Gaudin to Bullpen
by ru155
on May 7, 2008 12:44 PM PDT
According to SFGate.com Gaudin has been the loser in the Space-For-Harden Sweepstakes.
I'm a little surprised that they kept both Eveland and Smith in the rotation, but I guess both of them throwing lights out stuff this week had to of been a big factor.
Also in the paper, the Colorado Rockies were turned down when asking about Blanton. I guess Beane really has faith that this team is going to be competitive on the strength of the rotation. Also it'll be really important for a vet like Blanton to help along Smith and Eveland so they don't drop off. They'll have to learn to adjust their game and improve their game prep.
1 recs |
58
comments
Read Related
EmailComments
Tough decision
I agree that it should be Gaudin. They told Duke in the off season that he’d be a starter, he’s been here a while and has paid his dues, he deserves to stay in the rotation. Not to mention that Duke is pitching very well.
by passionately objective on May 7, 2008 12:53 PM PDT 0 recs
Interesting tidbit about the Rox...
Could Beane turn down Ian Stewart for Blanton? He would look awfully good at 3B right now.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on May 7, 2008 1:18 PM PDT 0 recs
If the offer was one-for-one,
then yes, he could and should have turned it down.
Incidentally, Beane says he was in the DR for the last couple of days. I guess he’s taking a hands-on approach to international signing now that the budget’s been enlarged.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 2:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Uh, I hope he'd turn down Stewart for Blanton.
Because that’s not a very good trade for Oakland.
by mikev on
May 7, 2008 2:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree...
I should’ve said that I wonder if he would reject a trade that centered on Blanton and Stewart but didn’t only include Blanton and Stewart.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on
May 7, 2008 2:31 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Does anyone worry
that this move will depress Gaudin’s trade value? Maybe I’m overanalyzing the situation and not giving enough credence to the good start, but Gaudin is potentially a trade chip with some value, IMO.
by LogicRules on May 7, 2008 2:16 PM PDT 0 recs
Not too worried
If it does anything, it proves his value as both a reliever and starter.
by passionately objective on
May 7, 2008 2:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The way I figure...
... this lets Billy showcase Duke, Harden, and Blanton. If he can move one or all of ‘em, he can plug Gaudin back into the rotation. Gaudin is young enough that he could be a big part of future plans.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
by Joey C. on
May 7, 2008 2:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I think a lot of folks are overly obsessed with "trade value"
You start the guys who can help you win in the rotation, use relievers who can help you shorten games successfully, and stockpile enough talent that you have effective players available to trade when you want to make a move.
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
May 7, 2008 2:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Thank you!
I’ve been worried about Beane & Co becoming obsessed with “trade value”, but it seems too many fans have become intoxicated with the idea as well since so many trades have worked out well so far. If I want to watch players develop to see what they can fetch down the road I’ll switch to being a Pirates fan. At some point you have to take what you got and try and win some championships.
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 7, 2008 3:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
"Some point" = not now
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 4:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
We don't know that yet.
"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."- Casey Stengel
by Gaijin_Suketto on
May 7, 2008 4:31 PM PDT
up
0 recs
When?
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 7, 2008 5:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I dunno...
when the team doesn’t have 4 lineup spots that are filled with janky roster filler and/or declining vets?
I understand the temptation to stop rebuilding and try to win now given that the roster has exceeded expectations. That’s why rebuilding requires mental discipline. Stop too early and you end up with 3 2nd place finishes and back to square one.
The A’s system desperately needs more prospects at middle infield and ideally center field and catcher. The way to get those is to deal from the big-league team. And there’s enough depth up there that the team should be able to withstand losing one or even two starters without having to completely punt on the chance of reaching the postseason.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 5:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Granted...
...there are still weak spots to be filled in the organization, to be sure. Also, we don’t really know if this season’s start is for real, but on the flip side… every organization has week spots somewhere, even the ones who win it all, yet they win anyway. To continue to trade away good players strikes me too much of trying to make everything perfect when it never will be. To use an imperfect analogy, some people wait to have kids until circumstances are just right… but what they don’t know is there there never is a ‘just right’ time.
