Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Good Problems to Have - Part I

22-14. Tied for the most wins in baseball. Tied for the best record in the AL.  A 99-win pace.  It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

It makes sense that a 22-14 team’s “problems” are good problems to have.  Having too many good starting pitchers and more than 25 players deserving of a major league roster spot.  Hanging on to the most expensive players rather than trading them because the team is still in contention, even though that wasn’t in the blueprint.  Most teams would envy these issues.  

Now almost a quarter of the way through the season, it’s clear this team has a legitimate shot at making the playoffs, even if it doesn’t play quite this well the rest of the way.  Which brings us to the major point of discussion this morning:

It would be incredibly unlikely for any key A’s player to be traded away this season. 

Although the free agency clock is ticking on a few A’s mainstays, rest assured that Billy’s no longer planning to flip guys like Ellis, Duke, or Blanton for younger and cheaper players this season, like he did in the Swisher/Haren deals.  Aside from being illogical at this point given the team’s success, we can predict that it would be politically impossible, once we look at the numbers.

The A’s are exactly 59 games away from the All-Star break on July 14th, and 71 games away from the end-of-July trading deadline.  For the sake of argument let’s focus on the first figure (59 games), and assume that if a major deal were to take place by the end of July, the teams involved probably are at least talking to each other by the All-Star break.

How bad would the A’s need to be over the next 59 games in order to be “sellers” in trade talks?  

Let’s say the A’s go 25-34 from now until the All-Star break.  That would represent a very poor stretch – a .424 clip, or the winning percentage equivalent of a 69-win season.  Ugh.  It’s a nasty thought and I don't believe it will happen – this team is too deep and too well-rounded to suffer a long-term stretch that bad. 

But even if they did, the team would still be 47-48, on the strength of their terrific start to the season.  And as a former player, Billy knows better than most that the locker room would be forever bitter about trading away a key piece of the puzzle when the team was still playing .500 ball and in Wild Card striking distance.

In short, the A’s have started so well that it is almost impossible that they’ll be out of contention by the trading deadline.  Could they slip from this pace?  Absolutely.  This team won’t win the 99 games they’re currently on pace to win.  Can they slip far enough that they have no chance at the All-Star break?  No.

So feel free to stay emotionally attached to your current favorite Athletic for at least six more months.  The way the team has played thus far, they've earned the right to stay along for the playoff ride.

That leaves Beane (and us) crossing fingers in hopes that Mark Ellis can somehow qualify as a Type A free agent, that Harden and Duke can stay in one piece for at least six more months, and more importantly, that the improbable run of team success can continue. 

In the interest of spacing our content and topics as best we can, look for a Part II of “Good Problems to Have” in the next few days, either on the main page or as a FanPost depending on our front-page activity level.

0 recs | Comment 120 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

"front-page activity level"

i like that there’s more anlaysis on the front page now.
if there is too much stuff on the front page, perhaps old game threads can somehow be consolidated (like the pre-game and middle threads could be removed from the front page and linked at the top of the post-game wrapup), or moved to another section (arranged by date kind of like yahoo previews and recaps).

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 May 8, 2008 1:03 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Yes!!! Kill the game threads after the games!!! Please!!!

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

by devo on May 8, 2008 2:08 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Thirded

Let’s keep the stuff that people will actually read and return to on top of the page.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

--Bilbo Baggins

by kaweahkaweah on May 8, 2008 7:24 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

fourthed

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 8, 2008 8:41 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I'm already working on a fifth

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on May 8, 2008 11:17 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

So Cahill might not be the only one going to AA this season?

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

--Bilbo Baggins

by kaweahkaweah on May 8, 2008 11:32 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

hope grover doesn't trade his chip

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 8, 2008 12:03 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

LOL!

Threw me for a second.

2K, the AA I’m eligible is for quiters. That’s not my style.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on May 8, 2008 12:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

So long as they're still archived somewhere

Sometimes I like to go find them and skim through if I’ve missed a game.

But yes, definitely off of the front page.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 8, 2008 10:04 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

+1

on a slow work day, it can be a great half hour going through and trying to reconstruct what was happening. Of course, I also like to reread a book and still get anxious even when I know the resolution already.

Also, a number of on-going jokes start in the game threads and it may be the only way to capture their true meaning.

