Wild Card Race Takes A Wang Turn
by Nico on Jun 17, 2008 8:36 AM PDT
Email
PrintWhen you're just three games out of first place with only one team to catch, your focus is squarely on the division crown - but that doesn't mean you don't keep sneaking a peak at the Wild Card race...Count me in as one of the fans who figured the AL Wild Card might come out of the Central this year - with Cleveland and Detroit fighting for the division crown - and who has recently figured the Yankees would be the biggest threat in the Wild Card race.
The Yankees can score runs, they have a recent history of hitting their stride mid-June and not looking back, and their rotation of Wang, Mussina, Pettitte, Joba, and Rasner, is not, in my opinion, as mediocre as it has been made out to be. Until now. Wang's injury, which will keep him out until September, leaves the Yanks with a rotation of Mussina, Pettitte, Joba, Rasner, and Question Mark, and I can see where that crew will have difficulty separating the Yankees much from the .500 mark. I do think the Yankees made the correct decision in moving Joba to the rotation (how good does that look now, as they would have had to anyway once Wang went down), simply because it is far easier to go out and acquire a solid middle reliever than it is to go out and acquire a good starting pitcher. But even with Joba in the rotation, the Yankees might have endured one injury they cannot overcome, as replacing your #1 starter with your #6 starter is especially troublesome for teams that lack much depth in their 1-5 to begin with.
Meanwhile, the Rays face a chase in which very few of their players have been in a pennant race before. In contrast, the relatively young A's still have a ton of key players (Harden, Blanton, Duchscherer, Street, Foulke, Embree, Ellis, Crosby, Chavez, Thomas) who have been there and done that. The Tigers and Indians may yet be heard from, but they have spotted Oakland 6.5, and 5.5 games, respectfully - or at least respectively. The Twins have played exactly as projected: right around .500, and only the mediocrity of the teams around them have put them in the playoff conversation.
In other words, the A's are hanging in there big-time in the division, and the Wild Card truly appears to be wide open as a viable "second avenue to the playoffs" if the Angels should surge. Harden stays.
NOTE: Remember, tonight's game at Arizona begins at 6:40pm PDT. I always forget about that 25-minute time zone they have in Phoenix.
204 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fascinating Year
One could argue that, given youth and injury, this team is far from its peak. And it’s currently on a rate to win 88-90 games, absed on both W-L and run differential.
Angels are a mystery—average team based on stats—yet they win the close ones, and they have a lot of parts that could get better.
Wang or no Wang, I think the Yanks get better. They’ll pay to get better if they have to.
Tigers still have major pitching problems—they may be able to catch Chicago (and maybe Cleveland could, too) but the WC seems beyond their grasp.
And Tampa?? How will the kids deal with this??
It’s kind of like Tiger—you just have to keep watching because you never know what’s coming round the corner. We could win 82-85 games and be out of it in mid-September with Harden and/or Blanton gone. We could win 93 games and be headed to an improbable postseason experience where, if Rich Harden is here and healthy, our odds start to look pretty damn good.
We must have a ton of games left in the Division.
Therein lies the answer, methinks. We have to play the Angels better than even, learn how to beat the Rangers and revert to ‘06 form against the Bailers.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
You have to beat the Rangers with offense
Which is still lacking with the A’s. If our offense continues to improve, which it should, the Rangers shouldn’t be a huge threat. Now the Angels, that’s a tougher one. Personally, i think their pitching staff has overachieved, so again i think it all comes down to the Oakland offense clicking. The A’s have played great baseball so far this season, especially when taking into account the injuries (which apparently happens every year) coupled with the fact that multiple players (Barton, Buck, Suzuki, etc.) have not been playing as well as we all know they are capable of. If this offense can get hot, i see no reason why we can’t win the west.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on Jun 17, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
No, and neither is March 15th
It’s what fans do.
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
I don't think so
Because the A’s front office needs to be evalutating this, too, because there are decisions to be made concerning guys like Blanton, Ellis, Harden, etc. We’re 6 weeks from the trading deadline. That might seem like a lot, but if Beane needs to decide fairly soon whether he’s going to sell off parts this year or if he thinks the team is close enough to make a push (not that a push would involve bringing in anybody).
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jun 17, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Blanton
I think Blanton has to go no matter what. Not only is he a good trading chip, but Gaudin is a much better pitcher then Blanton. Really, they only thing Blanton gives the A’s that Gaudin couldn’t replace are his 200 innings.
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 Jun 17, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
what if they trade blanton, and then duke, harden, or gaudin get injured?
what if smith and eveland can’t handle pitching twice as many innings as they usually do?
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
then you still have
the ever-popular AAAA pitchers to fill temporarily. Worst case scenario is that the A’s completely fall out of contention. Given that this is/was supposed to be a rebuilding year and no one really expected to battle for the division, i wouldn’t mind the team taking that risk. Hell, half the starting rotation could get injured and we would still probably be in better shape than the Yankees are.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on Jun 17, 2008 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
time zone
NOTE: Remember, tonight’s game at Arizona begins at 6:40pm PDT. I always forget about that 25-minute time zone they have in Phoenix.
That’s because it’s so freaking warm here, they want to wait for the sun to go down… even with a dome.
re: time zone
um, yeah, I guess my explanation doesn’t make sense… either way, I’ll be at tonight’s game, wearing my AN shirt!
A banged up Wang does indeed
loom large for the Yankee’s. Especially considering that Joba could either excel or collapse. Baseball overall seems headed to a youth market….so they may have trouble “buying” the pieces they want this year. How many blue chip prospects do they have on the farm….and would they be willing to morgtage the future to get what they need? Even the dimmest of GM’s (and they’ve gotten considerably brighter with Bavasi’s departure) realizes that in the post roid era….youth is the way to go.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
My thoughts exactly
I was having this same conversation with one of my regular customers at work yesterday. He is a Yankee fan and when I told him Wang went down with an injury 4-6 weeks etc…....his face turned pale. It turned green and purple when I told him the Yanks don’t have the depth in their system to trade for a younger/quality starter. Anyone that they talked to would want someone big league proven on their roster and they are running thin as it is.
They will get someone, though. It will probably be a someone who is really expensive or approaching free agency.
Or Sydney Ponson
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
Do you think that's how he "disrespected his teammates" -
he ate everyone’s food after a recent game?
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
I know he ate MY lunch
and I didn’t even have one to begin with.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
...and the batboy.
Or else he refused his turn on the slide-n-slide.
I do wonder if he did something by design in hopes of being picked up by a contenda.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
You may be attributing a tad too much strategic savvy
to someone who punched a judge.
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
I didn't know that.
