Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Steve McNair Found Shot to Death


My "Position Changes" On Eric Chavez

Eric Chavez is so discouraged by the latest in a series of setbacks that he has talked about retiring if he hits more speedbumps - but in reality, Chavez is too much of a competitor, and has too much on the table financially, for that to be more than the "worst-case scenario" rantings of a frustrated man. I do not believe that Chavy will go gently into that good night, but I do believe that he is at a true crossroads in his career and that he and the A's need to get the next turn right.

Assuming his physical condition is not good enough to excite a trade partner and not bad enough to get him to limp away from the game right now, there are really only about three choices facing Chavez and the A's:

One option is for Oakland to cut ties with Chavez, accepting the rest of his salary as a "sunk cost" in exchange for the certainty that they are simply looking for a new player now and that's that. This option is not only expensive, but it makes little sense for the A's, a light-hitting team without nearly enough power, to give up easily on one of the few established hitters they have.

Another option is for the A's to send Chavez under the knife yet again for reconstructive surgery on his right shoulder, probably writing off part of 2009 in the hopes of finally getting back their slugging, gold-glove 3Bman for all of 2010 - just in time for Chavez to near the end of his contract and the end of his peak years, and either go help someone else (or decline for someone else, or decline with Oakland).

A third option is one I think the A's and Chavez need to seriously entertain, and that is just to try to get him to the point (with or without surgery) where he can hit and catch similar to the old Chavez, for the 2009-2011 A's - and that means protecting his shoulder from throwing. Which means a move to first base. (The problem with moving him to DH is that you then cannot entertain getting hitters like Frank Thomas and Mike Sweeney on the cheap when they become available, and I don't know that the A's want to narrow their available hitting resources to exclude hitters who cannot play the field.)

The consensus is that throwing has caused Chavez' latest shoulder setback, and that the pain caused by throwing then affected his swing. But it appears likely that if he does not have to throw, Chavez has a real chance to enter March, 2009 with his back (which will have had 1.5 years of very little wear and tear) at or near 100%, and his swing at or near 100%.

It seems to me as if Chavez would make an ideal 1Bman, in that he has already showed gold glove range and hands at a corner infield position, and he has the kind of batting potential (.270/.370/.470) you associate with the position. Put me in the camp that believes that if he were pain-free, Chavez could still produce similar numbers to the ones he put up as a healthy hitter - maybe not 30/100 but perhaps 25/85, and could make a pretty seamless transition to playing 1B. And boy would that help the A's.

Unfortunately, as nice a solution as it would be you can't just move Barton over to 3B because he is not good enough defensively, so moving Chavez to 1B would leave the A's currently with two 1Bmen and no one (sorry, Jack) at 3B. Thus, moving Chavez means considering where Barton fits into the A's plans, and also means aggressively solving the immediate need for a 3Bman. Which is why the A's need to figure this out right now, not in March, 2009.

What do folks think about the possibility of the A's committing to moving Eric Chavez to 1B in 2009, knowing that they have a promising young 1Bman in Daric Barton, and no major-league ready 3Bman, currently in the mix?

0 recs | Comment 188 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Depends on whether Street for LaRoche is for real

Honestly, I think the A’s need to build their roster under assumption #1 (sunk cost) and if Chavez can play (and stay healthy) that’s gravy. If it means bumping Cust into the OF to DH Chavez, fine. If it means Barton starts in AAA, fine (assuming his stroke doesn’t come back first).

I might be biased because I can’t really imagine what a full season of productive Chavez looks like anymore, but that’s my take.

by nevermoor on Jul 26, 2008 6:34 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Great Topic to Hit, Nico.

One part of your plan that needs to be discussed is whether Chavez himself would want to endure a position change at this point and whether he would forgo another surgery in order to do that. While I agree that slotting Chavvy in at 1st is a logical move for a team that wants to recoup some of its’ $66 million investment, does it make just as much sense for Chavez? I’m not so sure. If Chavez really wants to play baseball beyond the length of his current contract and into his mid-30’s then he probably wouldn’t be on-board for foregoing surgery and just “rehabbing” his obviously messed up shoulder in order to get on the field as quickly as possible for ‘09 and ‘10, after which his neglected shoulder would most definitely require career-ending surgery. So, you’re basically asking Chavez to sacrifice himself for the next two seasons at a new position for the sake of a team that will most likely not win a World Series championship.

I say that the team needs to shut him down entirely this season, allow him to concentrate 100-percent on getting healthy, allow the team to look for a replacement 3-bagger and then re-assess his situation in the off-season. If he has another surgery within the next few months and then is not close to being major league ready by April-May of next year, then I think he should be approached about possibly retiring altogether. He’s already collected tens of millions of dollars in salary from the A’s, and if it’s clear that he can never play again without severe pain, then he should do the honorable Keith Foulke-ian thing, retire and forfeit his remaining salary or at least negotiate a buy-out with the team.

by Taj Adib on Jul 26, 2008 6:34 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm not sure it's an either/or

to have surgery and move to 1B. Post surgery, it would be more likely for Chavez to come back sooner and with less pain if he still moved to 1B. If he needs surgery he should have it – but the recovery is always longer and less certain, so if he doesn’t “for sure need it” he should probably go the route of R&R no matter what. Either way, I agree with you that he should be shut down for the rest of this season.

I’m thinking that from Chavez’ point of view, the two most important considerations would be: How can I be most productive, longest as a baseball player, and how can I minimize the amount of pain and discomfort in the process. Moving to 1B could conceivably be a win-win on those two fronts.

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 26, 2008 6:42 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If I'm Eric I also think about the risk -- will I be able to pick up my kids, lift luggage

raise my arm over my head….

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 8:29 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not a fan of your plan

I understand the desire to salvage some portion of Chavez’ career, but your plan is exactly why the concept of sunk cost as applied to baseball players is such an important concept for teams to grasp if they want to avoid making a mistake and then compounding the mistake by refusing to accept the mistake and move on.

Chavez isn’t really a .300/.400/.500 typs of hitter at this point in his career even if healthy, because he never has been that hitter. For all the great memories of Chavvy us A’s fans have, his career averages stand at .269/.346/.484. The highest batting average Chavez ever produced was .288 in 2001. He has had 4 seasons in which he had a .500 slugging percentage, but the last was in 2004, and his highest OBP was .397 in 2004, and he has never exceeded an OBP of .360 in any other season in his career.

When you consider his offensive production in the context of a Gold Glove third baseman, the healthy version of Chavez was a hell of a ballplayer. Strip away the Gold Glove defensive value by playing him at 1B or DH, however, and he is not particularly special, even if you assume that not playing 3B is going to keep his shoulders and back healthy — which no one actually knows for sure. It is hard to imagine an older version of Chavez with a surgically repaired back and a permanently less than optimal right shoulder ever being an elite offensive player again. I could see him perhaps posting an .800 OPS again, but I have a really hard time expecting anything better than that from him going forward, especially in your scenario where he is healthy enough to bat but not healthy enough to throw.

If it gets to be June 2009 and the A’s look to be a contender and Barton is still sucking, perhaps it makes sense to give Chavez some time at 1B, but I certainly would not plan for that scenario.

Given Chavez’ health status, I think the A’s have to treat him like he is a sunk cost, and plan for 2009 and beyond as if he will never play again. Let him rehab or have surgery based on what the doctors think is best, but consider him a 3B, not a 1B or DH.

It’s an ugly situation for Chavez and the A’s to be in, but I think using his declining bat at an offense-first position on the diamond will only make things worse for the A’s.

by BlameChannel53 on Jul 26, 2008 6:41 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sorry, putting .300 was a "brain-o"

I meant to put .270, which was his career average while healthy. I’ll edit 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

by Nico on Jul 26, 2008 6:43 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Exactly - I'm still bullish on Barton

but he’ll never provide “1Bman power”. You don’t have to get “1Bman power” from your 1Bman but you need to get it somewhere. So when the A’s had Tejada they didn’t need as much at another position.

I think the A’s will be ahead of the game in CF with Gonzalez, but beyond that, where? Not really C, 2B (either an aging Ellis or someone else), SS (other than in theory), or currently the corners of the OF – hopefully the A’s can add a power hitter in LF or RF, and other than that it’s 1B or 3B. So if you have Barton at 1B, even if he’s hitting .290/.370 with 12 HRs…where’s the power coming from?

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 26, 2008 6:54 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Keith Hernandez was a near HOFer without "1B power". Same with John Olerud.

Barton has the talent to be a .300 EqA hitter, and a very good fielder. That makes him a perennial all-star candidate. I’ve no problem sending him to AAA this year and next, but I still see him as the best long term option at 1B—better than Chavez, Doolittle and Carter.