"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty

by 5Aces on May 8, 2008 10:38 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

+1

Chiba Lotte lost simultaneously in the fighter plane of the Japanese ham.

by JediLeroy on May 8, 2008 12:53 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Too much good content on AN

is also a very good problem to have, and I’m glad we have it year after year!
I’m another person who goes back and reads game threads I missed—even when I missed the game thread because I was AT THE GAME.

The candy and the baseball all night long :)

by Englishmajor on May 8, 2008 2:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Ditto.

When I’m at the game, sometimes I am wondering about what I’m missing in a game thread.

pam5981: Patience is a virtue that I do not possess.
ohtobe21likehuston: But you're good at drinking and cussing. Two out of three ain't bad.

by pam5981 on May 8, 2008 3:06 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I think we need game-thread threads

We're going to knock balls out of the country's park, for the home team, which is America. @('.')@

by monkeyball on May 8, 2008 3:27 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

When I post there, I usually wear my A's sweatshirt

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

--Bilbo Baggins

by kaweahkaweah on May 8, 2008 3:41 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I was pondering a fanpost about this

since before the Angels series, but I didn’t want to jinx things ;)

My fanpost would’ve included a couple polls, because I like polls …
What’s the latest the A’s will have a winning record?
A. Memorial Day
B. Father’s Day
C. July 4th
D. ASB
E. Labor Day

Repeat for ‘share of 1st place’ ...

I’d also want to know
If the A’s are in legitimate contention around the ASB (within 3 games of the 1st) and a trade offer comes in for Blanton + Street for some promising prospects
A. Yes, but only for top-tier prospects. Potentially improve 2010/2011 at the expense of 2008’s playoff chances.
B. No, keep the hand we have this year and see where it goes. We can find solutions for 2010/2011 during the offseason.

Personally, I kinda agree with you in that I don’t think Beane would pull the trigger for a deal for prospects. Fiscally, that’d leave the casual fans in an uproar (didn’t the ChiSox try this once in the 90s), which will negatively impact ticket sales. The players, like you said, would also be hurt by the lack of faith in this year’s squad .. and realistically, most players, when given a chance in the presence to make the playoffs, want to go for it instead of looking to 2-3 years from now. It falls under the ‘I don’t know when I’ll get a chance to make the playoffs again’ line of reasoning.

I know there are plenty of posters here that’ll want to pull the trigger for the sake of the future, but I’m of the mindset, if our chance is now, go for it. Besides, I’ll be studying abroad in the fall and not finishing until late Oct .. leave it to the baseball dieties to mock my season ticketholder run but having the A’s make it to the Series while I’m an ocean away. :P

by Rickeyfan on May 8, 2008 1:38 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

I'd vote A. And the White Sox "White Flag" deal turned out pretty

well for them. They got back Foulke and Howry for three players that were not in their future. The A’s trading Blanton and Street could get back more than the White Sox did for Alvarez, Darwin and Hernandez, all of whom were in their free agent years

by WaddellCanseco on May 8, 2008 6:40 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

F. November 1

The candy and the baseball all night long :)

by Englishmajor on May 8, 2008 2:16 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Think back ... to 1999 ...

An up and coming—but, surprisingly, contending A’s team traded away its closer and ostensible ace for some young guys … one of those young guys immediately stepped in and out performed the guy he was traded for.

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

by devo on May 8, 2008 2:14 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Those '99 trades were awesome

I was pretty pissed when they traded away Rogers while in contention… Then they pulled three rip off deals as few teams have been ripped off. Velarde, Isringhausen, Appier, and Olivares for absolute jack shit. July of ‘99 begun the era…

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on May 8, 2008 10:10 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Another difference between now and 1999

Back in 1999 Bavasi was willing to trade with Beane. Now he’s not, possibly because he remembers how well it worked for him the last time.

formerly known as mdl

by iglew on May 8, 2008 10:28 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I remember those 1999 trades

I believe it was Kenny Rogers and Billy Taylor for Jason Isringhausen, Terrence Long and Leoner Vasquez.

We got Appier from KC for Blake Stein, Brad Rigby and Jeff D’Amico.

We acquired Omar Olivares and Randy Velarde for Nathan Haynes, Jeff DaVanon, and a player to be named later.

by uci anteater on May 8, 2008 11:39 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The Rogers and Taylor trades were separate ... 8 days apart ...