Do you think he might hire out?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Homeric epithet
Judge-punching Sidney
(As opposed, of course, to Kendall and Bradley—each in his own particular way “Judy-punching” ...)
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
Remember Shawn Chacon?
The guy who got the Yankees the division title in 2005?
Pretty unmemorable player, really. It just points up the fact that the Yankees are never out of the running.
You’re chasing shadows trying to compete this season. I haven’t literally sat down and worked this all out, but there are so many potential ways the A’s could miss the playoffs that the cumulative probability is well into the “suck” range.
I’m not suggesting holding a fire sale, but if someone is willing to pay up for one of the A’s soon-to-be-departing pitchers (specifically, Duchscherer, Harden and Foulke) it would be frankly irresponsible not to take it. Particularly when you consider that the team depth means that the blow is likely to be less severe than it would otherwise be.
Harden’s a bit of a special case because he’s so valuable as a postseason player. Having 5 slightly above average guys in the playoffs isn’t that helpful, because one of them will never pitch and a second will barely get a couple of starts. I just can’t bring myself to put any trust in a guy who could just vanish from sight at any moment.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Chasing shadows?
The team IS competing this year. While it’s true there are a multitude of ways that things could go wrong….the same is true for the other 29 teams too. The idea of baseball is to win and to win when you can. Building the farm for the sake of building the farm is putting the cart before the horse, don’t you think? When Beane brought Thomas on board I think he was seizing the moment. The team he put together exceeded his expectations and I think he means to capitilize on it. At least I hope so.
I would tend to view the premature trading of effective players with great disdain. While it’s true that some of our pitching is destined to leave all to soon, we still have what is perceived as effective replacements in the pipeline. “Luck” is a significant factor in most any teams chances, so why not roll the dice while we’re on a roll?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I agree about rolling the dice
so long a we’re in spitting distance of the playoffs. Other teams that were good but not great have stumbled into the playoffs and even into the World Series, so why can’t we?
On the other hand, if you’re implying that picking up Frank Thomas was an indication that Beane changed his mind about “rebuilding” and decided to “go for it” after all, I think that’s dead wrong. Getting Frank Thomas on the cheap was a huge and unexpected bargain, with almost no downside and plenty of upside. It’s the sort of thing you grab regardless of where you think the team is going.
If we get a trade offer that is also a great bargain, I think we take it whether we think we’re in the race or not.
I think whether we trade out our guys depends entirely on what’s offered. If we get a good offer, they go; if we don’t, we’re happy to keep them.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Agree on Thomas, as well as E. Brown and M. Sweeney
Picking up veterans does not mean compromising the rebuilding mode one bit. While rebuilding you are always trying to fill out the roster as competitively as possible, and even seeing if you can be more competitive than you or others thought. Thomas, Brown, and Sweeney were all cheap, right-handed, and were not going to take playing time away from anyone other than possibly Chris Denorfia, and each other.
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
Signing E. Brown and not DFA-ing him
Means compromising common sense. I’d rather see Buck figure it out in the 9 hole.
well in fairness
he may have been gone by now if all the other guys (buck, r sweeney, denorfia) could just stay healthy AND ops over like 650. or hell, just stay healthy.
as soon as that happens, hopefully he’s gone.
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
Exactly - hopefully, E. Brown has only survived
this long because Cust is in the OF due to no DH. After the Florida series, and then one more series because Buck stay down for 10 days, I hope they will call Buck back up and finally send Brown packing.
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
"Luck" is a significant factor in most any teams chances, so why not roll the dice while we’re on a roll?
This is a fallacy. I’m assuming it was just an inapposite metaphor, but if you meant it literally, stay away from the gambling tables in Vegas (for your own sake). Luck does not beget luck.
Look, the A’s have had, by any stretch, a wildly successful first 2.5 months. And they are still behind in both the division and the Wild Card by at least 2 games. The Angels survived their injury-prone period by dint of a lot of fortunate bounces. Now their skill is likely to regress upward as their luck regresses downward. The Rays are a good team, and likely to get better when reinforcements from their farm show up to bolster the weak links in their rotation.
I just don’t see it. There’s no possible way the A’s have a skill advantage over any of the other serious contenders this season, and unlike LAAoAoAoA they don’t have a luck advantage either.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Skill Advantage??
Skill includes pitching—
we’re as good as Tampa. Better than Cleveland. Comparable with Chicago.
Not as good as Boston. Not sure vis-a-vis Angels.
Better than New York so far—Detroit, too—can they catch us?
This is not a cut-and-dry conclusion—and you’re trying to make it one.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Plus, just as the Angels' past "luck" is in the bag,
so is a 38-31 record without the contributions from Buck, Barton, and largely Chavez and Thomas, that the A’s can hope for in the second half. I don’t think the A’s will make the playoffs, but I think they are a contender.
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
i agree
It would almost be worth it just to make the Angels sweat it out.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on Jun 17, 2008 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
ERA+:
Oakland 116
Chicago 130
Angels 103
Sox 112
Rays 108
Yankees 97
I think the A’s ARE better than the Tigers and Indians, so that’s kind of a nonissue here. The point is, the only contender with sucky pitching is the Yankees, and they have a good offense.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
agreed
But we’ve had our best two starting pitchers both miss signficant time—and 3 of our 4 best relievers also miss time. We could be the best on that list—and by a wide margin.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
ERA+ + OPS+
A’s: 214
Tampa: 111
Yankees: 206
I think the Rays and Yankees are better, but really not by much, and when the team has a decent chance they really should go for it.
The A's colors are green and gold.
The reason you don't give up too quickly
is that things change quickly. Young rebuilding teams don’t play .800 ball for two months and no team wins 20 in a row, except…More to the point is the fast-changing landscape of health. If the “next major injury” had been Harden, instead of Wang, big difference. Let’s see how Vlad holds up. And so on. There’s something to be said for hanging around, when you know that a marathon is sometimes won by the last man standing.
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
exactly
the a’s should only trade players who are expendable / replaceable, barring a F’ing A trade that can’t be refused.
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
OK, I have no problem with that
but I consider the pitching staff replaceable, with the debatable exception of Harden.
I would be irked if they traded Jack Cust. Duchscherer? Not so much.
The trades I’m looking for are basically strength-for-weakness trades that have an element of rebuilding in them. Not stripdown deals like “Blanton for 3 A-ball players”, just pitching for young hitting.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
OK
Is there any non-terrible A’s player that you would NOT be “livid” to see traded?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If it had to be one guy?
I’d say Huston Street only because we have a number of guys that can close games.