As far as power, I’ve no problem if the A’s have Gonzalez and a DH, like Thomas, Cust, or Dunn and a corner OF like Bay (or Cust or Dunn), speed in the middle IF and everyone else being a Sweeney type.

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 9:05 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gonzalez is going to be a really good player

"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."

by SwampyD on Jul 26, 2008 6:57 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This kind of reminds me of the later part of the mid-90s

And the player was John Jaha. He was leading the offense and then went down. Then he stayed down. All the interviews, all the conversation was about how the offense would get better “once he was back”. Now granted, those really weren’t teams to get excited about since it was still transitioning towards the Big Three Era. BUT, the interesting thing is that the offensive did turn it around and really picked up AFTER Jaha retired. As soon as the attitude shifted from “once he was back” to “now we’re on our own” they started getting the job done themselves. Part of the fall I see right now has to do with the attitude of “when Frank, Sweeney & Chavy come back” that exists. It’s quiet and not nearly as prominent as the Jaha situation, but it’s still there. Now granted, even if all three were to disappear tomorrow I don’t expect that our offense would actually perform better, but they would show up with the attitude of “this is it” and now we have to deal with that.

Ultimately Chavy is done. Let him be done. Keep paying him unless he retires, keep him on the 60 day DL so he doesn’t take up a 40 man roster spot (as much as you can). He can focus privately on getting better. If he shows up and he can play some time over the next couple of years, awesome, find a spot for him whether it be 3rd, 1st, 2nd or DH. But, from here on out, you have to make your roster decisions based on the idea that he’s done.

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

by DMOAS on Jul 26, 2008 7:28 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You are projecting your own feelings onto the team

I seriously doubt that the individual A’s players feel their at-bats burdened by the fact that Chavez et al are not in the lineup.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 26, 2008 11:48 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Chavez is done

He was mainly good because of his D at third. Can we please get a healthy hitter on the team.

by butler19 on Jul 26, 2008 7:29 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hey, now

I’ll take issue with that statement. See any season of his prior to 2005. Before that season, Baseball Prospectus called him one of the 10 or 15 best players in the league. And they weren’t far off.

And hell, I think anyone here would take Chavez’s injury-riddled 2005 and 2006 numbers.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jul 26, 2008 8:06 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Take issue with it all you like

It is my opinion. In the past couple of years, he was great with for his d at third and great at popping out in key situations. Putting him at first would take opportunities away from other players who deserve to show what they are made of.

by butler19 on Jul 27, 2008 8:50 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm with you.

Chavez’ value the past few years was his defense. His hitting would be good when it wasn’t critical, but put him in a critical situation, and he’d almost always disappoint.

I’ve said it before, and I stand by it… Chavez is a perfect power-hitting #6 line-up guy on a good hitting team, but he lacks the mental toughness to be any higher in the order and to be counted on as “the man”.

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

by UncleLeo on Jul 27, 2008 10:14 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Almost always, like 70% of the time?

That .297 Avg (.864 OPS) in high leverage situations really sucked.

I’m sorry but you guys are way off base in your Chavez analysis.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 12:06 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Misleading stats...

...gotta love ‘em.

You gave a reference for his career stats and I specifically said “the past few years”. Even if that particular stat is a good one (not all are), I never had the same issue with him earlier in his career. It’s only been since about 2005-ish that I started getting down on him in clutch situations.

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

by UncleLeo on Jul 27, 2008 1:04 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Extending my own post

Yeah, I know measuring “clutch” has been debated endlessly, but for all the arguments I’ve seen for and against, I have yet to see anything convincing that measures it, let alone defines it.

“High leverage”. It doesn’t give a description. How do they define that?

“Clutch stats”, above that. What defines “clutch”? They have a “2 outs, RISP” category. Is 2 out w/RISP in the 2nd inning the same clutch situation as in the 8th inning? What’s the score… 16-1, or 4-3? If you’re up by 15 runs with a runner on 2B in the top of the 9th, that’s hardly “clutch”... but it would be according to this category.

On the flip side, if you’re down by one run in the bottom of the 9th with a guy on 2B, that’s definitely clutch.

“Tie game” and “within 1/2/3/4 runs”. Same thing. Top of the 2nd, or bottom of the 12th? Are they both equal?

“Late & Close” seems to come the closest, but there again… How many outs? How many, if any, on base? Which base? A SF or bloop single with one out and a guy on 3B could be huge. The same bloop single with a guy on 1B wouldn’t be as huge, but still significant, while the same fly out with a guy on 1B would probably be another nail in the coffin, if not an inning or game ender.

“Clutch” is too situational to be measured accurately.

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

by UncleLeo on Jul 27, 2008 1:27 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

”’Clutch’ is too situational to be measured accurately.”

I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that is false. Unless “accurately” is meant to be synonymous with “such that the results align with my perceptions”, in which case you are probably correct.

“I specifically said the ‘past few years’.”

But what you really meant, perhaps, was “the past one year”.

2005
Season OPS: .794
High Leverage: .787

2006
Season OPS: .786
High Leverage: .997

2007
Season OPS: .752
High Leverage: .384

Clutchy Heart Grit Noble Warrior Leadership Tough-o-Meter

by 74mk on Jul 27, 2008 2:01 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Unless, of course...

...you blindly accept any stat put in front of you as the be all and end all of baseball performance measurement. No, I see way too many variables for “clutch” stats for them to be truly accurate and meaningful.

Instead of dismissing my concluions, can you address my individial points and maybe point out why or how those situations might be consistent across the board?

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

by UncleLeo on Jul 27, 2008 3:38 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why do you assume that no one knows what leverage is?

It’s not easy to calculate, but it’s trivial to understand—it’s just how much hitting production is worth in that situation compared to an average (leverage = 1) situation.

If a guy has a high OPS in high-leverage situations, that means he’s getting the job done when the game is on the line, whether that’s a 2 out hit with guys on 2nd and 3rd or a walk to start the bottom of the 9th down by one.

Of course, this still doesn’t solve the problem that everyone’s “clutch” OPS eventually regresses to essentially their actual OPS anyway, so you may as well just use the latter and save yourself the trouble and misleading analysis…

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2008 5:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ok, but what defines a "high leverage" situation?

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that it can happen at any point in the game. If so, I would have to disagree. I don’t see a game as ever being “on the line” in the 2nd inning.

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

by UncleLeo on Jul 28, 2008 12:14 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Here's your answer

It’s dependent upon which half inning the game is in, the score, and the situation (outs/runners).

The full graph is ugly, but worth looking through. Here’s where the numbers come from.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 28, 2008 1:45 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's alot of info to wade through.

I have the links saved but will have to take a look at them at a later time.

You’re right, that graph is ugly, too.

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

by UncleLeo on Jul 28, 2008 3:42 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fair enough

I just skimmed for the color coding, and it looked about right.

Basically, the closer the score, the later in the game, the more runners on, and the more outs there are the higher the leverage value.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 28, 2008 3:46 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't know

I think you just said in a different thread that only those who lack objectivity would claim that Emil Brown has been terrible this year.

I’m sure you believe this, just as you believe the things you say concerning clutchiness. But there exists such a monumental divergence between those perspectives and my own that I suspect any attempt at convincing (either way) will prove less than fruitful.

So, without debating the merits of specific leverage statistics (which in any case I am ill-equipped to do), I’ll just say this:

1. I believe it is possible to collate/slice/dice/analyze, with some confidence, the relative game-outcome impact of particular at-bats.

2. Various measures have been conceived (by lots of really smart people) to illustrate this.

3. As a consequence of 1 and 2, it is possible to determine whether or not particular players have succeeded (over the course of careers, seasons, or single games) in “high leverage” situations.

What those numbers imply about a player’s mental toughness, I don’t know. I’ll leave that speculation to you.

Postscript: Even if the measures I refer to in #2 are imperfect, due to the definitional imprecision of #1, they nevertheless give us some useful information, which is always preferable to relying entirely on (notoriously fickle) memory and perception. No single statistic will ever provide you with an infallible prism through which to gauge performance, but it is unwise (and illogical) to equate this imperfection with worthlessness.

Anyway, PT’s post elsewhere in this thread conveys what I am trying to say much better than I am able. Read that instead of this.

by 74mk on Jul 27, 2008 5:19 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Couldn't you have spared

20 seconds of my life and just type the last paragraph first?

Kidding. I liked your explanation.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Jul 27, 2008 8:33 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I hereby nominate 74mk as AN's official Cleaner

Who needs competence as long as everyone smiles? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2008 9:35 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think you just said in a different thread that only those who lack objectivity would claim that Emil Brown has been terrible this year.