Taylor for Izzy and Greg McMichael
Rogers for Long and Vasquez

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

by devo on May 8, 2008 11:42 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

There are those that will disagree with you...
Now almost a quarter of the way through the season, it’s clear this team has a legitimate shot at making the playoffs

But, they’re the same ones who picked the A’s to finish 2nd (or worse) in the division. They still don’t believe that Billy’s assembled a team that can win in 2008. They want to see the rebuilding. LOL

Foolsh, the most insane regular poster on AN since oaktoon left - salb

by FoolshGame22 on May 8, 2008 2:48 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

I disagree

Beane ain’t gonna care much about casual fans or even his current players. If he gets the right deal—even with a contending team this year—that will help the A’s over the next several seasons he will pull the trigger. 1999 is a decent analogy, but that team was hanging around .500. If this team is hanging around .500 in July, of course Beane movews. The real rub will be what if they are more like .550 and within a game or two of either the division, the WC, or both. and someone really wants Blanton, or Harden, or Street. I say Beane won’t hesitate to pull the trigger.

by madmongoose on May 8, 2008 5:48 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

and i hope he doesnt

i believe PT pointed this out in a previous thread, but if there is one dangerous move to make while in rebuilding mode, it’s to rebuild half way.

currently, the A’s are seriously lacking in middle infield prospects, and they could definitely use some more pieces (true CFer, another C, and always more Ps). On top of that, our contending team consists of a number of rent-a-vets (who will more than likely be gone after this year) and fillers (who youd rather not see on a true contending team).

yes, they may be contending at the moment, but do we really want to go forward like this? I really dont want to see the A’s become bottom feeders for the next 5 years because they didnt finish the rebuilding job they set out to do.

by oakinboston on May 8, 2008 6:05 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Agreed. I'd move Blanton, Street and Harden for the right pieces

and I think Beane will too, even if the team is playing .550 ball. At 47-48, it’s a no-brainer.

by WaddellCanseco on May 8, 2008 6:43 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

1999 ...

You’re right … they actually ended up closer to the Rangers than they were at the time of the trades … my memory failed me …

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

by devo on May 8, 2008 9:40 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I disagree also

Unless the A’s are sporting close to or the best record in baseball, we need to not half ass the rebuilding plan. Oakinboston is right we have many more needs in other positions in the minors that could use some upgrading. We need to think long term, not short term based on short term results.

ohio roots

by nickatt7 on May 8, 2008 6:29 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

"Half-assing the rebuilding plan"

I think some people here are overestimating the amount of work left to do.

Look, I’m not suggesting the A’s are gonna go for broke and deal away any of the young people they already have, thereby undoing what’s been done.

I’m simply saying that guys like Blanton and Ellis won’t be dealt this season. It’s that simple. They will ride the team they have as far as they can. The chemistry is too good, and the performance has been too good, to make major adjustments to it at this point.

“Half-assing” would be making the Swisher/Haren deals, and then four months later making a mid-season trade of our promising young guys for a grizzled vet.

Haren and Swisher were dealt because of the packages they were able to yield. Not because of some desperate need to rebuild. The latter is the company line, because it wouldn’t make sense to publicly say, “We know we hosed our two trading partners, so we had to accept these deals.”

Ellis and Blanton won’t get anything near what those two did. So keeping them isn’t half-assed rebuilding. It’s simply allowing an unexpectedly good team to make a run at the playoffs.

by notsellingjeans on May 8, 2008 6:39 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Street and/or Casilla to Yankees, Brewers or Tigers makes some sense, with

Yankees and Brewers more likely because they have more prospects, while the Tigers would likely have to be a three-way. Blanton to Braves, Reds or Rockes makes some sense too. Ellis is probably more valuable as a 2008 2B and sandwich pick than what he’d fetch in trade. Trading Harden as soon as he shows he can pitch for six weeks in a row makes all kinds of sense. Duchscherer and Crosby would probably have more value in the off-season. Gaudin also in the off-season or next year.

From the younger guys, I wouldn’t be surprised with a trade of Barton, Doolittle or Henry Rodriguez

by WaddellCanseco on May 8, 2008 6:53 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Ellis is probably more valuable as a 2008 2B and sandwich pick than what he’d fetch in trade.

