimes you pose opinions as if they’re facts? And in so doing often imply that others are somehow wrong and you’re right?

by Sacred#24 on May 5, 2008 4:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It was a joke at my expense

and, worse, it wasn’t funny. I’m not trying to “prove you wrong.” I’m trying to get you to stop taking gratuitous cheap shots at me.

As for the latter… have you ever said “Player x sucks?” Because if so, you are “posing an opinion as if it was a fact.” It’s both pedantic and ridiculous to insist that everyone preface their opinions with “my opinion is…” instead of just saying what their opinion is.

And I should bloody well hope I’m implying that someone else is wrong and I’m right, if I’m disagreeing with them over something. Otherwise I’m doing a pretty poor job of stating my position!

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 4:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Don't worry

You didn’t. I have a thick skin.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 5:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

RH BAT with Power

Look at our lefty-righty splits. I think we need him.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on May 5, 2008 10:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

He's slugging under .400

That’s not much power.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on May 5, 2008 10:36 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

He has had 18% more PAs than average with runners on and 8% more with RISP ...

That’s not very much … his RBIs are almost entirely a function of his performance with RISP (which is almost certainly a function of luck, primarily)

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

by devo on May 5, 2008 11:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

is this the kind of analysis andeux loathes, too?

And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 5, 2008 11:46 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I hope not ...

it isn’t the most sophisticated analysis, possible, but I’d like to think it’s of a reasonable quality, for what it is …

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

by devo on May 5, 2008 1:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yup.

With men on, his OPS is 1058. With RISP, 1204. WIth the bases empty, 394. His OPS with men on is 76 percent better than the league average, with men on.

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

by rfloh on May 5, 2008 12:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

wow

"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006

by flipgatey3 on May 5, 2008 10:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I like "luck"

..and he’s got it!...primarily speaking, that is. When he runs out, I’ll drop him.
This is the kind of analysis I love by the way.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on May 5, 2008 12:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Please play poker with me

sometime.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 12:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i thought you didn't know how to play?

Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.

by mrrickyg on May 5, 2008 1:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I know HOW to play...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 1:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hot Topic For 1st week of May

The most vulnerable pitchers are Eveland (Elbow) and worse numbers c/w Smith, and Braden. Eveland should go to the pen to buy some time for his elbow to be diagnosed further. A case could be made to DL him but then we are potentially losing him for 2 weeks. By placing him on the DL it opens a spot up for Foulke in the pen and for Harden in the rotation.

Send down Denorfia…or not. Buck appeared to need time to get his swing back. Not to mention whether or not he is durable enough to return. Denorfia has options so he would appear the most vulnerable.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on May 5, 2008 9:54 AM PDT   0 recs

OK, what's the deal here?

I’ve heard nothing from anyone anywhere, other than AN posters, that suggests Eveland actually has an injured elbow.

All he said was that it “cracked” while he was on the mound Wednesday. I’m sure he’d have noticed by now if he had fractured it again or something.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 5, 2008 10:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think it was in one of the articles that "it had been feeling a little tender" prior to that game

That said, you can’t just put him on the DL when he’s not really injured and ready to pitch, because that’s what you want to do with the roster. The players might start to not be honest with the training staff if they start pulling that kind of shit.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on May 5, 2008 10:06 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So we should put our heads in the sand like an ostrich...

and pretend he’s okay? ESPECIALLY, with our injury history the last thing this team needs is another young arm to go down. I just got word yesterday about GioGon and Fautino DLS both being shut down. Even if Eveland is perfectly healthy, who would you rather have in the rotation, he or Smith? At least if he goes to the pen, this buys time to evaluate him further.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on May 5, 2008 10:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wait, Gio was shut down?

Since wheN?

by mikev on