I meant more the ones who have been taking it to the extreme, as if he has no value whatsoever. Willie Mays he ain’t, I know, but he’s not that bad.

2. Various measures have been conceived (by lots of really smart people) to illustrate this.

Smart people they are, and I agree there is some value there, but I’m not convinced it’s complete or accurate enough to be depended upon. I stand by my assertion that not all stats are of equal value. Just because you can assign a number to something does not automatically mean that number is meaningful. Some very smart people have been trying to cure cancer, also, but haven’t been able to just yet.

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

by UncleLeo on Jul 28, 2008 11:21 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Decrying the offense...

... of a guy who hit .282/.350/.514 in 2003—for the Oakland A’s no less—is crazy.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jul 27, 2008 10:54 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I have the opinion that grass is purple and the moon is made of cheese

See how saying “It is my opinion” doesn’t always, like, work?

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on Jul 27, 2008 12:17 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Did you just say that your opinion that opinions don't work doesn't work?

You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver

by UncleLeo on Jul 27, 2008 1:06 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Interesting - for the record, I hadn't seen that

when I posted this. Sounds like the shoulder is in awfully bad shape.

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 26, 2008 7:57 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yikes

Well… Good career, Chavy.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 26, 2008 7:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Maybe it's time to trade for a good 3Bman,

tell Chavy he’s a DH for the next three years, put Barton at 1B, and let the Frank Thomases and Mike Sweeneys find other homes.

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 26, 2008 8:02 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He's pretty worthless as a DH

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 26, 2008 8:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Or

DH Barton (which a lotta folks seem to think he should do, anyway), play Cust in LF, play Chavvy at 1B, and tell all hitters nearing 40 to file for unemployment. Which, of course, raises serious questions about Barton being able to produce enough to justify DHing.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jul 26, 2008 8:19 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Barton's fine defensively, and I think 22 year olds

should be playing in the field if they’re able. I don’t agree, mikeA, that Chavez would be a worthless DH assuming that not playing defense allows him to stay healthy and feel good. I could see him putting up a .270/.360 line with 22-25 HR – which is like Cust only with a higher batting average, more contact, and less wild fluctuations.

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 26, 2008 8:26 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

22-25 homers?

Not calling bullshit, but I certainly hope that’s what ends up happening.

And I agree that just because he is lacking in quintessential DH power he can’t be a DH. If his OBP ever gets to where it was supposed to be, he’d have excellent value.

As far as his defense goes… my eyes tell me he’s purty good, but everything else I’ve read says otherwise. I’m interested to see how it’s evaluated after a season in which I felt he’s played pretty well.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jul 26, 2008 8:31 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not FRAA

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jul 27, 2008 10:54 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's not based on play-by-play data

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 12:10 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The Chronicle article

casts serious doubt on your assumption that Chavez will “stay healthy and feel good.” If Chavez’ labrum is shredded (or frayed) and is inoperable, it is going to not only going to limit his throwing, but will limit his ability to ever hit with power again. Ask Shawn Green or Jeff Bagwell how easy it is to hit with a permanently torn labrum. I think you are wishcasting rather than predicting, Nico. Chavez is very unlikely to ever be a healthy and productive hitter again. It’s sad, but that is what the medical evidence strongly suggests.

by BlameChannel53 on Jul 26, 2008 8:34 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That may be - my assumption was that it was operable,

and my 22-25 HR projection was based on Chavez getting the shoulder back to a pain-free condition, but I don’t know if that’s realistic. Unfortunately, of the two shoulders it’s the right one that most affects a lefty hitter’s swing, so that’s not encouraging either.

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 26, 2008 8:43 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The Chronicle article confirms my worst fears

The A’s have enough of a track record in underestimating player injuries that I always assume as a baseline that a player is far more injured than the media reports until evidence proves otherwise. The Chronicle article suggests that the A’s have apparently fudged once again.

An inoperable torn labrum to go along with a back surgery makes two known power-sapping career-ender injuries that Chavez will have to overcome to ever be healthy and productive again. That article is really devastating news for Chavez’ future.

by BlameChannel53 on Jul 26, 2008 8:49 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The A’s have enough of a track record in underestimating player injuries

Is that unusually specific to the A’s? Maybe. I don’t know. I really doubt that you have any idea either.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 26, 2008 9:01 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not sure about other teams

But I’ve learned in the Billy Beane era to be very suspicious of what the A’s claim to be the extent of a player’s injuries. They are almost invariably worse than initially reported.

by BlameChannel53 on Jul 26, 2008 9:10 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's a fair assessment in the context of their public image/relations

Based on what they’re willing/able to say publicly, it’s absolutely true that they have a track record of underestimating/understating player injuries. That being said, I’d be shocked and alarmed if their private assessments/planning and dealing with injuries isn’t on par with what it should be. Privately they’re aware of and likely planning accordly to the worst case scenario.

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

by DMOAS on Jul 26, 2008 9:16 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I was merely referring to the public disclosure aspect

I have no idea what the A’s do behind the scenes most of the time. But I am smart enough to notice the differences between what they say publicly and what they admit to having known later. The track record on those differences is both public and consistent. I have no moral issue with the A’s habit of publicly downplaying injuries, but I do factor that habit into my evaluation of injured players.

by BlameChannel53 on Jul 26, 2008 9:24 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I guess it's understandable -

if you’re trying to acquire a team’s 3B prospect and they know how bad it is with Chavez, they have more leverage. So it’s probably in the A’s best interests not to be overly public with their knowledge.

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 26, 2008 9:46 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Does and doesn't

In a way I actually don’t think it helps at all. A lot of talks during trade discussions is the whole “lemon” aspect. If you’re known for hiding the extent of an injury, then in discussions with other teams, they’re going to assume everyone who’s hurt is worse than what you’re disclosing. Whereas, if you were to publicly to disclose the real extent, then other teams would know a minor thing is just a minor thing. I’m guessing that’s where BlameChannel53 was going with the track record. Not saying that the A’s record of evaluation is bad, but that the disclosure track record shows that it’s predictably worse.

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

by DMOAS on Jul 26, 2008 10:01 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah but it's one thing to be less than forthright

about the players involved in the deal. It’s really not the other team’s business how Chavez is doing when you’re talking about Street and Laroche. Maybe you need a new 3Bman and maybe you choose to stockpile 3Bmen because you think there will be a market for them in the Winter.

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 26, 2008 10:04 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's absolutely their business

Knowing Chavez is on the shelf and has been out for awhile and knowing that it’s likely worse that what’s being reported is going to be bad for the team. If the Dodgers don’t think it’s their business how Chavez is doing, then they’re doing a really shitty job. It’s absolutely in their best interest and their business to look at the entire A’s organization and notice that A) Chavez is screwed and B) the A’s have a distinct need for a third baseman. Whether the A’s stockpile them going into the off-season because of a market isn’t relevant in a Street/Laroche deal. What is, is that they have a third baseman and the A’s need a third baseman.

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

by DMOAS on Jul 26, 2008 10:40 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It may be their business

in that it is their scouts jobs to speculate on the needs verses the wants of the A’s. It is absolutely none of their business in the sense that the A’s have some moral imperative to supply this information.

You make business deals based on your own needs, not those of your potential trade partners. The intent of a trade is to make your team better, not to screw your potential partner just because you can. In other words, you do the deal if it makes sense for you.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Jul 26, 2008 10:47 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Very true

I’m not saying the A’s have a moral imperative to supply the info. What I am saying is that they should be careful with the disconnect between what they report and the real situation. For instance, if the A’s are always giving the day to day report for guys who are seriously injured, then if someone starts showing interest in a player who then comes down with a very minor injury that truly makes them day to day, it’s not just going to result in the other team treading carefully, it very well could kill a deal that would/should still be perfectly beneficial to both sides.

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

by DMOAS on Jul 26, 2008 10:56 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Okay. Fair enough.

But I’m fairly sure that if another team takes an interest in a player, the A’s would disclose the extent of any known injuries to that specific team. You wouldn’t get away with burning other teams for very long before it caught up to you.

On the other hand, you wouldn’t want to broadcast every single injury status out to the league. Their scouts/GM’s would be listening carefully and trying to read between the lines. That would give them leverage you wouldn’t want them to have which could conceivably affect trades with other teams.

Balancing act I suppose.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Jul 26, 2008 11:02 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In the Harden Trade

We sent their doctors all the medical records then, I believe, had the doctors talk.