The average—AVERAGE, mind you, not median—value of a sandwich pick is something like a gimpy utility player. Willie Bloomquist, or something of that ilk.

I would be genuinely stunned if Beane could not do better than that by picking up the phone, calling the Rockies, and asking them to literally name a price for Ellis.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on May 10, 2008 11:48 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

while clearly Blanton and Ellis don't have the value Swish and Haren did,

waiting another season just knocks off another year of their contracts, and makes them another year older, decreasing their value further.

all im saying is, if the right deal comes along, Beane (Forst) should not let politics enter the equation.

now, probably where we differ is how to define “right deal”. youd probably say we should only settle for an out-of-this-world package, and otherwise we should stick to contending. id settle for something more realistic (but still good), with the excitement of filling out our roster with youngsters.

if there arent any good packages, im with you- contend away.

by oakinboston on May 8, 2008 7:05 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Too much emphasis, I think, on the trade value of players

How much value they have, how much that will appreciate with health or depreciate when they’re another year closer to free agency, etc. It’s not that those things aren’t important, but “trade value” shouldn’t trump the player’s value in helping the team win games (and pennants).

I think Beane’s public statements (most recently in the context of the Thomas signing) have struck exactly the right balance. Don’t do anything to hurt the long-term plans (so the A’s won’t be trading any young players they’ve identified as core talent going forward), but at the same time try to carpe the damn diem. When fate deals you a few good breaks for once (like our hot start and our “premature contention”), a good exec seeks to take advantage, not say “oh no, we’ve already decided that this year doesn’t count.” Beane has been pretty adroit at maintaining that balance.

I define “the right deal” in the current circumstances as “one that doesn’t sabotage the team’s chances of a being a surprise contender.” Sure, let’s be a powerhouse in 2011. But why not be a Cinderella team right now? Those kinds of seasons are the sweetest anyway. Let’s steal one if we can.

by Faust on May 8, 2008 7:29 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

yeah i agree with your general sentiment

but i don’t think im overestimating the amount of work our team has to do.
i agree somewhat with zonis below that our offense is really not that good. and i also worry that after a trip through the league, opposing hitters may do better vs. Smith and Eveland.

yes, if we can ride this hot streak into the playoffs, let’s do it. im just saying that i didnt agree with nsj’s original statement that it’s “incredibly unlikely” to see any key A’s traded this season based on how we are performing. if no A’s are traded, i would attribute it to a lack of good buyers.

...also, maybe the word “key” is confusing… i consider Blanton “key”, but i also see him as very tradeable. same with Street.

by oakinboston on May 8, 2008 8:06 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Since I also dissented from nsj on those same points below

I guess we’re pretty much in agreement, then – I do see Blanton as tradeable.

I just think Beane needs to be (and will be) careful. He doesn’t have to trade anyone, and how a trade affects this year’s team is more important than abstract calculations of Blanton’s (or whoever’s) trade value and whether another year will decrease it somewhat.

I also agree that the offense is pretty suspect. But isn’t it cool that the the A’s have had a rather lousy offense and still are up among the league leaders in runs scored? I think RISP performance is basically random, but it’s good that for once the RISP gods are on our side instead of crapping on us.

by Faust on May 8, 2008 8:25 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

it is a good feeling

bummer that despite the number of runs the halos have given up, they still have a good record. and they are getting pitchers back.

by oakinboston on May 8, 2008 8:32 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

"not running an instructional league"

Beane’s words about rebuilding and contending. The A’s did what they needed to do in the offseason to restock the system. They also picked up some veterans who could help a young team learn…and as it turns out, contend.

If the A’s contend this season without mortgaging the future, that’s the best of all cases. I am a season ticket holder and A’s fan. I renewed my season tickets knowing there was a good chance they’d not be very good in 2008…but I’m delighted that they are playing so well…and you can be sure I’ll excitedly support them in person should they get into the postseason.

by OaklandSi on May 8, 2008 7:36 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

+1

And thanks for reminding me of that excellent quote from Beane .

by Faust on May 8, 2008 7:51 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

It cuts both ways, nsj

Obviously, from a public relations standpoint, it is harder to trade a “Hey, I’ve heard of that guy” player when a team is still in contention. However, if you look at how the A’s are in contention, one could make the argument that it is easier for Beane to trade Blanton or Street.

