A's Interested in Adrian Beltre? WTF?!?

by Taj Adib on Jul 1, 2008 4:57 PM PDT

When reading the latest column from the usually very well-informed Ken Rosenthal, I was struck when Kenny mentioned that, "The A's like (Adrian) Beltre." It was a quick quip, and nothing of real substance, but it got me thinking. Beltre has always hit the A's really well and as Rosenthal mentions, he brings defense and (right-handed) power. But he also points out that Beltre has a sub-.330 career on base percentage...on top of the fact that he's owed what's left of his $12 million 2008 salary as well as another $12 million for next season AND plays the same position as the current highest-paid Athletic, Eric Chavez.

More than anything, this quip was probably based on the fact that, yeah, the A's are always in need of right-handed power and probably like the fact that Beltre could bring that along with strong defense at third. Regardless, I don't think Beltre is a good fit for the A's, and I doubt Beane is actively pursuing him...however, this quip might indicate that Beane IS in fact actively looking for a 3rd-baseman type. Chavez's temperamental health and Hannahan's offensive limitations have left the team oftentimes punch-less from the hot corner. As of now, we're all focused on upgrading the offense via a corner outfield bat (Holliday, Bay, Nady) but what about adding a 3rd-baseman type to help cover the corner when Chavez needs rest while putting Hannahan back into a utility role?

To that end, I think the A's should pursue Casey Blake. The Indians are fading fast and as soon as they decide to trade C.C., they will likely auction-off their other veterans. Blake is in his last season under club control and will be a free agent after the season. He comes with a modest 2008 salary of $3,500,000 (the remainder of his total 2008 contract), could probably be had for a low-level prospect and most importantly bats right-handed, has solid stats against lefties (.278 BA and .768 OPS against) and is very versatile defensively - he's played 17 games at 1st, 69 at 3rd and even one at shortstop. He also played 100 games in right field for the Tribe between 2006 and 2007. Blake currently sports a .280/.353/.433 overall batting line with 7 homers and 46 RBIs (which, at .786 OPS would be second on the A's active roster behind Cust).

Having Blake would enable the A's to DH Chavez often and let him take his time getting back to 100% for field duty. He could also slide over and play 1st when the A's face a tough lefty, giving Barton a break (or soften his demotion to Sacramento). If in fact the A's get 100-percent healthy (doubtful) he could even be sent to the outfield to play against lefties if/when Rajai Davis or Emil Brown are DFA'd.

Granted, Blake is not a masher. He won't be an impact bat the way Holliday, Nady or Bay would be. However, he's a solid, veteran righty bat that is highly flexible and might be able to add just enough offense to the club to help turn all of the inevitable 2-1 and 3-0 inter-division games into victories for the young A's, and he will likely come cheaply. I'm thinking Jay Payton circa-2005 here. Whaddya guys think?

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Blake's OK.

But for perspective, he usually batted ninth for the Indians last year. That’s indicative of the gap between a good offense and the A’s offense. He’d hit fifth on this team.

So it goes.

by jeepers on Jul 1, 2008 5:10 PM PDT 0 recs

Not really sure why Seattle's desperate to move him

You’d think getting rid of Vidro, Sexson, and Washburn would be a much higher priority.

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on Jul 1, 2008 5:13 PM PDT 0 recs

Those guys are outright release material

as is Miguel Batista, for that matter. If they’re serious about rebuilding, they need to move players with value, like Beltre, not dreck with awful contracts.

With that said, the A’s have Chavez, which presents a problem. There clearly isn’t room on the field for both of them. Short of a repeat of the Rolen-Glaus trade (how weird would it be if TWO pairs of veteran third basemen got swapped in the space of a year?) I can’t see how this would work. I also can’t see the A’s trading good players to a division rival to help out their rebuilding process. I understand the thinking here, which is that the team might be able to get him on the cheap relative to his true value as a player (because his defense is undervalued by Seattle), but I don’t see how it works out in practice.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 1, 2008 5:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

OK, my brilliant solution for this:

Arrange a 3-way deal, but not your normal 3-way deal. Instead, Oakland sends a minor prospect, I dunno, say Jermaine Mitchell to Seattle. Team #3, let’s say Milwaukee, sends a better prospect, say Mat Gamel. The A’s get Beltre for the rest of THIS season, and Team #3 gets Beltre for NEXT season.

Crazy like a fox.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 1, 2008 5:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yay, a time share!!!!!

Randi had one of those, but I think it was near a toxic waste site because everyone in her family that drank the water has lost all their hair. Which in Peri’s case was probably a blessing in disguise.