Doesn’t get much more open than that.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 7:21 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

JP Riciardi

“They’re not lies if we know the truth”, about the extent of BJ Ryan’s UCL tear, which the Blue Jays initially reported as a back strain.

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

by rfloh on Jul 27, 2008 1:26 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree with BC

Firstly, they clearly lied. A debridement is not “fixed.

Hell, even now, they’re still trying to fudge: Sayles says that it is “frayed” instead of “shredded”.

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

by rfloh on Jul 27, 2008 1:29 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That wouldn't be worthless

but those are unreasonably high numbers.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 26, 2008 8:45 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

noted w/o comment
The team had announced at the time of that surgery that the labrum, along with the biceps tendon, had been fixed. Chavez has since clarified that the area was simply debrided and trainer Steve Sayles confirmed that.

Who needs competence as long as everyone smiles? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 26, 2008 10:56 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the team claimed that the labrum and tendon were "fixed," yet ...

... there are now dozens of little Chavez labra and tendons running around the clubhouse.

Who needs competence as long as everyone smiles? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2008 12:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hate to sound like piling on...

...but, at this point I don’t see Chavez coming back as a 3b. This is the fourth consecutive year of declining production (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/chaveer01.shtml) or not being on the field at all, and as BlameChannel53 mentions, with out the defense, Chavez is a fairly ordinary hitter.

Not to pick on Chavez but this is the 2nd year that injuries have devastated the team, sounds like it is time to try something different, right?

by Slappyfrog on Jul 26, 2008 7:52 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's simple to me...

Shut him down for the rest of this year.
Use him as a part time DH next year (give him plenty of rest days and don’t even let him throw a single ball)
Think about using him as a firstbaseman in 2010.

by McBain on Jul 26, 2008 8:01 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If we were to move Chavez to first,

how long could we reasonably (ethically and according to the rules) keep Barton in the minors?

I feel like Barton will develop into a major leaguer, but I also feel he’s at least a season, perhaps two, removed from it. If we could reasonably hold onto to Barton until he’s ready for prime time, I think moving Chavez to first makes sense. Otherwise, (and I hate to say this because I love E) I think the potential future that Barton represents outweighs the potential physical protection of Chavez. If we cannot reasonably keep Barton down for another year or two, then I say you play Chavez at DH or 3rd when you can and we continue to allow Barton to come of age on the main stage, and we acquire another 3rd baseman.

If Cust is a "horrible hitter", what does that make Suzuki, Barton, Ellis, Crosby, Hannahan, Sweeney and Gonzalez?--WaddellCanseco
A combination of very young hitters, very poor hitters, and a unicorn.--Nico

by Leopold Bloom on Jul 26, 2008 8:12 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I would have no ethical problems with keeping Barton down for a while

Fact is, he hasn’t gotten the job done yet at the major league level. I would say that a player has grounds for a complaint if he has a proven track record of success in the bigs and is the obvious best available player for a position. Francisco Liriano can say those things—Daric Barton can’t, yet.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 26, 2008 11:54 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Where would one,

if one were so inclined, school hisself on the ins and the outs of minor to major to minor league dealings?

See, I’m not even sure we can move Barton down again. I can play along and pretend I know and hope to pick it up from you guys, but I’ve no clue at all how it works. Well, that’s not entirely true, but I’d like to understand the process better, and if possible, I’d like it explained in an easy to digest format. I don’t really want to read the collective bargaining agreement, if I can avoid it.

Car-Nico the Magnificent: "A combination of very young hitters, very poor hitters, and a unicorn."
Ed McWaddellCanseco (opens envelope, reads): "If Cust is a "horrible hitter", what does that make Suzuki, Barton, Ellis, Crosby, Hannahan, Sweeney and Gonzalez?"

by Leopold Bloom on Jul 27, 2008 1:17 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I didn't read it carefully,

but I imagine this is what you’re looking for.

Also, great name for a blog (if a bit on the pessimistic side).

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 7:28 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thanks,

NM—it is a great name~

Car-Nico the Magnificent: "A combination of very young hitters, very poor hitters, and a unicorn."
Ed McWaddellCanseco (opens envelope, reads): "If Cust is a "horrible hitter", what does that make Suzuki, Barton, Ellis, Crosby, Hannahan, Sweeney and Gonzalez?"

by Leopold Bloom on Jul 27, 2008 10:13 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Heh, thanks

It’s the only name I use, so I wanted to pick one that wouldn’t need numbers, etc. on major use sites. So far it’s only been taken once or twice.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 12:08 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The only thing that's clear...

... is that the A’s need to invest in a long-term solution at 3rd, like, yesterday. Maybe Cardenas is that guy, but I’d like to see more prototypical power from a corner infielder.

Poor Chavez. I hope he can convert to 1st, and Daric Barton be damned (not really—I think that one day he’ll be a real boy, it’s just that his ABs are particularly wooden these days). For me, he’s on a short list of players whose ability and production will never be appreciated for what they really were, between the fact that he played in a small market and the fact that the fans in that small market seem perpetually angry that he didn’t turn out to be Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron rolled into one.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jul 26, 2008 8:13 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Man Could Chavvy Pick It

What a delight to watch that guy play third, even with the bum shoulder.

Time for the A’s to give up on him though. Too many years of “yeah the offense was awful but we didn’t count on not having Chavvy.” Next year, count on it.

by solotar on Jul 26, 2008 8:41 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So I started nosing around for 3B prospects,

and happened upon Cal product Alan Craig (St. Louis Cardinals), who is now in AA, 24 years old, profiles as having plus power, so-so defense. Anyone have any knowledge or input on whether he’s a worthy target? At 24, he needs a fast-track to the bigs and may not get it in STL behind Glaus. Is he the “3Bman of the future” for them, or does he suck, or he is worth getting and the Cards might move him for a “win now” piece?

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 26, 2008 8:50 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

from what I can remember,

Cards fans tout his raw ability as a hitter. I think he’s got some pop too.

Cardinals Diaspora has a bunch on him:

Prospect Profile: Allen Craig

Craig vs. Freese

Sickels on Craig – (a Sickels’ “personal favorite”)

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Jul 26, 2008 11:30 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No Cust in any future plans

Sorry – i know people are sick of the topic but I haven’t weighed in yet. I saw in this thread some discussion of moving Cust to LF to make room for Chavez at DH. To me, having Cust on the team now is a big joke – he is simply not a major league ballplayer and should be in no one’s plans as they plot out a competitive team for the future.

by sacto on Jul 26, 2008 9:08 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

that is untrue sir

take it back. batting average is for wussies. Spartacust is the freaking man.

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Jul 26, 2008 9:32 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+1

If Cust had some protection he’d be putting up even better numbers. As it is, his park-adjusted production is plenty good.

by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 27, 2008 7:00 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I hope to see Cust and Dunn in the same lineup

The Cust8teers’ collective heads would explode.

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 8:36 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Dunn is my free agent target of choice too

Over Burrell.

I still hope something works out for Bay though.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 8:44 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm leery of trading 2-3 top prospects for Bay and signing him to a long term deal

because I believe him to be good, not great. But I’m slowly coming around to not hating the idea, depending on the cost to acquire and sign him.

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 8:56 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+1 on Dunn for me too.

Better than Burrell and 3 years younger.

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Jul 27, 2008 9:04 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The idea of protection

is a myth. And in Cust’s case, it’s not as if pitchers pitch around him. They just pitch right through his bat most of the time.

by sggut95 on Jul 27, 2008 11:13 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The idea of protection is NOT a myth

Cust walks as much as he does, and hits as poorly as he does, in part because pitchers have little incentive to throw him hittable strikes – why not nibble at the corners and throw a lot of junk when the next two hitters are Emil Brown and Bobby Crosby? Mark Ellis is second on the team with 10 HRs. If you were a pitcher, would you give in to Cust by centering a fastball on any count?

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 27, 2008 11:22 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yes, it IS a myth

I hate to disagree with you Nico, given the perilous ontological ramifications – but you’re just flat wrong here.

Mind you, what you say is entirely plausible – so much so that it’s a bit puzzling that it’s not true. Still, because it’s so plausible, it’s been trotted out there for decade after decade, a reliable part of every broadcaster’s arsenal, every time a star player in a ratty lineup goes through a slump. It’s also a testable hypothesis, and it’s been tested many times, going back to Bill James’s researches on whether Bob Horner’s numbers suffered from his “lack of protection” – and there just isn’t any evidence that this phenomenon actually exists. Batters provide their own “protection” by not swinging at bad pitches. Even if the “protection” phenomenon did exist, Jack Cust would be the last player for whom it mattered. Jack Cust won’t swing at a pitch he isn’t looking for. If he’s looking for a fastball on the outside corner, and the pitch is a fastball on the inside corner, he won’t swing – not even if it’s a 1-2 count and there’s a runner on 3rd with one out and tens of thousands of people are going to curse his name through their televisions as he trudges back to the dugout (and I say this as a Cust defender – it doesn’t mean I enjoy watching the ugly member of the three true outcomes).