The A’s are in contention because their pitching has been simply amazing; only Toronto has given up less runs than the A’s at this point in the season. If Duke, Smith, and Eveland, and Gaudin continue to pitch well, Blanton becomes more expendable if Gio Gonzalez looks ready for a call-up in July (his numbers are not impressive so far, but he’s only had 6 starts in AAA.) If Harden somehow stays moderately healthy, he figures in their somewhere as well. James Simmons will likely be in AAA by July as well if he continues to dominate in Texas. Blanton may have more value to another team than he does for us, and it would make sense to trade him in that scenario.

Similarly, the incredible performance of the A’s relievers makes trading Street an easier proposition for Beane. Devine and Casilla have been incredible, and it’s not like they are one year wonders, as both pitchers were top relief prospects before having success this year. Brown has been very good as well, and has great stuff. With guys like Ziegler and Blevins waiting in the wings in AAA, trading Street is possible.

As I’ve said before, I think the odds are against the A’s trading either Street or Blanton during the season, because if you look at the history of July trades, veterans only get traded when they have expiring contracts. Veteran trades usually occur in the offseason for whatever reason, and I think Blanton and Street are likely to finish the year in Oakland. However, given the success of the A’s young pitching, it would not surprise me to see Beane pull the trigger on Blanton or Street irregardless of what the A’s record is in July.

by BlameChannel53 on May 8, 2008 6:49 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

I don't think Blanton is untouchable at all

I agree with you that some people are overestimating the amount of work left to do. And I certainly agree that we have to go for it this year. That does not mean we should sell out to go for it, but it does mean not sabotaging our chances by making obvious sacrifice-the-present-for-the-future moves. A fast start is a precious asset that should be maximized (like any asset). I’m always intrigued by fans who are more excited by the shimmering image of a powerhouse team in 3 years and a top prospect ranking in BA than they are by actually having a real, current team win games and take its shot in the postseason. Some people see propect accumulation as an end in itself (really, they fetishize prospects).

That said, we could subtract one of the six starters and still have a damn fine, pennant-drive-worthy rotation. For obvious reasons it would be best to have a 6th man in reserve, because when injury strikes I don’t want the best 5th starter option to be DiNardo or Braden. But if Gio Gonzalez (or possibly Meyer or even Simmons) can establish themselves as someone who could step in when needed, and if Harden et al stay healthy for two months or more so we still have the starter surplus, Blanton could be traded to fill present and future needs without significantly hurting our chances this season. (Looks like BlameChannel beat me to the “Post” button making this same point.)

I’m not saying it will happen. I am saying you’re overstating the situation by flatly saying it won’t happen.

Ellis, on the other hand, I agree is not going anywhere. There’s no adequate backup plan; trading him would hurt the team. Whatever problem we solve with the return we get for Ellis is unlikely to outweigh the problem we create by doing so.

I do think that if Blanton goes, the return would include a major-league or major-league-ready component – e.g. a LaRoche or a Lillibridge.

by Faust on May 8, 2008 7:06 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Again, I agree with the basics

That’s twice this week I’ve felt compelled to agree with you.

Weird.

The biggest stength in the A’s minor league system is SP. Gio, Simmons or Bailey could be deemed “ready” come July and that would free up Blanton for a trade if an enticing deal came along.

I do think you’re over-stating the imortance of fielding Ellis. I think it’s possible one of Melillo or Petit could show themselves big league ready come July, offering a potential replacement for Ellis. I like Mark, but like I’ve said for several months if the A’s don’t think well enough of him to sign him to an extension then they must trade him. Free Agent Compensation grades (A, B, C) are primarily determined by offense. It is extremely doubtful that Ellis will rank among the top 20% of all 2B, 3B and SS in an offense dominated scale, which means all the A’s could get for losing Mark Ellis to FA is a Sup 1 draft pick.

That’s not good enough.

Ellis is worth more then 1 late 1st round draft pick, he’s worth a couple prospects in a trade.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on May 8, 2008 11:45 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

You agreed with me another time? I must have blanked it out.

So I’ll go back to disagreeing, since that’s more fun. I don’t see a need to “cash in” Ellis, even if he ends up walking for no compensation. Let’s put it this way: A player’s time under contract can be utilized in basically two ways – by his contributions to the team through his play, or by trading that time for something else. There’s no reason to prefer the second choice in this instance.