But…........I still don’t want the A’s to trade Huston because I have been a fan of his since his days as a Texas Longhorn.
and that's a valid opinion
of course more important than any individual’s opinion is trying to determine what an intelligent front office for a low payroll team in rebuilding-while-contending mode might do in this situation…
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
I agree with Street
I don’t think the starting pitching is nearly as expendable as it appears, because no one can adequately replace Harden and there is an almost certain need for Gaudin and likely another starter before the season runs its course.
However, I wouldn’t be shocked if from among Casilla, Devine, Embree, Foulke, and Ziggy, the A’s could replace Street and move everyone else up a notch without compromising their chance to compete. Especially if they were able to upgrade their offense along the way.
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
The fact that I overlooked A. Brown
just serves the underscore the bullpen depth! Or my dementia.
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
i'd say one member of the rotation would be replaceable
two and all of a sudden dinardo/saarloos/braden are dragging down our win %. gio is not looking like he will be ready at any point this year so that leaves gaudin as the only acceptable option. and even that is risky given that we would probably be trading away the only non-questionmark in our rotation, blanton.
even cust might fit that description, but that would require about five improbable things to break our way, thomas and three young OFers all healthy and productive, some other team valuing cust reasonably, so not likely to happen.
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
You know what I'd like to see?
I’d like to see the A’s convert Andrew Brown into a starter if they need another replacement.
Big guy, has starting experience in the minor leagues, has 4 pitches, good fastball but tends to be better with it when he isn’t overthrowing it (and he’d have to dial it back some as a starter to last 6 innings). And he really isn’t needed in the bullpen with all the depth the A’s have there right now.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
He's a pretty average reliever,
none of the other three pitches are particularly good, and he’d lose 2-3 mph as a starter. Average relievers are not a good bet to be good starters. Also, I think the command problems come more from a very busy motion than from overthrowing.
The A's colors are green and gold.
People on AN really need to examine the definitions of "medicore" and "average"
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jun 17, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
okay he's a bit above average and has potential
but 4.58 bb/9 6.86 k/9 this year.
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
i tend to basically agree with this evaluation of brown
but if the a’s see things differently it could be worth a shot i guess.
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
Shrug
I’m basically an Andrew Brown fanboy, so perhaps I’m not being objective here. That said, his career FIP is 3.49, which is pretty solid.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
i think we all are
but i’m not sure getting the walks down would be that simple.
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
A lot of that is a consistently low HR/air
He has been consistent with it so maybe it is real (or somewhat real), but on the other hand the research indicates there’s not a whole lot of skill there, and it’s not like he has movement or something that would explain it.
But yeah, he’s above average.
The A's colors are green and gold.
In terms of being a bit too wild,
but having a good fastball and other pitches to go to, A. Brown is not unlike Gaudin. So the idea of him being an effective starter is reasonable enough.
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
i assume rays are 211 and not 111?
a 003 OPS+ would definitely not be good enough to compete for the wild card…
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
Wildly Successful??
Harden—out
Duke-out
Thomas-out
Chavez-out
Buck- bad-out-bad again
Barton—near bad
Devine-Casilla-Brown-out
Street-good, bad-good again
Point being they are not playing anywhere near optimum—if there were bunch of career years going on here—or if the team hadn’t suffered any major injuries yet, then I’d agree with you.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
forgot a few
Both Sweeneys- out
Ellis—hitting below career marks until recently
Blanton (So shoot me for mentioning him)—worse than career marks
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
There ARE a bunch of career years going on here...
You can’t seriously think that Duke is the second coming of Pedro Martinez, or that Casilla is Mariano Rivera reincarnated. Just like I don’t think Daric Barton is a 650 OPS player, I also don’t think that Greg Smith is a top of the rotation starter.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well, actually, No
Name me one true career year going on. Even Duchscherer is simply doing for 6-7 innings a night what he used to do for 6-7 innings a week. If he does it for over 150 IP, I’ll give you that. Casilla—maybe? But he’s been out a month. My point being that whatever plus seasons are going on are countered by injury and minus seasons—and then some.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
The entire frigging staff is having a career year
You know how many members of the present team have an ERA+ under 100? Two. Soon to be one, as of 3 pm or so today or tomorrow, if I read the signs right.
That’s ridiculous (in a good way).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Again, I demur
Blanton is not having a career year;
Duke might be—if he lasts 150 innings at this level of success;
Harden is simply pitching—at his established level when healthy;
We really don’t know about Smith and Eveland;
Street and Embree and Foulke—nothing special;
Devine, Casilla and Brown—may be outperforming their skill—may not—there’s no track record. All have been hurt;
Gaudin—about what we can expect.
It was a very good pitching staff when assembled—it has performed that way—injuries have happened—but maybe not where and whn we expected. I don’t see this as a bunch of career years—I’m sorry.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Clearly I need to do another one of those articles
where I compare the team performance to ZiPS, except for the pitchers instead of the hitters.
The absence of a major league track record does not mean that a guy with a 1 ERA for half a season is a “true talent” 1 ERA pitcher. The A’s have six pitchers with ing incredible. That’s one and a half Johan fing Santanas appearing out of thin air.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
...and I have no idea how that happened
Let me try that again. The A’s have 6 rookies and a “rookie” starter, Duke, who have combined to throw 295.67 innings this year with an ERA of 2.73. That is frigging incredible. It’s a year and a half worth of Johan Santana.
There’s no way this isn’t a career year for the staff.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
new AN f***ing hates asterisks...
we encourage people not to swear, yet asterisks don’t work.
seriously, can this be fixed? it’s happened to me like five times… clockwerks?
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
No....
Blanton down; Duke up—cancels each other out given the innings. Harden within his range when healthy;
Street down, Gaudin a bit down compared to the past 2 years; Foulke and Embree—neutral.
Smith and Eveland—who knows??
The guts of your argument comes down to 63 very effective innings thrown by Casilla-Brown and Devine—throw in Ziggy, too. Now there are about half that number thrown by the likes of DiNardo, Braden, and Hernandez that were not effective. I don’t view 10% of all the innings thrown by a team—by 3/4 relivers, mind you—- as evidence that this a “career year” for this staff
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Blanton plus Duke:
161.33 innings with a 3.45 ERA.
That’s 5 months’ worth of Dan Haren.
Smith and Eveland—who knows??
Codswallop. Smith’s ZiPS ERA: 5.04 (actual: 3.64). Eveland’s ZiPS ERA: 4.50 (actual: 3.56).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
And ZIPS
knew just how two rookie lefties pitching in a pitchers-friendly park were gonna perform?? If they were 5 year vets, you’d have a point, They’re not. And it;s not as if we haven’t had success before with rookie starting pitchers in the Beane era. In fact if there has been a constant since 1999, it is that they will do very well here—for whatever reason. Mulder is the only one who really struggled his first year—Hudson-Zito-Harden-Blanton-Haren- even Harang—all have done well in their first real stint as a starting pitcher in the bigs.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Codswallop?