I’ll go a bit farther and say that a lack of protection might actually increase a players OPS. If Bonds had had Guerrero batting behind him (harking back to when Sabean declined to bid on Vlad, preferring to surround Bonds with a flock of JT Snow, Michael Tucker-caliber players instead), his batting average and the “S” part of OPS would not have increased (per the findings about “protection” that I’ve been citing), but the “O” part would have actually declined, since he obviously wouldn’t have had so many IBBs and semi-intentional BBs. (He would also have had more RBIs – RBIs are affected by protection – not because a well-protected batter hits better than his poorly-protected counterpart, but because he has more opportunities to hit with ducks on the pond.)

I feel like a bit of an Old Fart professor here, not sure whether what I think I know has been supplanted by more recent research that I haven’t been diligent enough in keeping up with. So I’ll leave it up to Sal, devo, or Paul Thomas to correct me if The Book or some such thing has rendered my conclusions as obsolete as geology before the acceptance of plate tectonics.

by Faust on Jul 27, 2008 12:44 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Do you not believe that if Cust had

Vlad or Manny batting behind him that he would see more fastballs in the better part of the strike zone? If not, why not? If so, do you not think it would make Cust a more productive hitter to get more fastballs in the better part of the strike zone? If not, why not?

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 27, 2008 12:50 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Like I said, what you're saying is thoroughly plausible

to the extent that it could be taken as presumptively true.

The problem is, whenever anyone actually compares the numbers of when “Jack Cust” has Vlad batting behind him to when Emil Brown “has his back”, there’s no measurable difference. You’d think that he’d see a higher percentage of pitches in the high-average portions of the strike zone (think of Ted Williams’ strike zone diagrams) and would therefore hit for higher rate stats. I’d kind of expect that not to happen to the extent that people expect, but why it doesn’t appear to happen to any measurable degree at all, I can’t explain.

Again, I’d invite any sabr-wonky types to weigh in here, because while I’ve long since accepted that “protection” is mythical, I’m not entirely satisfied with why that’s the case.

by Faust on Jul 27, 2008 1:07 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Cust just HRed with Gonzalez on deck :-)

My feeling is that with a Vlad or Manny behind him, Cust would see an increase in HRs/BA and a decrease in OBP – basically walking less and hitting more. Which would be absolutely fine by 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 27, 2008 1:24 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Some aspects of baseball are just not intuitive

Strikeouts being the same as any other out (for a hitter) is another one. If no one had done any research on the issue, you really couldn’t make that claim—they appear to hurt more than other outs. But people have tested it, and tested it, and tested it—and the intuition is wrong. They’re no more damaging than any other out. Why? As far as I can tell, it’s a coincidence.

Maybe the lack of existence of protection is also a coincidence—the increased number of hittable pitches is counterbalanced by opposing pitchers throwing harder, or becoming more “effectively wild,” or something.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2008 4:56 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wow

now I really want to know more about this. Mantle behind Marris explaining the 61 is a myth? Surely there is SOME effect, at least on runs scored, if not on the OBP/slugging balance that Nico speaks of? I agree that OPS might not change, but is it an optical illusion when a pitcher “pitches around” some guys?

Okay, you’ve inspired me to look into this. Thanks for the comments.

by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 29, 2008 8:59 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

thank you

there is a reason nobody wanted Cust, and why he spent years loitering in the minor leagues. If he hit .220 and hit 45 or 50 HR’s then you could make an argument of his value, but to strike out 220 times in 550 AB’s and hit 25 HR’s, no thank you.

by Laoren on Jul 27, 2008 8:07 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

that's a straw man argument

it’s easy to knock a player by just focusing on the negatives. batting average and strikeouts are overrated anyways. strikeouts can be often be better than putting the ball in play b/c you don’t hit into a double play. if you love batting average so much you are rooting for the wrong team… go root for the angels.

you left out the fact that he leads the AL in walks. he’s 19th in the AL in obp. he’s tied for 14th in the AL in homers. and that’s in the middle of a “down” year where he has no protection and there’s never any ducks on the pond in front of him.

I say again: batting average is for wussies. If we had a team of 9 jack custs (offensively not defensively) we would be tied with or ahead of the angels right now.

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Jul 27, 2008 8:52 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'd replace the "w" with a "p"

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 9:08 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

hey batting average boy

yes his high obp is a good thing irregardless of avg. stop “pretending” cust sucks b/c of his strikeouts and low avg.

since you are so in love with batting average… take our best avg hitter: ryan sweeney:

Cust has a higher obp, higher slug%, higher ops than sweeney, all the while hitting 90 points lower in batting average and striking out 100 more times.

i say again: batting average is for wussies.

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Jul 27, 2008 11:43 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hey Angels, BA is for wussies

I really wanted to type pussies

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 12:12 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

lol

angels: batting average is for wussies

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Jul 27, 2008 1:28 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

ps:

the angels have a .001 higher obp than the A’s this season

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Jul 27, 2008 1:37 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

There i a reason nobody wanted

Brandon Phillips, and why he spent years loitering in the minor leagues.

Also, since, Juan Pierre got $44M, he is a good player?

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

by rfloh on Jul 27, 2008 9:48 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

3B Options

In AAA, the A’s seemed to have moved Chris Carter back to his original postion at 3B. Don’t know if he can stick there, but BP said he was hitting awfully well there compared to 1B or DH.

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Jul 26, 2008 9:50 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Carter's at 3B tonight, so they're still doing it, going 2-4 with a SB!

Cardenas is 2-4 with a HR, Donaldson is 2-4 with a Homerun,

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Jul 26, 2008 9:52 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wow - what's up with Donaldson?

Little change of scenery?

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 26, 2008 9:55 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

same with Spencer too

and Cardenas has finally started to hit.

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Jul 26, 2008 9:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But the turnaround is more and faster than just

“pitcher’s league / hitter’s league”. It feels like he’s gone from hitting .100 to hitting .450. Of course like 1,000,000 of my other posts, that could be a slight exaggeration.

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 26, 2008 10:00 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comment from Cubs fan on minor league ball:
Donaldson – At the end of it, performance still matters. That said, all year, there were reports that Donaldson’s was actually making good contact and had fixed some holes in his swing. Defense is still average at best behind the plate. I think they’ll keep Josh behind the plate as long as possible, but it wouldn’t surprised me if he was moved off it at some point, to maximize the bat.

So he may well have been doing a lot better than the numbers indicate.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 26, 2008 10:06 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's encouraging

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 26, 2008 10:11 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I never understood why we were so down on him

He crushed the ball last year, and it appears that first half struggles were small sample size (especially if he really was making good contact).

I’m glad to have him.

by nevermoor on Jul 26, 2008 10:36 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You know, it makes me wonder if a team

should (in any trade) just automatically ask for the other team to throw in their most “struggling” prospect—i.e. the guy with the biggest disconnect between his skills and his supposed ability. Just on the theory that a change of scenery or a change of league could give him a psychological boost.

Theoretically it could even work both ways—we give you Jermaine Mitchell, you give us Denard Span. Or something.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 26, 2008 11:58 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

For most of 2006 and 2007

I was recommending a Bobby Crosby for Jeremy Reed swap on exactly that logic … that a change of scenery would benefit them both.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jul 27, 2008 2:20 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Although in a case like this he's gotta be thinking

“The A’s must really believe in me, trading me for one of their best players” (even if he wasn’t the centerpiece of the deal.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 7:30 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Mitchell for Span would have been a stupendously great deal

for the A’s. The Twins don’t strike me as a team that overreacts to performance of young players that much—they seem to care more about tools, work habits and improvement until a certain age. They stuck with Span, Cuddyer, Casilla, and they’re sticking with Young.

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 8:58 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In their case, I think it has more to do with the complete absence

of any viable alternative…

In any event, the details aren’t important—I was just picking the first struggling, non-elite prospect I could think of who nonetheless had enough talent to have legitimate big-league hopes.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2008 11:25 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He has a million errors;

don’t know how many have been at third. He’s been playing there every day for a month or so. Players in general hit a good bit worse when they DH instead of playing the field. I doubt 1B/3B makes any difference as far as offense.