I don’t think Ellis would bring much in trade. First, he’s not a Big Name. Second, the A’s probably value what he brings to the table more than any other team. Third, there’s only a few months’ worth of his services left to sell. We aren’t getting Jay Bruce or Adam LaRoche or Brent Lillibridge for Ellis.

By definition, there’s a certain equivalence between the value of Ellis’s final few months and the value of the prospect(s) he could bring in return (unless your trading partner is a fool). Right now, the A’s themselves are the kind of team to need the former type of value more than the latter. Having or not having Ellis at 2B could well be the difference between post-season play this year and not making it. It seems much less likely to me that the relatively modest return we could get by trading him would be the make-or-break parts that allow us to raise a championship banner in the coming few years.

Your Harden example below is a more difficult call (difficult for me, anyway; I suspect less difficult for you). A healthy Harden could significantly improve the A’s chance both to reach and to do well in the postseason, but a healthy Harden could also draw the kind of talent that could significantly help us for years. Let’s just hope that this is still a live issue that we can actually argue about two months from now.

BTW, I’m going to tell PT that you said a kind word about Petit.

by Faust on May 8, 2008 12:36 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Landon Powell, remember?

And I didn’t say a kind word about Petit, I implied the possibility that Petit could improve enough to start for Oakland.

I agree (there I go again) that we couldn’t get a Jay Bruce type for Ellis but we could/should get a Travis Buck type.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on May 8, 2008 12:57 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

OK, "kind" clashes with your monster persona

Your words were at least sorta positive, though.

But you really think we could get a “Travis Buck type” (a very-low-service-time mlb-average regular with a bit of upside) for 3 months (or less) of Ellis? Without drugging the other GM’s drink? If that happens, feel free to rub my nose in this discussion, because I’ll go on record as saying there’s just no way.

by Faust on May 8, 2008 1:17 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

You misunderstood

We were talking prospects.

Ellis should fetch a Travis buck type prospect.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on May 8, 2008 2:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The thing that scares me about this team

is that we really are banking on our pitching.

If it goes away, we are screwed. Because our offense sucks. We are scoring runs because we are hitting with RISP, and before this year, we couldn’t do that worth crap, so I doubt that it will continue all season.

We NEED some good hitters infused into this lineup. We need our regulars to remember how to hit for power again, especially Thomas.

We could get three more players infused into the lineup by the end of the month, CarGon, Buck and Chavez, and we’ll have to hope that they will hit and reinvigorate the lineup.

by Zonis on May 8, 2008 7:17 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

I Don't know if I'm quite as scared

This year moreso than others, our pitching staff has helped take pressure off of the hitters by keeping the games close. Our defense, ironically has suffered with Barton and Hannahan and the outfield is not quite up to 2006 standards. The defense has blown a few games yet we still stand in 1st place.

Nevertheless, while we can’t count on our RISP productivity to remain as good as it has, Beane wisely chose Thomas (over Bonds) as a DH that would be helpful not only for the lineup but also be a resource to the younger hitters on the team.

"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 8, 2008 10:08 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Thomas is also a bit easier on the pocketbook

I am sure Frank’s low price tag made him the easy choice as well.

by AsFanInLA on May 8, 2008 10:52 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

You Just Wonder

If Thomas would accept a 1 year deal this offseason if Beane offered (assuming good productivity from this point forward).

"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 8, 2008 11:48 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Lets post a fun lineup shall we?

C – Suzuki
1B – Barton
DH – Thomas
LF – Cust
CF – CarGon
3B – Chavez
RF – Buck
2B – Ellis
SS – Crosby

....Looks pretty awesome to me, but when can we start talking about who we could acquire?

by ChadGod on May 8, 2008 2:15 PM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I think we are being presented with a false choice

Best case—repeat best case (and I am one of the optimists around here)—we’ve got a 90+ win team that would probably not go very far in the playoffs if it got there.

Why?

Not enough offense. And the kind of lineup that will flail—and fail—against the type of quality pitching (Boston, Angels) we would likely to be pitted against in the playoffs. We will need major improvements from the likes of Thomas, Ellis, Barton, Buck and Hannahan to be more than an average offense this year. Or an infusion of Chavez or Gonzalez. Will some of those guys get better as the season progresses? Undoubtedly. But Brown’s not going to drive in 130. And someone will invariably get hurt. And a couple of the above probably never will produce much.

So if Beane’s true mission is to try to win a champiionship—is he better off playing a spotty hand this year—maybe we make the playoffs, maybe we don’t. And crapshoot philosophy or not, if we do make it we’re probably not going all that far—or still trying to build an even stronger hand for next year and beyond?

I think the answer to that question is self-evident.

by madmongoose on May 8, 2008 7:23 AM PDT reply reply   0 recs

Yes, the answer is self-evident.

And it is: We should play the so-called “spotty hand” this year, AND we should build an even stronger hand for next year and beyond. Your either/or choice is a false one.

“Best case…we’ve got a 90+ win team that would probably not go very far in the playoffs if it got there.” So we shouldn’t even try for it when we’re in 1st place more than 20% of the way through the schedule? How about we try to make the playoffs and then see what happens, rather than just conceding in advance? What is this mentality that the actual season that’s being played just doesn’t matter – what matters is the team we can maybe imagine putting on the field (if all goes as planned, of course) the season after next, or maybe the one after that?

We already have a lot of talent in the pipeline, and the kind of management that should be capable of rearranging it into quite a fine team a year or two down the pike. Do you really think that cashing in Ellis or whoever right now, with a concrete cost to the current season’s chances, is somehow going to yield up that magic additional heap of value that guarantees us a championship in 2011? There aren’t going to be any resources for us to put together a championship-caliber team in the next few years without pulling the rug out from under the 2008 season?

I don’t get it. All seasons matter. That includes this season.

by Faust on May 8, 2008 7:48 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Let me Be Clear About This

Of course all seasons matter—and I’m not saying vie up on this one. Ellis is not who I’m talking about, particularly when there is no major-league level replacement ready in the wings.

I’m talkiing about pitching—where we have real depth. and specifically one of three players who may have considerable value to anotther organization also in the midst of a pennant race. If someone like Milwaukee desperate for bullpen help decides that they are willing to give us a top prospect for Street—and if Casilla/Devine, etc.. are still performing well, then Beane could take a slight risk for the remainder of this year—pennant contention or not—in order to boost the team for next year and beyond.

Same for Blanton.

Harden is the stickier wicket—for reasons we all understand. If he’s truly healthy—and that is such a big if it’s almost unfathomable to contemplate—then we should ride him as far as it goes because we can’t get back equivalent value or anything close to it. And if shuts down again, we can’t get more than a cup of coffee for him. There could be a grey area in between—but in all probability an offseason deal makes more sense.

But the other piece of this which you may or may not be contemplating is not whether the A’s will be sellers, but whether they might also be buyers. And here’s where the analogy to 1999 breaks down a bit, I think. We don’t want to give up youth for Appier—or Olivares/Velarde. That’s what i mean about playing a spotty 2008 hand vs. building for an even stronger season down the road. I can’t see Beane mortgaginganypart of their future on 2008.

by madmongoose on May 8, 2008 8:06 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Actually, I agree pretty strongly with everything you say here

Street and Blanton tradeable under the right circumstances (meaning: we get good return, and other players have stepped up to the point where we don’t miss them much), Ellis not, Harden not yet (both because, as you say, we wouldn’t get sufficient value, but also because if we do happen to make the playoffs having Harden in the playoff rotation could make up for all the Harden-related suffering we’ve gone through over the years). And I don’t think Beane should (or will, judging from his own statements) mortgage any part of the future for marginal current value.

I was reacting more to what I took to be a dismissive attitude in your first post toward 2008, and to the notion that our interests in 2008 and later are necessarily sharply at odds. I’m sensitive to those positions, so maybe I saw more of them in your post than you intended to be there.

by Faust on May 8, 2008 8:42 AM PDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

And how do we compare to 1999, anyway??

Think about the pitching.

back then we had one above average veteran starter (Rogers)—now we have one average to above average veteran starter (Blanton).

back then we had a rookie just up who looked like he might be a keeper. He turned out to be an All-Star caliber starter. We had two high draft choices working their way to the bigs. So there were basically three bright lights on the way to stardom—and we got incredibly lucky in that all of them hit big. Other than that it was journey