Is that, like, balderdash? Either way, I like it.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
Me too
I couldn’t believe it was a real word (too good to be true), but having verified that it is, I am absolutely appropriating it for frequent use in the workplace.
No longer will I spend meetings grimacing through waves of nausea, squinting bemusedly, and (in my mind’s eye) watching my soul wither into a deformed pulpy mass while jargon flies, blackberrys hum, and self-importance chokes oxygen from the air.
Navel-gazing co-worker #1: “These transition silos need to be vertically integrated across functional areas.”
Me: “Codswallop!”
Sycophantic co-worker #2: “This is going to be a really positive team-building exercise.”
Me: “Codswallop!”
Vapid co-worker #3: “We’re going to have to dig into our trenches, storm that hill, and throw the kitchen sink at this issue.
Me (with zest): “Codswallop!”
I think I just found my coping mechanism for the next 2-3 months.
Having worked for a British headmaster
for many years, I am quite familiar with the most excellent exclamation of “Codswollop!”
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
And here I thought it was yet another stat-head acronym I'll never learn.
74, if you’re spending much time in meetings, you’re depriving the world of a whole lot of entertaining text. And maybe a few country warbles.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions
CODSWOLLOP
Coefficient Of Drag on SWings Over Low-Lying Offspeed Pitches
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
Corey Brown scores very high on CODSWALLOP
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Cod's wallop
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
pecota thinks it's a 90-win team
which is reasonable enough if Harden keeps pitching. No reason at all not to go for it if you’re both a 90 win team and right in the thick of the race, in a weaker-than-normal field.
The A's colors are green and gold.
"Luck" is in fact a considerable factor...
how do you explain last years Rockies? How about the world champion Cardinals of not so long ago? Look, these teams played little better than .500 ball all year. They were by no means the best teams in their league, maybe not even in their divisions. However, they were good enough to hang in there with the other teams and then to seize an opportunity when it came their way. A 2 game margin can evaporate in 2 days. If the A’s are still competitive by the trading deadline, the only trades that will sit well with me are the ones designed to give us a chance to win the division. You’ve alluded to the fact that the A’s have had a successful 2.5 months. The A’s are traditionally a second half team. Is there any reason to believe that that are incapable of sustaining their current level of play?
More to the point, has Beane ever given up on a season when the A’s are contending? Why would he start now?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I didn't say luck wasn't a factor
I said it wasn’t predictable. Saying “we might get lucky” is a crappy strategy, because every team might get lucky.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Better luck is just a standard deviation away
(or so Nico always says)
How do the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves the porchlight on?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 17, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
what Nico always says rhymes with that
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
Why do you - and most folks here (including me, a lot of the time)
Think that LAA is clearly the better team, and the A’s would need some sort of lightning stroke to stay in it?
BP (behind the subscriber wall, I’m sure) has three different playoff odds calculators. All three give the A’s from a 46% to a 69% shot at making the playoffs, with two of the models clumping at the high end (and the odds leaning strongly toward winning the division rather than the wild card). The models don’t like the Angels as much despite their 3-game head start, with one projection pegging the Angels’ chances at 69% but the other two at 35% and 38%. These systems are hardly the final word, but they are capturing something that most of us are apparently missing. And even if we have only a 35% shot at the playoffs (well under the lowest of the Monte Carlo projections but well above what most of us actually believe, I’m betting), the organization owes it to the players and the fans and the game’s integrity to give it an honest shot (which does not mean “mortgaging the farm”) and not to say “Look, we really weren’t planning on being in it this year, we’ve already decided that this year doesn’t really count, we don’t want a surprise championship stolen on the fly, we only want championships that are part of that shimmering Golden Age we’re building towards.”
I think the Angels impress us as better than they are because they look good: They put a good starter out every day, their use of speed makes them appear to have the other team on its heels all the time, and winning all those close games, while it has a large component of luck, makes you look super-competent. And of course, they’ve won before – the results in most of the past few years have trained us to think of them as a bit better.
They may well win again, but I think most of us are giving them too much credit as some sort of overwhelming favorite. They have real weaknesses: Vlad may be showing a bit of wear, they’ve got little power, they have an awful lot of at-bats going to some below-par hitters (Anderson, Matthews, Mathis) with nobody at all having a standout season, their team OBP is ahead of only KC and Seattle in the AL, Weaver has been pretty shaky and there’s some thinness in both the rotation and the pen if someone goes down. They’re anything but inevitable. They’re just Angels, not Gods.
Maybe it's because we love systems on AN, and they work theirs very well.
Pitching, speed and small-ball, with an occasional bonus pop (looking at you, farking Macir). It always feels like there’s never an easy out, and pressure is always on the defense when we play them. I hate ‘em, but I have to admire them as a well-run outfit, much the same way others admire the A’s’ approach.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
those odds give a lot of weight to this season's numbers where the A's have been much better...
The A’s can’t really do any better run differential/3rd order wins-wise. The Angels figure to improve on those fronts. Lackey going forward vs. Lackey/Moseley/Adenhardt so far improves their pitching quite a bit. Figgins (who is having a standout year, as he did last year) and Kendrick coming back improves their offense by a lot as their spots were being filled by absolutely abysmal offense (and I think bad defense too).
But still, I agree that we have a perfectly decent chance. They’re not a great team by any means, and Vlad’s struggles are a good sign.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Dude, I was the guy before the season
who was like “Hey, the Angels are pretty mediocre,” and everyone else was saying “No, they’re a 95-win team.”
Before the year I felt they were maybe 5 wins better than the A’s over a full season. That was assuming essentially no production from Harden; with him, the two teams are almost identical.
The A’s are clearly at a disadvantage here; it’s somewhere between 3 and 6 games depending on when Harden next gets hurt. Can a team overcome that with luck in half a season? Yes. Not a good idea to count on it, though.
If the team can help the future while not actually hurting the present very much (which I think trading a starter or a bullpen arm would do), there is little reason to hold off on it just because of the hope of a lucky run to the postseason.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
IYO
The number of posts here seems to imply that the disadvantage might not be as clear as you think.
"My boyfriend drinks ALOT, you know, because he's a rebel."-Reyna
I wasn't expecting that you'd be the one I'd pick on
in making a comment about the pervasive sense on AN that the Angels are just a clearly superior team, because as you say you haven’t been beating that drum. But what am I supposed to make of some of your comments in this thread – most especially that it’s “chasing shadows trying to compete this season” and that “the cumulative probability” of the A’s playoff chances “is well into the ‘suck’ range”?