I believe this team has shown the right signs that it could very well be for real. Maybe not to win it all this year, necessarily, but at least a year ahead of schedule on being legitimately competitive.
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 7, 2008 5:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Being "ahead of schedule" is totally irrelevant
if the players who are making you “ahead of schedule” are going to be gone by the time you’re “scheduled” to be an elite team.
As far as I’m concerned, the A’s should be attempting to trade all the players who will be gone before 2010, in efforts to obtain players who will still be around in 2010. I’m on the fence about the players who will not be gone until 2011, but some of them (like Blanton) clearly aren’t going to be re-signed and it would be irresponsible to refuse to trade them in the hopes of getting one playoff run out of them.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 6:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Irrelevant?
Not at all. Just inconvenient for those who are overly enamored with all things analytical. Personally, I see no reason to postpone success for 2011+ in some Don Quixote-like quest for absolute perfection if there’s a legitimate shot at seeing success in 2009+/-.
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 7, 2008 7:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Wait, are you actually trying to claim
that Mark Ellis will make the 2009 team better even if he leaves as a free agent?
Because that is what is required to make success this year “relevant” in this sense.
The hope of being in contention every year, and the willingness to squander rebuilding opportunities for a ghost of a chance at the playoffs in the near term, is a hallmark of imbecilic management. It’s Brian Sabean’s specialty.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 8:18 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The Sabean reference...
...is clearly a ‘straw man’ argument. It’s pretty obvious that we’re not in danger of succumbing to that with the A’s. Logical fallacies don’t support your point.
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 7, 2008 10:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Being ahead of schedule is not irrelevant
Players don’t always develope, as planned, or on schedule. Just because you’re schedule to be an elite team in 2010 does not mean it will happen.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
May 7, 2008 9:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
OK
but the rate of player development may be only loosely connected, or not connected at all, with your team’s W/L rate.
If Bobby Crosby goes bananas and hits .330 with 30 HR in his walk year, that doesn’t mean Beane should go all-in on a .500 team at the All-Star break.
Right now the A’s have not yet developed enough players to make the 2010-2011 teams formidable. And in particular, there are serious, gaping weaknesses at several positions. If the team has the opportunity to address those weaknesses, it has to take it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 9:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
So...
...if I understand what you’re saying, because you cannot chart to your satisfaction overall player development as it relates to the W-L record… nevermind singling out individual players… you feel it’s preferable to stubbornly follow the predetermined plan, correct?
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 7, 2008 10:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Stubborn?
How is it “stubborn” to say “Hey, our right side of the infield really sucks right now. Maybe we ought to do something about that”?
Look, I’m not suggesting Beane hold an everything-must-go clearance sale on the team even if it’s 5 games up at the Break. If the quality offers aren’t there, they aren’t there. OK.
You’re the one who intimated that the A’s should NOT trade any additional players—if anyone’s being stubborn here, it’s you.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 10:53 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Question?
Why does the right side of our INF suck so much?
by passionately objective on
May 8, 2008 9:29 AM PDT
up
0 recs
If BB can make a perfect Rivercats team turn into a perfect A's team ...
fantastic …
But I’m willing to bet he’ll have to plug a hole or two … fortunately, he has an average amount of money to play with in doing so …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
May 7, 2008 10:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
It would help if "a hole or two"
didn’t become “three or four” because the A’s stupidly let players walk in free agency instead of dealing them for potential replacements.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 10:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Or we could be looking at the 2006 St Louis Cardinals ...
maybe the team is overachieving … maybe it’s really not that good … that doesn’t mean it can’t win a world championship.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
May 8, 2008 2:02 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I certainly agree with you about the 500 team point
That’s not my point. My point is if the team is actually decent, at the AS break, reasonably comfortably above 500, leading the WC say.