-Cindi

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

by Nico on Jul 1, 2008 6:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

Maybe they're desperate...

because they’ve gauged the trade values of Beltre, Sexson, Vidro and Washburn and realized that only Beltre could net anything of value.

by Taj Adib on Jul 1, 2008 5:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

Blake is interesting idea

I’d wait till Big Hurt and Good Sweeney come back. If they are both back and hitting, and if Chavez continues to get healthier, (as much as those hopes go against A’s conventional wisdom), then we won’t need Blake.

by asfansince1989 on Jul 1, 2008 5:19 PM PDT 0 recs

If we're going for a 3b

I’d just as soon go after one of the top minor league sluggers of today in Dallas MacPherson and hope for Cust-type production.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Jul 1, 2008 5:25 PM PDT 0 recs

Well, the thing with Blake is that he's not JUST a 3rd baseman.

He’s no defensive whiz or a Chone Figgins, but he CAN play an adequate 1st base and a passable outfield cornerspot; he’s been fairly healthy for the past few years (unlike Dallas), bats right-handed (unlike Dallas) and has been putting up respectable offensive numbers against major league pitching (unlike Dallas).

Basically, what I’m stressing here is that Blake wouldn’t just be a band-aid for 3rd base. He’d be a valuable utility guy that could play 2/3 different positions based on the need of the club while providing at least average offense and a righty bat in the process.

by Taj Adib on Jul 1, 2008 5:36 PM PDT up 0 recs

and the occassional pop

every once in a while i see a monster home run by Blake on the highlight reels..

witty remark

by dtownmbrown on Jul 1, 2008 6:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

My issue with Blake is that I don't think

the A’s should go “middle ground” – either keep the chips they have, or upgrade meaningfully with a “Jermaine Dye 2001” or even “Ray Durham 2002” type acquisition. I can understand adding a Holliday or Bay if the right trade is there, but to marginally improve with someone like Blake? Just seems like spinning wheels to me.

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

by Nico on Jul 1, 2008 6:15 PM PDT 0 recs

I understand that line of thinking.

But I just think that the market for a true impact bat will prove to be cost-prohibitive. There’s no way that the Rockies will trade Holliday or the Pirates will trade Bay or even Nady for middling prospects (Cliff Pennington, Dallas Braden, Dan Meyer, Javi Herrara, i.e., guys that the A’s could afford to loose). They’d likely insist on one top-10 prospect in any deal, which means Beane would have to give up one of Cahill, Anderson, Doolittle, Cunningham, Cargon, Gio, Italiano, etcetera, which are all untouchables in my opinion. Neither of those teams would likely be interested in the shell of Blanton or even Gaudin. So, knowing that Harden and Duchscherer could break down at any time, why would Beane take the risk, go all-in and deal any of his real trade chips and pieces of the organization’s future for a high-priced bat that will be only be here for 1.5 seasons anyways?

My thinking is that the A’s offense is terrible. Beane has to know this. Instead of trying to whole-heartedly address this deficiency by trading for a big name with a big-money/prospect commitment, why wouldn’t he just look for a budget acquisition that is at least an average hitter (since average is a whole lot better than most of the A’s lineup) who
a. will not require much of a prospect package in a trade
b. is not signed to big money this year and is not signed at all beyond this year
c. can fill in multiple defensive positions
d. could incrementally improve the offense in an area of need and a time of the need while better bats (Thomas/Sweeney/Chavez) get healthy and younger bats (everyone else) get going.

To me, it’s all about price and versatility. The A’s will likely continue to live and die with their pitching and defense, but even with just a little boost at such a little cost to do a world of good for the lineup. Shannon Stewart was this way last year and JayPAy was that way in 2005. Sure, they weren’t/aren’t great hitters, but they provided just enough extra pop to help the A’s win a few close games, and they did it on the cheap and it worked fairly well…

by Taj Adib on Jul 1, 2008 6:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

re

Why would the Indians essentially give away Blake? I’d like him if it only took Braden or Pennington too (or both), but I don’t think that’s realistic.

I do like the McPherson idea. He probably can be had very cheap, possibly for cash even. He’s playing in Albuquerque, but he does already have 28 home runs.

And, y’know, Bonds is the easiest, surest, and cheapest answer (and best draw). That would be great.

by 31Boots on Jul 1, 2008 9:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

Indians would essentially give away Blake because...

what’s their alternative? A 34-year old, essentially utility guy making $3.5 million+ for the rest of the year that will be a free agent at the end of season? They aren’t going to offer him arbitration at the end of the year because he’d probably accept and cost them a roster spot + more than $6 million in salary. So draft pick compensation is out of the question.

Blake’s status is like Scutaro’s was with us this past off-season. He was nice to have around as a utility guy on a contending team, but way overpriced and too old to be a nice piece on a rebuilding team. Beane went out and got what he could for Scutaro (who is younger and cheaper than Blake and can play the up-the-middle positions) and all he could get were two non-prospects out of a weak farm system. Shapiro will be in the same position at the deadline, and Pennington and/or Braden is a way better haul than what Beane got for Scutaro.

by Taj Adib on Jul 1, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

re

It’s underselling to call Blake a utility guy, at least in a pejorative sense. He’s had over 600 PA in four of the last five years (and on pace this year.) He’s a starter who happens to be able to play many positions. Relatively speaking, Scutaro and Blake aren’t terribly comparable. Blake is much much better. He’s not great, but he’s an above average hitter (slightly), who’s a lock for 50-60 xbh every season (he’s about as consistent as a player can get also.)