I certainly agree that the A’s should trade “if the team can help the future while not actually hurting the present very much” (and who doesn’t agree with that?). I’m a little baffled at the idea that trading Harden or Duchscherer wouldn’t “hurt the present very much.” If I’m reading you correctly you don’t think it would hurt the present very much because the present prospects are dim enough anyway that there’s not much to hurt. But let’s take your calculation of the A’s as 3-6 games worse than the Angels. First, you could be wrong! Second, 3-6 games is not very much – easily small enough to be swamped by the volatility of reality. Play the games, let them lose (if they must) on the field, but don’t forgo chances because you’ve calculated in advance that they would come up a few games short.
No, you're not reading me correctly
I don’t think it would hurt the present very much because a. trading them would quite possibly upgrade one of the A’s other positions, eg if they picked up Andy LaRoche to play some 3rd and some left, and b. they have depth in the rotation and especially in the bullpen.
Trading present depth for future depth is a form of acknowledging that the team is going to have to get lucky to compete this year, but hopefully won’t have to in future years. I don’t believe that it would rule out competing this year if the team were to get lucky and avoid a major run of injuries.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Hu's sheer, utter awfulness with the bat this year
has to raise serious concerns at this point. He’s been worse than Travis Buck. He’s been worse than Brian Bocock.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
OK, that's reasonable
I still don’t think I’d be likely to trade Harden or Duchscherer. I’d be much quicker to trade Blanton, even though he’s under team control one year longer than the other two. I don’t want to trade Harden because he’s filet mignon whereas Blanton is a nourishing bowl of porridge (and you need that filet in the playoffs) and Duke because… well, I can’t shake the feeling that Duke can sustain quite a high level of performance.
I may just be intellectualizing my fan preferences here. I love watching Harden and Duchscherer pitch, not so eager to see Blanton.
I don't think LaRoche is who we'd want
I’d much prefer Corey Hart or Kelly Johnson if we’re trading Blanton. They’re both 26 and have much more MLB success.
Neither of them play third.
I mean, with Cargo, Sweeney, Buck, Cust, possibly Cunningham next season, Denorfia hanging around, not to mention guys who need to put up or shut up like Herrera, Putnam, Robnett, etc, do we really need to add another outfielder?
One that's really good and getting better wouldn't hurt
And that’s Corey Hart. Just assuming the A’s can get him (I think the Brewers would have to be pretty high to give him up), he could play a decent CF where his power would be considered plus.
That would push Gonzo to RF, where his bat and arm are still pluses.
That leaves LF to either Buck or Sweeney Jr.—where Buck really belongs with his arm, and where Sweeney’s D would be considered plus. Thomas would be allowed to dip his toe in the FA waters at the end of the season, since Hart provides good RH power. And that puts Cust at DH, at least next year.
Cunningham will get more time for seasoning. Denorfia? Meh. Herrera has done nothing to warrant a call-up. Putnam and Robnett seem like nice guys.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
Caveat
I should say that Carlos Gonzalez’s bat is projected to be a plus corner bat, should everything go well and should he find the desire to play to his full potential (one of the few knocks on his game).
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
The advantage of LaRoche
is that he is someone who can play both an infield AND an outfield position where the A’s have some degree of need… and it’s precisely the lack of “MLB success” that would make LaRoche relatively easier to acquire.
I have to confess, I really don’t understand the Corey Hart fetish around here. He’s basically Nick Swisher with a slightly different skill-set. Do people think that he would for some reason be cheaper to acquire than Swisher was? And if the A’s wanted that kind of player, wouldn’t it have made more sense to just, you know, not trade Swisher?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I think his skill set fits better with this team than Swisher's did
Better CF play, higher average without sacrificing too much power. I think that fits well for the scenario described above.
I agree, however, that the he would not come cheaply, to the point where I don’t see it even being a possibility.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
Better CF play?
Do you have anything that actually supports this assertion?
My understanding is that Swisher is a significantly better defensive outfielder than Hart is.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Just my BP handbook
Which (though I must admit is not right beside me at the moment) I believe stated in Corey Hart’s profile that he played a decent everyday CF. Swisher was considered best left as an emergency CF, at least when he was here.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
Hart is a good power-speed combo
for HRs/slugging and stolen bases. The only reason he might be acquirable is that he’s having a down year. The fetish is probably that he’s right-handed, good now, and not being paid millions and millions of dollars.
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
And, theoretically, still improving
He’s only 26.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
Just re-checked the BP
I may have overstated the case, as Hart is only 3 runs better than Swish in CF. BP did make a point to say that Hart’s performance in CF suggests that he might be able to handle it on a full-time basis.
I’ve used their defensive metric before and some have roundly booed it, but I pretty much take those guys’ word as gospel. Hence, my take.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
Perhaps I'm reading tea leaves overmuch here
but this does not strike me as a ringing endorsement of his defensive prowess.
The A’s already have like 5 guys who are in that same “might be able to handle it on a full-time basis” camp. Sweeney… Denorfia… Gonzalez… Cunningham… heck, even Travis Buck… they’re all plus corner OFs who are likely to be long-term defensive minuses at CF.
I’d rather just pick up a corner outfielder who hits like one, eg Burrell (as a free agent) or LaRoche (as a trade target). There’s no reason to pay for the extra defense if the team isn’t going to put it to use.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I agree with you...
... insofar as LaRoche is younger than Hart and would probably come cheaper since the Dodgers seem to hate the kid’s guts.
I only hesitate in that LaRoche’s projection doesn’t look like that of a prototypical power hitter in the corner OF. OTOH, maybe I’m just seeing that through the prism of the inflated numbers of the PED era.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
Also, whereas R. Sweeney's CF defense
made me nervous, Gonzalez’ CF defense (despite the rather tepid reviews from scouts) looks like he could be a plus-defender there – meaning we would not need to look further for a CFer for the next several years.
I say leave Gonzalez in CF, where he will have a truly plus bat, and find one really good corner OFer who does the position justice offensively. R. Sweeney and Buck can duke it out with others (eventually Cunningham) for the final spot and 4th OFer spot.
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
Man, I hope that Sweeney develops that power
As may be indicated by my sigline.
I have felt that the missing ingredient lo these past few seasons has been a true power bat in a corner spot. Swish showed flashes with that 30+ homer year, but that may prove to be an outlier anyway. Seems like there’s a lot Buck-like doubles-hitters in this system, at least at the higher levels.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
I hope so too,
but I wouldn’t count on it. Seems like he’s more likely to develop into a 15 HR guy than a 25 HR guy. But he’s already surprised me once in his development so maybe he can surprise me again.
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
ZIPS projected him at a .774 OPS
or, essentially, a league-average bat for a corner outfielder.
Not great, but he’s only 24, so he ought to theoretically still be improving.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If you mean Gonzalez, he's 22
Walks may be an issue, but the way the ball jumps off his bat and given his overall athletic ability, I think he’ll hit well above average in the bigs. Billy targeted him for a reason. Or were you referring to someone else?
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
Indent level
indicates which post someone is replying to.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
LaRoche
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Luck fallacy
“Luck” is a significant factor in most any teams chances, so why not roll the dice while we’re on a roll?
Paul, I read this differently from how you did. I agree with you that “luck begets luck” is a fallacy, but the way I read this sentence doesn’t rely on that fallacy.
Alox can say for himself what he really meant, if he likes, but what I assumed he meant was: yes, we know it’s a crap shoot, but now that we’re that much closer to the goal, let’s go ahead and take the gamble. That doesn’t rely on believing luck will beget more luck.
Imagine a dice game. You get to roll a pair of dice 10 times. Total up the pips on every roll. If at the end of 10 rolls your total is 90 or more you win. At the start of the game you know the odds are against you: on average you’re going to finish with a total of 70. If there is a cost to play and the prize for winning isn’t high enough, it’s not worth paying to play.
But suppose you’re four rolls into the game, and your total stands at 40. The odds are still against you - on average you’ll get another 42 in the next six rolls and you still lose - but they aren’t stacked against you as bad as they were at the beginning of the game. Depending on the size of the prize and the cost to continue playing, you might well say, “Heck, it doesn’t look quite so bad now, and I’m in a mood to gamble, so let’s go for it.”
This does not mean that you believe your good luck on the first four rolls is an predicter of more luck to come. It’s just a recognition that your position vis-a-vis the game has improved since you started.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Alright
Since I believe that the “bet” here is more or less even-odds in terms of prize:cost ratio, and that there will be a better bet available tomorrow (actually next season), I’m keeping my money out of the center of the table. Even though this particular bet is closer to even odds than it was at the start of the bet.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I haven't been following this thread completely, but
unlike most gambling scenarios where you’re looking at actual concrete statistical odds, in baseball, it’s not nearly the same. So, one could theorize that the “luck” that’s leading towards better play is more relative to stats unknown that it is to actually being lucky. If that’s the case, odds are that you might actually continue to be “good” instead of lucky. Granted that might be a bit glass half full in the views of what we’ve done, but the argument could be made.
Alternatively, you could look and say we were lucky, but based on the new position, our expected play could still lead us to the playoffs from here on out (but that’s probably more of stretch).
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
Whether it's a good bet
depends on the cost and the payout. I intentionally left those out because my only purpose here was to communicate the general concept that alox’s view does not necessarily imply a belief that luck begets more luck—not to weigh in on whether the current bet in front of the Oakland A’s is a good or a bad one.
I would add, however, that there are enough subjective factors here that even if we completely agree on all the facts (realistic assessment of our chances, etc), we might still disagree on whether we should go for it, simply based on personal valuation of the payoff and costs (eg, do you count just total wins? total winning seasons? total playoff appearances? does now weigh more heavily than later?). There is no uniform measure of what counts as “winning” the bet.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I also think that trading your best starter,
halfway through a season while you’re in the thick of the hunt, would be psychological-morale suicide.
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
You mean like if you got back
a good right-handed hitter and an excellent therapist?
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
Very well put.
Thank you! That about sums up what I was trying to say.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I Understand Your View, But Choose to Disagree
Here are some shadows:
1. A Seattle Mariner team expected to beat out the A’s by most experts languishes 20 games under .500 and has fired their GM;
2. Two AL Central teams picked by many to win the division and by some to win the pennant are still under .500—6 games or more behind the A’s—with serious pitching woes;
3. An Angel team still thought of by 95% of the so-called “experts” as the AL team most likely to win its division stands only 3 games ahead of the A’s—with a significantly worse run differential, and a dozen games remaining to play against us.
4. The AL East contenders are the defending world champs—3 games ahead of us in the standings but not better in run differential; the rich kids, who are closing in on us but have some serious pitching problems; and the new kids, who have never been through a pennant race.
My point being—you gotta look at opportunity here, not just risk. We’ll know better in a month, but if we hit the AS break and the A”s are no worse and perhaps better off than they are now re: playoffs, Beane would be a fool not to go for it. Which may mean selling and buying, but that’s OK.
Regarding point #1
The talking air-heads at ESPN may have been high on the Mariners but most of the analysts with any real credibility identified the M’s as a team that would need to catch a few breaks just to finish at .500.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
This is a small but important point
An Angel team still thought of by 95% of the so-called "experts" as the AL team most likely to win its division stands only 3 games ahead of the A’s—with a significantly worse run differential, and a dozen games remaining to play against us.
If you believe the run differential argument as implying that the Angels are a worse team than the A’s (I don’t, really; they had a lot of injuries in the early going—minus Escobar I feel the two teams are basically similar skill with a slight edge to L.A.) then the number of head-to-head meetings is a bad thing, not a good thing. The best way for an underdog to beat out a favorite is through dominating a head-to-head series, because a lucky bounce gains you two games, not just one. Remember the series split where the A’s had like a +13 run differential?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If the Angels are better, though, then in a weird way
it benefits the A’s to have a lot of head-to-head games – because in a small sample, the worse team is more likely to win more than they “should”. Over 100 games, maybe the Angels would win 60 head-to-head but in that scenario, over 12 games it’s perfectly possible the A’s could win 7.
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
Yes, that's the flip side of the coin
Personally, since I think the teams are basically equal, I see the number of head-to-heads as pretty irrelevant.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Listen.. don't split hairs
I am saying—and i am in the group that thinks the Angels record is more skill than luck—that given the run differential the standings could just as easily be reversed. And that 12 games agaisnt this team offers the team in second—us—ample chance to eliminate the deficit. A’s win 8 of 12—and play even-steven vs. everyone else, we win the division.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
How about the A's win 7 of 12,
play even-steven vs. everyone else, and we sign Ricardo Rincon to give up a crippling double to Darin Erstad?
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
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Got to get rid of the ghosts Nico—don’t even mention them.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
well, we still have Blanton to give up a grand slam to Alfredo Amezaga
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
Here's how I see it
40% of the time—knock on wood—we have one of the top 10 starting pitchers in the AL giving us a very good chance to win; the other 60% of the time—collectively—we have close to league average starters—given us a decent chance to win;
Barring significant reoccurrence of injuries we have a deep, varied and productive bullpen to follow those starters;
We are solid defensively up the middle, strong at 3rd, surprisingly good at first, and able to make up for corner outfield deficiencies in the late innings;
We have young hitters in the process of learning their craft and a few veterans who can hit. This offense may never be running on all cylinders this season, but if and when it does, it’s at least league average and probably better.
That combination screams out “CONTENDER!!” to me—until events or facts get in the way of that view.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
And oh by the way
for the first time in all three of Baseball Prospectus’ Playoff Odds metrics—their one based solely on this year, the PECOTA version, and the ELO version, A’s rank in top 4 in AL in terms of chances of making the postseason.
by madmongoose on Jun 17, 2008 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't start printing playoff tickets in June
The 1978 A’s were in first place on July 5th but it was obvious they weren’t real playoff contenders. They went on to finish 69-93. I think the A’s early success this year isn’t a total mirage as was in 1978 but the current group isn’t a championship caliber team. If a deal that advances the long-term goals of the team comes along now, I think Beane should pull the trigger.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
So, you're actually Tuesday Hard-bitten Pragmatist?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think I ever saw Rick Tuesday play.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
You won't let me hang a name on you?
Good-bye, then.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Still, I'm gonna miss you.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
There's a difference between being a
“playoff team” and “a playoff contender” – no one is saying the A’s WILL or SHOULD make the playoffs, just that they have enough of a shot to consider themselves in contention for a playoff spot. We’ll see if that’s still true in a month.
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
Fine
In my book, you don’t pass on a great oppurtunuity for a shot in the dark.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
I hope "CS+" means the came is on Comcast digital
I don’t want a radio night after an off day, I hate that, but dern it all, why the fark doesn’t the world contain a decipherable television schedule in my little blackout heaven of San Jose? Creases me.
I'm just thankful
that we can have this discussion at all.
The other option is that the A’s would be 10 games under .500, and the only discussion would be who we’re trading, and what prospects Beane could get in return.
I have said all along that this year’s team is not a playoff team. But it’s increasingly likely that the A’s can hang around as a contender, which is more than I expected and kind of a nice surprise.
Isn't this mostly premature e-speculation?
38-count’em-games before the trading deadline, thirteen within the division, six of those with the Angels, and what—6 or 7 Harden starts. An awful lot of history to be written before we’d have to pull any triggers. Major source of risk is Harden’s health over those starts.
What I don’t see is much of any scenario in which we’d be buyers at the deadline, unless Dale regresses and there’s a Giambi-type available.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
has anyone else noticed that Buck hasn't played since....
he got sent down? I wonder if it’s a mental break or he’s injured.
"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane
by athleticsBB4life on Jun 17, 2008 10:54 AM PDT reply actions
He's going to reinvent himself into a right handed power pitcher
Ala Rick Ankiel, but not.
by methodrampage on Jun 17, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Bizarro Ankiel
This nerd moment brought to you by the NFL (Nerd Federation of Luthorans)
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
I noticed that when I took my son to the game on Sunday, to watch Kirk throw BP. I thought they
only had 3 days to report, or is it 10?
by theblackpearl on Jun 17, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
mental break?
Buck to 60-day DL with a fractured ego?
If we can’t fix the stupid, can we at least beat them senseless? @('.')@
Unless he injured himself punching a wall after being sent down,
it would be thoroughly un-kosher (and cause for a CBA grievance) if he was injured when the team sent him down.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The Sac Bee
said that he was reporting today and would be in the lineup tonight. He prob just needed a day or two to deal with some stuff and report.
Bring back Hammer.
by OaktownPower on Jun 17, 2008 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Forst - future GM in Seattle?
Rosenthal thinks it’s a possibility
"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane
by athleticsBB4life on Jun 17, 2008 11:01 AM PDT reply actions
The crew aboard the USS Mariner are lobbying hard for Chris Antonetti.
Root for the Giants? Not even if they're playing al-Qaeda!
let's hope M's ownership is not smart enough to pick either guy
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
Buster Olney called Antonetti the "Jay Bruce of GM prospects"
I must profess my ignorance. Can anyone tell me why?
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
Not mentioning DePo throws the rest of his predictions in doubt.
I’m also no fan of Cashman. How good do you have to be to write checks with Other People’s Money? Also two careers to be considered in Forst’s case (dk about that factor with any of the others).
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Those are hardly predictions
He’s speculating, prefacing all this comments on possible hires with perhaps.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Not mentioning DePo throws the rest of his speculations in doubt.
Perhaps.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
We, here on AN, as A's fans, may have higher regard for Depo, than the rest of
the baseball community. I don’t know if that is true, but if it is, that may be why he isn’t mentioned.
by theblackpearl on Jun 17, 2008 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I gather that he is viewed as being obstreporous
Think me, except a GM.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Don't they have antibiotics for that?
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
Would that the afflictions of youth were that easily remedied.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Letting David Forst be hired by Seattle
would be almost as stupid as letting Trent Johnson be hired by LSU.
So, let’s hope Lew Wolff is smarter than Bob Bowlsby.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Or about 17 times worse.
Is Stanford even scheduled to play LSU outside of tournament possibilities?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Wolfe and Beane both have proven themselves
gentlemen, I rather doubt that they would hold Forst to contract obligations if has the chance to become a GM. I would momentarily hate them both for their decency if this proves to be the case.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I don't mean "let" in that sense
I mean, pay him to stay with Oakland.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I like your idea better.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I consider both Forst and DePo unlikely.
I don’t think the Mariners ownership would want DePo, and I don’t think Forst would want the Mariners.
Personally I’m rooting for Kim Ng, though I don’t consider that very likely either.
I suppose if your ambition is to be an MLB GM, then you’re like the drafted players who say, “I’m just happy to be in the big leagues at all, and I don’t care which team,” but honestly, as jobs go, I think taking over the Mariners is an awful one. The team is a mess, and it’ll get worse before it gets better. The few good players know it’s a sinking ship and they want out. I don’t see anyone persuading Felix to stay any longer than he’s already committed to, so the new GM will be tagged with “losing” him. It’s going to take years of digging out of the hole Bavasi made. I suppose the one consolation is that the city is used to losing, so they won’t be too impatient.
I’ll say this, though. Whoever does take over needs to get in there in time to go all-out fire sale before the trade deadline. Any player worth having who is older than 25 should be on the table. I’m not sure how much longer they control Felix. I think because he was acquired young he’s year to year now. If so, he should be on the table too.
That assumes that ownership is willing to tolerate a fire sale, which I don’t think they are, which I think is exactly the problem. It goes deeper than Bavasi.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
So long as Bill Bavasi was the Mariners’ general manager, Seattle would have had a difficult time taking the next necessary step forward toward rebuilding. Bavasi’s job was on the line and his job status was based on the team’s win-loss record. So it would’ve been all but impossible for him to call general managers with other teams to ask them for their best offers for Erik Bedard, Adrian Beltre, et al.
But Bavasi is now gone and the Mariners, with 2008 a lost year, can start to move forward. It will be left to interim GM Lee Pelekoudas to consider those trades for the rest of the summer, and perhaps into next year.
They’re already looking to re-trade Bedard.
I mean, wow. There must have been dumber moves in recent history, but I’m having trouble thinking of any off-hand.
I have to say, I’m not of the opinion that they need a fire sale. Their farm system is actually quite good. They just need to not be utter imbeciles about using it. Get the dead wood out of the way by releasing Vidro and Sexson and benching Johjima. Let Balentien and Clement play every day. Turn Morrow back into a starter, and release Batista and Washburn. Turn Ibanez into the DH and fill the outfield out with prospects. Sign Dan Johnson to play first base.
A couple of years down the line, with some decent drafts, and you’ve got a good team.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I'm not saying it was a SMART move, but
I don’t think the Bedard trade was all-time dumb. Other recent Mariners moves I think were dumber.
I do think it was smart to trade Adam Jones. Yes, he’s teh awesome, but his value is as a CF. As long as Ichiro is on the team, either Jones or Ichiro is being used for less than full value. When a player is worth more to others than he is to you, it makes sense to trade him. You might debate keeping Ichiro, but there were good reasons for that and it’s done now anyway, so that means trade Jones. (Playing Ichiro in RF in order to put Bloomquist in CF, on the other hand, is bafflingly stupid. I have no idea what’s up with that.)
I don’t think Bedard is that bad. He’s getting a ton of backlash now because they hyped him like he was going to be the messiah who saves the team, which was never realistic. It was a trade for a pretty decent pitcher, and he hasn’t fallen too much short of that. It’s not Bedard’s fault that the team sucks.
I see two mistakes here. One is trading for the present instead of the future, but that’s a mistake a lot of GMs have trouble avoiding. It also looks like in this case it was compounded by Bavasi being in a position where he felt he was in a position where he needed to win now, for the sake of his own job. So yeah, that’s bad, but I don’t think it’s that uncommon. Once you assume you’re trading for now, giving up Jones for the best pitcher you can get makes sense.
The second mistake is that they overpaid. Jones for Bedard is reasonable as a starting point. I think the M’s overpaid in terms of other guys thrown in, but I don’t think they overpaid as grossly as in some other trades.
In sum: bad trade, but not that bad. Soriano for Ho Ram was stupider.
—
Your plan looks pretty good to me. Maybe I overstated when I said “fire sale”. But I’d put Beltre, Lopez, Betancourt, and Putz all on the table. Not that you have to trade them all (which would be a bad bargaining position, of course), but see what sort of interest is out there.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Of note:
THT has the A’s up to first in the AL in defense, continuing to be led by a stellar IF.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Meaning that if our pitchers seem to be overachieving, a lot of it is defense
The A's colors are green and gold.
wang injury = trade opportunity
they need pitching if they want to stay competitive (and its nyc, they have to stay competitive). blanton is one of the best pitchers on the market, plus they can resign him at a reasonable price. they want harden, but i bet beane is asking the farm for rich, and when everyone passes, he offers blanton instead. good tactic.
Here I thought we were generally in favor of three-ways around here.
At least in theory.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
three ways
can be very good if it is the right combination of ‘players’.
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on Jun 17, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Humans?
I’m out.
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
Ewe!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jun 17, 2008 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions
'K, I'm back in
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
NICE
"Put some ice on it. After that, there's nothing a few beers won't take care of. " -Pink
by OrlandoAsFan on Jun 18, 2008 6:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Of course, it adds nothing to the discussion...
if everyone thinks the Angels are bound to get better offensively because they’re getting some injured players back, but…
Bottom 5 2008 AL Offenses, by VORP
Team, EqA, VORP
Seattle Mariners, .247, 20.2
Kansas City Royals, .244, 20.9
Oakland Athletics, .256, 37.2
Los Angeles Angels, .248, 37.2
Toronto Blue Jays, .255, 39.0
Of course, the A’s will be getting some players back, too. So, our offense could improve, as well.
Also, PT seems to think Halo pitching is immune from injuries. Lackey or Santana could just as easily end up on the DL during the second half as Harden or Duke or Wang.
Foolsh, the most insane regular poster on AN since oaktoon left - salb
well now
I don’t think we need to completely ignore past issues. Anyone can get injured for the first time (see, Posada, J.) but Harden has a track record
No kidding - Harden and Duke
have a history of getting injured more years than not, and Wang will definitely be on the DL during the second half, while Lackey was healthy for six years before getting injured for the very first time and E. Santana has never been hurt.
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
What are you trying to say?
Lackey and Santana are due for injuries while Harden and Duke are due for health.
Great point, statistics don’t lie.
Other fun facts to consider...
Fun Fact #1: The 57-run differential advantage the A’s have over the Angels is not due, in most part, to our offense outscoring the Halos (even though it has by 9 runs, having played one fewer game than they). It is because our pitching gives up fewer runs than their pitching does. Everyone seems to concede that their pitching is better, but…
The A’s starters have given up 27 fewer runs than the Angels’ starters; and
The A’s bullpen has given up 21 fewer runs than the Halos’ pen.
Maybe our pitching is overperforming… maybe not. Maybe the Angels will go out and improve their pitching before the trade deadline. Probably not… they’re pretty good now.
Fun Fact #2: The A’s are one of three teams in the AL (and, one of only 5 teams in MLB with a winning road record. Unfortunately, the Angels have a better road record (so far). To what can this be attributed? Well, playing the Giants at Phone Booth Park certainly didn’t hurt, but perhaps it is because in this era of amphetamine testing, the A’s youth allows them to hold up better than older, more veteran teams (who are accustomed to popping greenies to help them perform and win on the road.)
Fun Fact #3: Angels X-W-L record as of today: 35-36. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist posting that those losers should be a sub-.500 team right now.)
Foolsh, the most insane regular poster on AN since oaktoon left - salb
Are we on ESPN?
No? So, why are we talking about the Yankees?
Because with their personnel and their ability to make mid-season acquisitions...
... they represent the most likely threat to the A’s in a wild card chase.
President and CEO of the Ryan Sweeney Apologists Consortium
The Rays have better personnel and better ability than the Yankees and are ahead of the A's though...
... and it’s June. Let’s just win games.
For what it's worth (and not much)
I think there are two teams better than the A’s right now (in the AL) ... Boston and the Angels. The Rays and Yankees are certainly right there, but they are extremely flawed as well.
IOW, the A’s were in contention in April, they’re in contention now, and they’ll be in contention the whole way. If you’re in contention, then you have to go for it. Let next year worry about itself. YOU PLAY TO WIN NOW!!
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Especially if contention doesn't mean
giving something up, it just means not giving something up.
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
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