It’s always nice to want to build a “formidable” team. Players sometimes don’t have the careers you expect. Take the Indians. With Travis Hafner seemingly in rapid decline, much more rapid than one would expect, even given his “old player” skills, and signed to a very large contract, with Sabathia either gone or going to cost a lot, with some guys like Jeremy Sowers and Frankling Gutierrez developing slowly, they now no longer look as formidable. They’re still pretty good, yes. But for all their rebuilding, and commitment to the rebuilding plan, they have one playoff appearance, and a pretty good team.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
May 9, 2008 1:07 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
Unfortunately I have no reason to think that Harden will stay healthy, which is probably what you’re saying here.
by passionately objective on
May 7, 2008 2:26 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Unlesssss
Harden becomes the man he is supposed to be and SHREADS the league up while not shreading himself up.
by AthleticsMatt on
May 7, 2008 2:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I think one of two things will come of the move
Either Harden breaks and Gaudin steps right back into the rotation, or he somehow manages to stay healthy for a month and gets shipped off to a contender for a handsome bounty. Either way Gaudin’s back in the rotation by the all-star break and hopefully fresh for the second half this year.
by Sacred#24 on May 7, 2008 4:15 PM PDT 0 recs
If Harden stays healthy
We will more than likely be in contention meaning Beane will not be shipping him off if his recent comments are any indication.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on
May 7, 2008 6:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Probably the best option.
Unfortunate for Gaudin, but I’m sure he was told “Wait two weeks, you’ll be back in the rotation.”
It’ll be, what, 2 starts before Harden pulls something?
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on May 7, 2008 4:27 PM PDT 0 recs
In two weeks he'll have "sholder tightness" according to the A's
Two weeks later Larry Davis will amputate his left foot.
Home of the Rod Barajas Movement
by CyZito on
May 8, 2008 10:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Blanton
This is what I was afraid of if the A’s were to contend.
Statistically, Blanton is the worst pitcher on the staff, and with a 6 man rotation plus Gio Gonzalez waiting in the wings it’s baseball malpractice NOT to trade Blanton for prospects to help in the future. At this point he’s only blocking a higher upside pitcher like Gaudin from gaining experience.
Now that being said, it is very unlikely Beane would say any pitcher is untradeable, when makes me question the validity of this report.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on May 7, 2008 5:11 PM PDT 0 recs
Untradeable?
If that story is true, than it was probably more of a product of baiting the Rockies into upping their offer. They’ll probably come calling later, and this was an indicator that it would take more than they may have been willing to offer when July comes rolling around.
by passionately objective on
May 7, 2008 5:18 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Wait... what story?
I haven’t seen anything that says “Blanton is untradeable.” Was this in one of the peripheral newspapers?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 5:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
RE:
The story was that the Rockies inquired about Blanton and they were told he was not available as of now.
by passionately objective on
May 7, 2008 5:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Did this actually come out of a reputable source?
I have yet to see a link to anything.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 5:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
It sounds like they're not looking long-term
so it would make sense that they’re not offering a whole lot in return.
Beane should try to sell them on DiNardo as a ground ball specialist.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 7, 2008 8:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
DiNardo
I think I’m the only person that doesn’t care for him. Yes, please trade him as any kind of specialist.
by passionately objective on
May 7, 2008 10:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm intrigued by this notion as well
On the one hand, Blanton has been remarkably consistent, gives us at least 5 good innings (though the recent very good post by (who was it?) notes that he tends to get rocked in the 6th), and is an all-around steadying force. He’s been the only A’s player, I believe, who hasn’t missed time over the past 3 years (with Oakland.) On our team, that’s a major accomplishment.