The A's colors are green and gold.

by mikeA on Jul 26, 2008 9:59 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I was saying this yesterday,

after I read that Chavez was having a hard time throwing that he should move to first base. I think he’d be excellent and it would save his health. Maybe if we can work that trade with LaRoche it could work perfectly (would the Dodgers want Barton)? I’m on board with this idea, but my opion is not the one that matters.

by jmfox on Jul 26, 2008 10:11 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Assuming he can hit/swing well

If he can’t, there’s not going to be a happy ending.

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 26, 2008 10:13 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Maybe I'm stubborn but I'd rather take my chances with Barton at first instead of Chavez.

If Chavez’s labrum is as bad as it sounds, I just don’t see playing first base being that big a difference if his swing is affected by the injury anyway.

I have more confidence in Barton being able to get back to basics and improve than I do in Chavez being useful again.

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Jul 26, 2008 10:16 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I know I'll catch flak for this ...

but I don’t think Chavez will “approve” a move to first. Why? Because unless Chavez feels 100%, he won’t play again … period. (And why play first if you feel able to play 3B?)
Nope, I just don’t sense a desire in him to play hurt. I think he’d rather take his money and stay at home with his family … I’m not saying he’s heartless, because he gutted it out many times for us … but I don’t think the game means that much to him.
Chavez never struck me as a guy who “needs” the game … and before you rip me for this, understand that I mean it as a compliment. Chavez likes to win - he trys to win - but it doesn’t break his heart if he doesn’t win. Again, that doesn’t make him a bad guy - in fact, you could make the case it makes him a grounded, “able to put things in perspective” guy. But not winning doesn’t bug him all that much … and not playing won’t, either. Oh, he’ll miss it. The A’s were and are a big part of his life … but he’ll be over it in about 2 weeks. Nope, Chavy is done - and he won’t lose one wink of sleep over it.

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.

by Vacafan on Jul 26, 2008 10:24 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree

I thought I saw it on his face. He hit a homer and came home to wave at this son in the stands. He was more excited about interacting with his son than the homer. I can’t put my finger on anything else which would support my hunch, but it seemed to started at the birth of his son. If so, we should support him. While we love him as a baseball hero, being a good family man and a father is a far more important job.

by Hang Man on Jul 26, 2008 10:32 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think that's a fair assessment of his personality

He’s tried his hardest to deal with the pain and play. He’s now trying his hardest to fix the problem (and I honestly believe he’ll try to come back) but I think he’s being realistic with himself on his chances of that happening. And no, I don’t think he’ll feel it’s worth it to come back and play hurt again. The only thing I’d disagree with (and I’m not sure you’re actually saying this because I don’t think you addressed it) is that, assuming he is healthy and could play again, I do think he’d be willing to try 1st to limit the odds of re-injury. But he’d first need to be able to play healthy.

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

by DMOAS on Jul 26, 2008 10:51 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Asides from his back injury

he has a badly damaged labrum in his rotator cuff.

Jeff Bagwell also had very badly damaged shoulder at the end of his career. His attempt at gutting it out didn’t last long. Would you say that the game also didn’t mean that much to him? John Smoltz also has the same condition. Once the injury flared up, he went from one of the best starters in MLB to not playing within a matter of months. Would you say that the game also doesn’t mean that much to him?

Also, Bagwell has said in interviews that after games his shoulder was so painful that he couldn’t comb his hair.

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

by rfloh on Jul 27, 2008 1:35 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I tried to make it clear

that by saying “the game doesn’t mean that much to him”, I didn’t mean he doesn’t care. I just have never sensed a “this will kill me if we don’t win/if I don’t play” mentality. Once again, this doesn’t make him a quitter, or a loser, or heartless.
However, I do think - and this is just my opinion - that a competitive fire that exists in many other ballplayers (Youkilis, Tejada, Rowand, Wright, just to name a few) ... that, “If we don’t win this game I am going to be PISSED” kind of mind set …. Chavez doesn’t have.
Some people will take this as a criticism … I’m just saying it’s the kind of person he is …

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.

by Vacafan on Jul 27, 2008 6:38 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sorry, didn't mean to italicize everything.

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.

by Vacafan on Jul 27, 2008 6:39 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

None of the guys you named

Youkilis, Tejada, Wright, with the exception of Rowand, have sustained a serious injury before, much less a serious shoulder injury.

The position player who has had a similar injury to Chavez’, Bagwell, didn’t managed to play through it either. Tons of pitchers, Smoltz being only the latest don’t manage to play through it. Do they all also lack “competitive fire”?

No amount of “competitive fire” is going to help, if you can’t flex / extend / abduct your shoulders without needing to take ridiculous amounts of painkillers.

One could even argue that the current problems are CAUSED by the idiotic "this will kill me if we don’t win/if I don’t play" mentality, when he idiotically played through the injuries in the past.

Also, the "this will kill me if we don’t win/if I don’t play" mentality not only usually doesn’t help the player, it usually doesn’t help the team either.

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

by rfloh on Jul 27, 2008 9:59 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nothing "heartless" about staying home with your family.

A lot of professional athletes would do well to have more “heart” where that is concerned.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Jul 27, 2008 1:35 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You are absolutely correct ...

I’ve never said Chavez lacks heart …. I’m saying he doesn’t care as much as some. Perhaps “care” is the wrong choice of words, but I can’t think of a better one right now. Anyways, see above for my explanation of what I mean.

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.

by Vacafan on Jul 27, 2008 6:42 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What shoulder injury was it

that derailed Hatty’s future as a catcher? I think the conversion to first could benefit the A’s as well as Chavy. His power stroke may be less than it was, but he’s a good enough hitter to adjust and hit for average. That’s something that this team could use. Barton is young enough that he may warrant another look at third for that matter. At any rate, having Chavy and Barton as interchangeable pieces at first wouldn’t be the worst thing imaginable.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Jul 26, 2008 10:39 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

1B - 3B....What's the difference?

Chavy had a great run at the hot corner, and I have never been critical of his efforts with the glove. But….he has been a liabity with the bat for so long that I haven’t even missed his presence in an already meek lineup. His BA w/ RISP is a joke…even before the injury/injuries. 3B/1B/DH….He’s still a gaping hole in a lineup full of punching Judy’s.

I am also concerned with past statements expressing his doubts about being “a leader.” He’s clearly not comfortable with such a role, not only in words, but in action. I look at Chavy and see a solid glove, .240 ish hitter, with no ability to come up with a big hit in a big situation..injury or not.

(Granted, this would put him right in line with any other of our options at first, and I doubt Chavy would dive head first into a HB Apt pool….but I digress)

by WannaBeGM on Jul 26, 2008 10:57 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So, in other words

you look at Chavez, imagine everything that you want to believe is wrong with the A’s because doing so would spare you the cognitive dissonance of understanding how baseball/MLB really works, and project it onto him while paying no attention to his actual track record.

Good call.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2008 12:02 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is one of those times where

a different sort of post could be a lot more constructive.

By your mention of cognitive dissonance and understanding how baseball really works, I gather that you know something we don’t. Why not enlighten us by sharing that knowledge with us, instead of simply sarcastically ridiculing us for not being as well informed as you?

If you don’t want to be bothered to explain it to us, fair enough — it’s not your duty to educate everyone else on this forum — but if you don’t choose to take on that responsibility, I’d suggest you might consider using the cancel button and not post at all. How does it add to the conversation to offer sarcasm and nothing more?

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jul 27, 2008 2:31 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lemme give it a shot

1) Chavez has not been a liability with the bat before 2008 (OPS+ over 100 every year 2000-2007), and therefore is not a gaping hole in the lineup. I like the punching Judys image though.
2) Chavez is not a choker in the clutch - 110 career tOPS in “high leverage situations”
3) No fan has any idea whether a player is or is not an effective leader unless they personally know a lot of players in the clubhouse
4) Chavez is not a .240-ish hitter when healthy - career BA .269, career EqA—.277

Basically the whole post is made up based on the poster’s pre-conceived notions and nothing substantive in the post is supported by facts. In fact all the publicly available facts contradict the assertions.

How’d I do?

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 8:50 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Very well, actually

Generally speaking, I have found it to be a waste of time to proffer lengthy factual explanations to people who demonstrate that they don’t care about facts to begin with.

However, since Iglew asked: Simply put, most people do not want to come to grips with the fact that their conceptions of “clutch hitting” (inevitably formed by the last few months, or at most, the last year of a player’s actual performance, plus a hefty dose of pure reputation) are based on fantasy. They will vehemently insist that a player is a choker regardless of all evidence to the contrary (eg A-Rod) and will inevitably downgrade that player’s actual performance in their minds to rationalize their opinion of him with his actual production. (The opposite happens, BTW, for popular heros.)