Also don’t think arbitration is out of the question, the exact opposite in fact. The Indians are a poor offensive team, and even a slightly above average hitter is important to them. They also don’t have anybody in the pipe to replace Blake, at least next year. And it wouldn’t be easy or cheap to acquire someone from outside the organization. $6 million really isn’t a big deal these days, and it’s definitely less than they’d have to pay for the one third baseman coming on the market who could replace Blake’s production, Joe Crede. Probably, offer and acceptance is about the best case scenario for the Indians. Their problem is that he’ll probably want two or three years. Offer and acceptance is certainly the cheapest option, in resources and/or cash, and they’d have a solid player to run out there.

IDK, bet you a quarter that they don’t trade him unless they get a decent prospect(s) in return. And another quarter that he gets offered abry if they don’t deal him (hey, if they don’t want him back, they may well make an agreement with him to offer and have him decline; that’s common enough.)

by 31Boots on Jul 2, 2008 12:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

Beltre would be GREAT

Quick and dirty analysis-

Adrian Beltre has been worth 43 EQR so far this season, Cust was been worth 44. Beltre is one of the better defenders at 3B, and he posts consistently higher defensive numbers than Chavez has for several years now. If we get Beltre, slide Chavez to first, and give Barton some AAA time, we could add about 2 wins offensively and probably 5-10 runs on defense as well. That’s a huge difference over a half season.

by MrIncognito on Jul 1, 2008 6:54 PM PDT 0 recs

Another Cruddy Bat

Unless a change of scene does Beltre good, the A’s will be spending a lot of money (or giving up good prospects) for someone who will continually disappoint. You can maneuver his statistics in such a way as to make him seem like a worthy addition to the club, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be anything but a consistent disappointment to the fans. Insofar as comparing him to Cust - well, Cust walks a lot, and strikes out a lot, and sometimes hits a home run here or there. Not my idea of a well-rounded player, and he’s better in EQR than Beltre.

I love the idea of Casey Blake. But what do I know? I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that batters shouldn’t bother protecting the plate with two strikes.

by richwol1 on Jul 1, 2008 7:05 PM PDT 0 recs

I love the apathy that our contact-challenged lineup inspires in us all.

by Taj Adib on Jul 1, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

You've outdone yourself

I don’t even know where to begin here.

Let’s stick to the topic of the post, and start with this one: what is your evidence, if you have any, to support your claim that Beltre will be “a consistent disappointment to the fans”?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 1, 2008 10:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

You Won't Get Beltre

...without giving up a whole lot. I think people will expect more than Beltre will deliver. And I’m not willing to give up the store for him. That’s why I thought he’d be a consistent disappointment. One of those players who promises more than he delivers as a hitter - which might have been said of Chavez as well.

But in terms of that, what I wrote yesterday doesn’t really apply today. Chavez is down again, and may be down for the rest of the year. Putting that in perspective, and assuming the A’s want to make a run for it in 2008, I’m doing a complete u-turn on Beltre today.

by richwol1 on Jul 2, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

Or, you know, JUST GO SIGN BARRY BONDS.

I hear that he’s a pretty good hitter.

by mikev on Jul 1, 2008 8:01 PM PDT 0 recs

Sometimes there's nothing to rumors

All it takes is one guy thinking aloud and it can get reported as a rumor. I put little stock in it and think the A’s are OK at 3rd for now. Sure an upgrade would be nice and our offensive is abysmal at times, but Thomas returning will provide a boost. I can’t see Beane making a deal in haste.

by karl_lien on Jul 1, 2008 10:12 PM PDT 0 recs

The A's Are Not Going to Trade for Blake

The A’s are built around defense and Blake is one of the worst defensive third basemen out there. I like his bat and I am strong believer that more baseball players should have beards but no. . . we are not going to see Blake in the green and gold.

by jamesc on Jul 2, 2008 12:26 AM PDT 0 recs

I used to LOVE Beltre when he played for the Dodgers and Casey Blake is one of my favorite players, but I don’t really see how they fit in with this team right now so I’d say no to both.

by drmmerchk on Jul 2, 2008 1:14 AM PDT 0 recs

If the A's are looking for a cheap upgrade, why not start at Firstbase?

You have a kid in Barton that is only 22, struggling and has options left. Barton is still young and its not going to hurt his development to play in AAA for another year or two. Im not the smartest baseball mind but shouldnt it be easier to find an upgrade at Firstbase then a Thirdbase? I dont know much about minor leauge Firstbaseman but arent most Firstbaseman drafted because they have power and can rake? Just throwing ideas out there.

by asfaninpismobeach on Jul 2, 2008 9:24 AM PDT 0 recs

Richie Sexson! With the motto,

“Because a .220 batting average is simply too high!”

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

by Nico on Jul 2, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up 0 recs