On the other hand, he’s the kind of guy that it’s hard to see prosper in the playoffs, once we’re facing aces and our pitchers are having to go through Ortiz/Manny or whatever Murderer’s Row is bound to be out there. How much better is he going to get? Gaudin, on the other hand, had a great April/May last year—two better months than Blanton has ever put together in a row (though Blanton has had two wicked months sandwiched around a weak one in 2005.) If we had better hitting Blanton would be an essential component of our team, but it’s hard to see the A’s’ line-up scaring many people. If we’re ever going to win in the crap-shoot playoffs with our team, we’re going to have to roll out Gaudin/Eveland type guys and hope they roll 7s; Blanton’s best shot probably won’t be enough.
Contrary to past performance as well, I’m also worried about his durability. He’s got a great mentality, and I could be unduly swayed by body-type (Rich Harden’s low body-fat clearly hasn’t made him injury-resistant), but Blanton’s weight seems likely to eventually cause problems, and once they begin, they may well accumulate. Obviously this is speculative; anybody have any stats on the longevity of overweight pitchers? I know that Wells has been around forever and Sabathia’s been steady. Others?
by DiegoSegui on
May 7, 2008 8:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Body size
It seems that guys that have somewhat “average” bodys, and not rail thin, are more durable.
by passionately objective on
May 7, 2008 10:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Personally
I think Gaudin is a better pitcher than Smith or Eveland, but he’s been in the pen before and I can understand where it’d be hard to take Smith or Eveland out of the rotation right now, and Harden’ll be back on the DL in a couple of weeks anyway so whatever.
As for Blanton, I don’t see the point of trading him while we’re contending unless it’s for real impact prospects. He’ll have a lot of value at the trade deadline regardless of what happens, and who knows where we’ll be by then, so it’s perfectly reasonable for Beane to take a wait-and-see approach with Joe.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on May 7, 2008 7:30 PM PDT 0 recs
I would never advocate turining down a killer deal...
...regarding Blanton (or anyone, for that matter), should one present itself, but right now I see no point in seeking anything out.
Some read stats. Others actually watch the game.
by UncleLeo on
May 7, 2008 7:52 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Come Friday, suddenly our bullpen
will be in great shape. Following an off-day, every reliever has had at least one day off, plus we add Foulke and Gaudin. Yummy!
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 May 7, 2008 8:06 PM PDT 0 recs
Its actually very nice to not have deadweed in the pen for once
Where even the 6th or 7th guy can be useful. And with the A’s bench needing to be much deeper this year, having 6 guys in the pen who are all quality and can all pitch will be a great help. I just hate that the A’s always seem to insist on a 7 man pen only to have one or two guys rot at the end of the bench and never get used.
by Zonis on May 7, 2008 8:47 PM PDT 0 recs
Kind of nice to think we could play a double-header,
have Brown, Embree, and Street pitch in the opener, and come back with Devine and Casilla in the nightcap.
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
May 7, 2008 10:00 PM PDT
up
0 recs
lets trade gaudin
yes i know duke/harden are injury risks and eveland/smith are inexperienced and should expect some struggled eventually. so having gaudin for depth is a good thing. but rockies are desperate for pitching, they inquired about gaudin last august, but he was too expensive. also beane supposedly said blanton is unavailable currently. but getting ian stewart would give this team legit 3b/2b of the future. both teams would be trading from depth, i think its a fair trade.
by Asfan4ever723 on May 7, 2008 9:59 PM PDT 0 recs
agreed
i posted on this a few weeks ago… we should trade ellis or one of our starters for ian stewart asap
Cust is the new Jaha.
by johnjahafanclub on
May 7, 2008 10:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Issues of leverage
Trading just about any of the A’s “veteran” presences—and on this team, that includes Blanton—at this point in time is a little short-sighted in my mind. The closer we get to the All-Star break, the more desperate other GM’s get. Especially those at the helm of would-be contenders. We’ve seen Billy pull off some pretty ridiculous trades in the past, and I think this season will hold more of the same. When late June rolls around and the Dodgers/Blue Jays/Mets/plug-in-other-team-2-games-back-here start offering ridiculous returns, Billy’s stance on this issue will look like a stroke of genius.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
by Joey C. on May 8, 2008 1:59 AM PDT 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