There are other psychological distortions going on in IWBG’s post, notably the persistent conflation of (what he/she imagines is) low batting average with selfishness and lack of leadership skills. Then there’s the whole rejection-of-stats-that-make-sense thing, although it’s hard to assume that without more evidence because some people just have never heard about anything other than batting average. (It’s getting harder, though.) Ultimately, the point is that unless you have actually researched an issue, the odds are that one’s perception of a player’s performance is more fantasy than reality. And even if one has researched an issue, deeply held prejudices will often cause the effects of that research to be rationalized away. (Cf Huston Street.)

I’m not excluding myself from this, BTW—but at least I’m aware of the problem and try to find ways to work around it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2008 11:52 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+1

My biggest problem with ignoring stats is that every player in the history of baseball has made an out in most of their plate appearances.

Players have had seasons with an OBP over .500 (heck, Bonds had several over .600) but the career high is under .500. What that means is that whenever any player – no matter how good – comes up they are likely to fail. Even a good player is likely to fail over 60% of the time. All told, as A’s fans who watch the team a lot we see people fail a LOT.

Even Cust, who is our best hitter by any rational measure (OBP, SLG, OPS, and HR) fails a lot. This does not make him bad, it makes him a baseball player.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 12:16 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Cust actually fails less than any other A's player, and yet

his detractors don’t want to count walks.

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 12:18 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Irrational is as irrational does I guess

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 12:28 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Having a lot of walks DOES NOT make one a good hitter

Walks are a far better indication of how poorly a pitcher is doing than how good a hitter is doing. Getting a walk is like reaching base on an error. Bad job by the opposing team.

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.

by Vacafan on Jul 27, 2008 2:52 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not true

I grant you that that is both the “obvious” and the traditional way of seeing it – the walk is a failure by the pitcher, not an achievement by the batter. That seems right, but it’s not. There’s a greater variability of walk rates among hitters than pitchers. I think hitters’ walk rates are more consistent than pitchers’ walk rates, as well. In other words, the hitters control walks more than pitchers do – walks are drawn by hitters to a greater extent than they are yielded by pitchers, despite how it may appear (although the skills of both hitter and pitcher are at play).

by Faust on Jul 27, 2008 4:20 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Walks are far more of a skill than hits are

if you assume that all MLB position players are capable of hitting to at least a semi-reasonable degree. I grant you that the existence of Tony Pena Jr. puts a crimp in this theory, but I claim he’s an exception…

It’s much easier to predict who will end up with how many walks, how they’ll rank, etc than it is for non-HR base hits, because the latter is tremendously influenced by luck and opposing defenses.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2008 5:01 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thanks, WC and PT

I’ll grant you that it can be a waste of time to offer factual explanations to people who aren’t interested in the facts. I would only suggest, again, that responding to their posts with snark is no less a waste of time, and has the added disadvantage of making you look mean.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jul 27, 2008 1:40 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This post is a little on the condescending side

But I agree 100% with it.

Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.

by Joey C. on Jul 27, 2008 11:04 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

For starters

It’s very hard to be “a leader” when you’re on the DL. How, exactly, would you like for him to lead by example? (and for that matter, how exactly would you know if he did in his last healthy season?).

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 7:37 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Liability with the bat?

You do know he’s been an above average offensive player always, right? This season is his only below average offensive season (and 1999).

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on Jul 27, 2008 12:18 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think you make a great post. Nico

I think that the A’s should really consider trading Barton or Cust. The team has too much money invested in Chavez. One of them will not have a spot in the line-up next year if they in fact consider Chavez as 1B. They should plan on going into 2009 with

A- a new starting 3B. No to Hannahan. In this regard, you are correct in that they need to add a 3B now. If Chavez can get better in a year or so and is able to throw again then great, they could look at their options then. HOWEVER, the biggest mistake in my opinion the fron office made in 2008 was counting on Hannahan as the starter at 3B (they had to know the risks of penciling in Chavez) to make the same mistake in 2009 would be disasterous. As to whom? Perhaps they can trade a pitcher or a DH type player or go the route of free agency.

B- If Chavez plays at 1B which is a good idea for 2009/2010 (when some of the 1B prospects are ready) there is only 2 spots for the following (Thomas, M. Sweeney, Barton, Cust). The A’s then should pick either Cust or Barton for one DH spot.
Then also Thomas or Sweeney for their Right handed DH spot. It would make sense to keep either Barton or Sweeney to have a reserve for Chavez.

by Yellowhorse on Jul 26, 2008 11:13 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Who would take Barton or Cust????

Barton in a ”:220ish” hitter who dives head first into apartment building pools and while Cust may connect on occasion, he is a poor excuse for a #3 hitter by any stretch of the imagination. Name one team (other than the Giants) who would need a “power hitter” who K’s at a level not seen since the Rob Deer days.

As for Chavy @ 1B, why block that spot for someone who may actually have an impact? (Carter??? who will at a minimum put up numbers comporable to Barton/Chavy/Cust…)

by WannaBeGM on Jul 26, 2008 11:35 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I love how one mistake suddenly lands Barton some label of...

...”Dumb kid who is completely irresponsible and immature.”

Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog

by Flashfire on Jul 26, 2008 11:44 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Actually, he is sort of

an immature horses ass. Much like any other 22 or 23 year old guy. It must suck having every one of your mistakes broadcast to the world. Had I had the misfortune(?) of fame and fortune at his age, I would have given the media an inexhaustable supply of stupidity.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Jul 26, 2008 11:50 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

did you just call me an immature horses ass?

The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.

by rebus on Jul 27, 2008 8:52 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hey, if it weren't for an immature horse's ass,

last night would have been a lot less interesting.

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 27, 2008 9:16 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I love this guy

1. Barton is very young and looks to do a lot better (see last September’s stats as evidence he at least can perform at a very high level)

2. Cust is very productive even though his BA sucks. For the same reasons Dunn will sign a big contract in the off season, teams would be interested in having Cust in their lineup.

3. Your name one team challenge: Cust would be a HUGE upgrade for the Mariners. There, that’s one team.

4. As for Carter, he’s playing in High-A Stockton. Chavez playing first base for the next year or two would have no effect on his development. If we started the 2009 season with Carter at 1B, there is almost no chance he’d put up numbers anywhere near as “good” as Barton’s.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 7:44 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

One thing to remember about Cust is that in order for the A's

to afford a Bay or Holliday lor Burrell ong-term they need some cheap players who can balance the roster out. Better Cust than Conrad, Bankston, Murphy, eh? Think of Cust as a player who, if combined with Bay/Holliday/Burrell, could give you a lot of production at a cost the A’s can manage.

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 27, 2008 9:19 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Excellent post by Nico!

If only the Chronicle would hire someone who is knowledgeable, competent, and who understands what REALLY needs to be addressed now vs. then.

+1

Beating LAA or wherever the fu*k they are, Priceless!

by MMunoz33 on Jul 26, 2008 11:19 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I thought that Beane was stockpiling young pitching talent

to trade for a bat for next season. If they do that it wouldn’t surprise me to see the “new bat” play at third. I do think that there is a pretty good chance that Chavez is never coming back. Playing at first will still put wear and tear on his shoulder. If Chavvy is well enough to play then let him play the position that he has been outstanding at. Not first base.

by IM4Oakgal on Jul 27, 2008 12:45 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sllusser's article confirms what I feared

Chavez is done.

There isn’t much reason, at this point, to think that Chavez could be an effective designated hitter because the shoulder bothers him even when he’s not throwing.

It seems apparent enough that there is probably nothing that can be done that will allow Chavez to play in the field. First base, third base, it doesn’t matter. And the problem can’t be fixed.

This brings back all of the old questions about the A’s medical staff, about the team’s habitual lying, and about Chavez’s refusal to have surgery all those years. Was he stupid, or did the A’s medical staff screw up again?

Now the team’s highest-paid player, the cornerstone whom Beane compared to Barry Bonds at a comparable stage of their careers, has a shoulder so damaged that he can’t even swing a bat.

Perhaps Chavez and the A’s were really unlucky. But something tells me that one or both of them screwed up.

by bear88 on Jul 27, 2008 1:04 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm starting to doubt that chavez could come back at 3rd

But the A’s have invested too much money in Chavez to just eat his contract. From what I’ve read it seems that hitting doesn’t seem to be the cause of the pain, they always say it’s from throwing. If that is trued they should at least try him at 1st or DH. I know he would still have to throw but it wouldn’t be off-balance/from the knees/all the way across the diamond throws every day. He hit decently enough when he played this year. If his career is indeed done my last (not best) memory of him will be hitting a 3-run HR against Detroit on June 3rd and his opposite field bomb against Brandon Webb on Jun 17th in Arizona.

If he does retire don’t the A’s have some kind of insurance for his contract or something? I vaugely remember something about the Astros wanting Jeff Bagwell to retire so they could get some insurance money.

You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}

by micdog2001 on Jul 27, 2008 1:22 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Teams never publicize their insurance contracts,

and players rarely do either.

I would judge it as almost certain that the A’s have some sort of contract completion policy on Chavez. I think it fairly likely that Chavez has his own loss of future earnings policy as well.

If it’s true that Chavez can no longer play 3B but might still be able to play 1B, Chavez may well have personal reasons for preferring to try or not try the position change. The team might have strategic reasons for a preference, too. But strictly in terms of financial benefit, whether it truly recoups some of the lost investment in Chavez will depend a lot on the terms of the insurance policies.

The policy will have some sort of language defining what constitutes a career-ending injury. If that language is such that Chavez’s already established injuries are enough to trigger a claim, then there is probably little to be gained financially by trying to get him back in the game.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jul 27, 2008 2:41 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Bagwell

Bagwell’s case was exceptional because, for some reason that was never well explained, the Astros’ policy on Bagwell had an expiration date. The policy was due to expire on Jan 31, 2006, so in order to collect on the insurance, the team needed to declare Bagwell’s career over before spring training.

Bagwell knew he was hurt, but even if it was doubtful that he could play well enough, he wanted to at least give it a try. But because of the insurance contract, if Bagwell were to come to spring training, attempt to play, and then after a few weeks discover that he couldn’t, the Astros would have lost the entire multi-million-dollar claim, just for the privilege of giving him a few weeks of spring training to give it a try. Therefore they wished he wouldn’t show up for spring training at all. But at the same time they couldn’t dis-invite him either, because that would also invalidate the claim.

It was a weird situation, which was headed for a big lawsuit when Bagwell did come to spring training, the team filed a claim anyway, and the insurance company denied it. But then they did what big corporations usually do with complicated legal situations where big money is involved: they came to terms with the insurance company and agreed on some sort of compromise settlement. And, also like big corporation always do, they kept the terms of the settlement confidential.

All of this was unusual because the Astros’ policy on Bagwell was due to expire right at a time when it was not clear whether his injury was truly career-ending. Typically, the team will have an ongoing policy, and they can just keep trying to get the guy healthy until it’s obvious that he really is done. There are plenty of other cases where a team is known to have collected insurance on a big contract ended by injury, with no controversy about the timing of it. Albert Belle is one that comes to mind.

"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk

by iglew on Jul 27, 2008 3:03 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

COOL

thanks for the info :-)

You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}

by micdog2001 on Jul 28, 2008 2:44 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

wonder if there's any chance

of Jeremy Brown coming back and playing 3B!

Let's have our Piazza and eat the Cust too - SPWC

by closetasfan on Jul 27, 2008 7:06 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nico scoops Slusser

Could be some awkward moments at next year’s AN day.

by Larry E on Jul 27, 2008 9:01 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Any pictures of this alleged scooping?

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 9:10 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 9:18 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Now that looks delicious!

The ice-cream looks ok too.

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 27, 2008 9:22 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hey, you scooped her

To the victor go the spoils.

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 9:26 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rueing the Draft

Times like this when choosing Jemile Weeks over Brett Wallace seems iffy (considering Beane has acquired two more 2B’s since then).

But much more sad is that my favorite player, from since I became an A’s fan, will never be the same. Never will we see his otherworldy defense at third base, and at this point, it doesn’t look like we’ll see that opposite field power that only Jack Cust can rival (on the A’s)

the problem is not "too many left handed hitters" but "too many suck handed hitters"-Zonis

by ohad on Jul 27, 2008 9:24 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Brett Wallace wasn't even really a third baseman in college

Daric Barton probably has a better chance of playing the position successfully at the major league level than Wallace does.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 27, 2008 11:57 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Now that I have caught

up on my reading. I can do some chores and get ready for today’s texas run fest.

alaska A

by ak_A on Jul 27, 2008 9:41 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Dustin McGowan will have season-ending surgery

to repair “fraying of the labrum” in his right shoulder. My hunch is that if Chavez had done this, along with the back surgery, after the 2006 season, he’d be coming back strong no later than March, 2009. “Pushing through” and putting additional wear and tear on injured body parts is just never a good move.

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

by Nico on Jul 27, 2008 9:42 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think everyone needs to say a prayer for Chavvy

Not because he’s hurting for money, no. Just for the simple reason that despite what many people may think, Eric is very much a “competitor” and he is a human being with very real emotions, just like the rest of us.

Personally, I think it’s really killing him that he’s not able to contribute to the team. And if there were any way possible for him to take the “hot corner” he absolutely would.

“I miss ya Chavvy and hope you recover fully and come back to reclaim your spot at 3rd or just to be a part of A’s baseball, period.”

God bless-M-Rod

by mrod on Jul 27, 2008 10:50 AM PDT reply reply actions actions   1 recs

I agree - I have nothing but good things to say

about Chavy’s commitment to playing and helping the team. It is arguable that he hurt himself and the A’s by playing hurt, and certainly arguable that his own reluctance to explore surgery sooner was a miscalculation. But I have no doubt that his intentions were good, and that his heart in the right place, and I have little doubt that the A’s medical staff bungled his case – and there’s a shocker.

“Mr. Mechanic, my car is overheating and there’s this ‘pinging’ sound whenever I turn the wheel.”

“Hmm…Why don’t you try running the car for two more years and then we’ll see how it’s doing and decide what to 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

by Nico on Jul 27, 2008 11:27 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

+2

One for crediting Chavez’ desire to play, and one for faulting the A’s for pushing/allowing Chavez to play and essentially destroy any hope for a medical recovery.

by BlameChannel53 on Jul 27, 2008 11:44 AM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ya, without Chavy running the car in 2006 there's no ALCS

Agree with BC53 that the A’s allowing him to play with a frayed shoulder—at 3B no less, was incredibly irresponsible.

When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!

by WaddellCanseco on Jul 27, 2008 12:17 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In 2006, they should have moved Chavy to DH

and put Frank Thomas at 3B. They still would have gone to the ALCS because they had Scutaro at SS and he’s clutch.

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 27, 2008 12:24 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rec'd

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 12:17 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just because there's nowhere else to post this

With Patterson coming up and Murton going down, is Ellis on his way out? Why else would they call up another left handed hitting guy who can pretty much only play 2B (Conrad might stand over at thid, but he sure as hell isn’t good enough to play there)?

http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/

by thejd44 on Jul 27, 2008 12:20 PM PDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The A's seem to like to call guys up when they're ready,

and not call them up when they’re not ready. That’s my take on Patterson – he’s ready, he can hit, the big league team can’t hit, so call him up and then figure out where to put him.

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 27, 2008 12:22 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Plus aren't Ellis and Sweeney banged up?

Patterson can play both those positions (as well as he can play any position, that is)

"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson

by nevermoor on Jul 27, 2008 12:29 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Geren just said (on the show named after him)

he wants Patterson to play some OF and some 2B (giving Ellis rest), and to bat leadoff. May or may not be in today’s lineup depending on when he arrives.

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 27, 2008 12:40 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nowhere else to post this?

Who needs competence as long as everyone smiles? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 27, 2008 9:43 PM PDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms
Start posting about the Athletics »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
2010 Oakland Athletics: Internal and FA Options
Small
Possible Trade Partners: Giants
Tsgirlbass_th_small
DLD 7/1/09: Less about baseball, more about baseball movies
Small
Possible Trade Partners: St. Louis Cardinals
Tsgirlbass_th_small
DLD 6/30/09: Pardon me if I'm sentimental

Recent FanPosts

Ziegler160px_small
Pics from the Texas League All-Star Game
N1053030071_30000523_3651_small
The Annual Questionable All-Star Post
Jones-drew_small
A request, AN, from me to you
Small
Hairston is an A
Larry_smith_small
A's ballpark needs to be modified
Small
next A's philosophy: High $ International FA signings and High draft picks- pitchers only
Small
A's demands for Holiday
142564582_9b68f505fa_small
GOG 2009 #27
Small
Minor Athletics on vacation -- Minor League Dump

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

SPONSORS


Managers

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

As_kings_cal_small louismg

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Martin_brodeur_300_small Blez

Ziegler160px_small Flashfire

Editors

Countdown_small Taj Adib

527918550406_0_bg_small notsellingjeans

Authors

P1010266b_small devo

Super_grover_small grover

The_baby_small salb918

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports