Prediction for Friday: Duke Traded, Gio Starting?
by notsellingjeans on Jul 29, 2008 8:20 AM PDT
Email
PrintMLBTraderumors has reported that Bronson Arroyo and A.J. Burnett have both been taken off the trading block by their respective teams, and that Jarrod Washburn to the Yankees is unlikely to happen. This leaves Duchscherer as arguably the only legitimate starting pitcher available until Thursday's mid-afternoon trade deadline.
Since Duke is now the only game in town for teams that want SPs, I think it's almost certain he'll go. The Dodgers and Rockies have already been rumored to be in discussions for him.
Another NL team to watch on the Duke front is the Mets. Pedro Martinez has a side session or rehab start today (not entirely sure which), and John Maine was pulled in his last start with shoulder discomfort. Let's say Pedro's rehab start is terrible today, and he appears to need another few weeks or more. Doesn't that force Minaya to at least explore a deal for Duke, assuming Duke is the last legitimate SP on the market?
Now, as for Duke's potential replacement in the rotation...
The A's have an off-day Thursday, then play at Boston Friday night. This would be Duke's turn in the rotation...but it also happens to be Gio Gonzalez' turn in the rotation for AAA Sacramento.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Duke traded to one of those three teams, Chavez moved to the 60-Day DL, and Gio Gonzalez's contract purchased from Sacramento so that he can start in Duke's place Friday night.
Gio, who will need to be added to the 40-man roster this offseason anyway since he's Rule 5 Draft eligible for the first time, could get a nice 1-to-2 month audition in the major league rotation to see if he's ready to slide in for next year. When he has the occasional ugly, short outing, Lenny DiNardo can be used as his caddy to save the rest of the pen.
If Gio takes Duke's place, that would give the A's four lefties in the rotation.
The only downside I can see to the "Gio for Friday" plan is that ideally Gio Gonzalez' MLB debut wouldn't come in sold-out Fenway Park, Friday night prime-time, against one of the game's best lineups. Talk about pressure. An alternative would be utilizing Thursday's offday to start Eveland (who threw Sunday) on Friday, bumping everyone else up, and then slotting Gio in next Tuesday at Toronto. This scenario would mean Gio goes eight days without pitching though, and I don't think that's ideal, either.
As for the A's other trade candidates, I think that Crosby/Ellis/Street/Embree have all played or hurt their way out of being traded, and I don't mean that in a good way. I think that most teams would look at their numbers (and injury risk, in Street and Ellis' case) and think that none of those guys present a great enough upgrade to deal away anything significant.
Now, back to Duke:
I don't really understand why the Rockies think they should be "buyers", but since they appear to be, personally I would trade Duke, Street, and even Ellis and Embree together if it would net Ian Stewart, the Rockies' 23-year-old third baseman. Duke alone wouldn't land him. I would rather have Stewart long-term than the Dodgers' Andy LaRoche, because LaRoche's power outage since his wrist injury a year ago scares me. That large trade (4 A's for Ian Stewart) would allow the Rox to slide Jeff Baker over to third to replace Stewart, slot Ellis in at second, and keep Barmes in the super-utility role they seem to prefer him in. Garrett Atkins is currently filling in at first for Helton, who's on the DL. Getting Street and Embree would also allow the Rox to comfortably trade their incumbent free agent closer Fuentes, who is always rumored to be on the block, and give the Rockies their closer for the next few years. Thoughts?
Or, if Duke was traded to the Mets, who would you want/expect the team to get back? Niese + 1? How about the Dodgers? Is LaRoche enough of a haul?
201 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For me...
I would be completely satisfied with LaRoche +1 or Stewart +1.
If we don’t get a big-time 3B, SS, or 2B prospect back then I’d want Beane to pull another 4 prospect deal.
History suggests that Beane (nor anyone else for that matter) won’t get a deal done, but I’d do almost anything to get LaRoche or Stewart in an A’s uniform by August 1.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
To add to that...
I hope Beane doesn’t use the fact that Duke is the only pitcher left to try get 5 top prospects from a team simply because Duke is the only guy left on the market.
I’d hope he trades from a position of strength (SP) for a position of weakness (3B). I’ll bet you a dollar Stewart or LaRoche will be better in the next 3 years anyway.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Several responses
Frankly, I’d rather see Dan Meyer given one last chance to make it in the bigs. Giving him a 2 month tryout in the rotation during a season that’s basically a writeoff seems like a better idea, since he’ll be gone next year if he doesn’t make it.
Rockies – I’d love Stewart, plain and simple, but isn’t he rumored to be a bit of a butcher defensively?
Dodgers – LaRoche and DeJesus for Duke and whatever else it takes (Street? Ellis? Whatever)
Mets – Milledge, Heilman, and Pelfrey!!1 Oh wait, it’s not 2006. Honestly I don’t see a matchup, they’re not trading Martinez, and frankly I just don’t want another friggin pitcher without getting a future left side of the infield player.
Stewart
actually isn’t that bad in the field. He’s greatly improved, and has recently been making some really nice plays. I don’t know all the facts/statistics, but just from watching him a great deal, I don’t notice anything that stands out as horrible. His throws aren’t always on the money, but he’s rarely crazily wild. Not to mention that he’s making leaps and bounds of progress at the plate.
Good enough for me.
If you can’t believe a random dude on the internet, WHO CAN YOU BELIEVE??
DUKE FOR STEWART!
"he's rarely crazily wild"
I love it!
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 29, 2008 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Can he pitch?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I hear ya
I’d like to see Meyer get one last shot too. I’m certain he’ll be up with the big club in September, and he’ll at least get some long relief innings inning. If our rotation is Smith/Eveland/Braden/Gallagher/Gio at that point, there will be plenty of long-relief innings for him to pitch in. :)
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 29, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure, but Geren doesn't "do" long relief.
I can remember the one game last year where he gave DiNardo the ball and like 5 innings of relief to finish out a game, but other than that he’s a dumbass and burns through the bullpen even if the starter gets pulled in the 4th or 5th inning.
That’s why I’d rather just give Gio the full year in Sac and let Meyer have one last shot. Gio is basically guaranteed a spot on the team next year anyway.
Geren doesn't do long relief because we have too many pitchers
If we had an 11 man staff, he’d have no choice
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Good thinking
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
we might as well give Meyer one last shot
after all, he’s going to be out of options so we have to make the decision to keep him or let hm go anyways. If he makes it, well, we got a stopgap rotation starter for next year.
If he doesn’t, well, we know we can cut him loose after the season.
facepalm.jpg
What are Meyer's numbers so far this year?
(As I repeat a life-long habit of asking others to relay info I could just as easily look up myself….)
It'd be kind of ironic
if in the same week the Braves found out that Hudson could have serious ligament issues that Meyer would come up and perhaps finally contribute at the big league level.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jul 29, 2008 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Would it be classless to find a Braves fan and LOL IN THEIR STUPID FACE!1!one!!!
I mean, if that actually happened, that is.
Yes? OK. Nevermind.
Also silly, because it's really unlikely that Meyer will ever contribute as much
as Hudson already has.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I find that if I fill my fantasy-based reality with ScarJo, there's no room for facts to get in
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
Meyer's pretty useless
He’s only 27, so I guess he’s still worth a shot, but his talent got left on the operating room table, without question. Before the injury, his command wasn’t just good—it was exceptional. He walked only 32 in 160 IP in 2003, and 37 in 126 IP in 2004. Since, he’s a mortal lock for 4.5 BB every nine innings, and has been for four years now. His mechanics have been irrevocably altered.
Someone asked about his numbers this year—here they are:
116 IP, 107 H, 10HR, 51 BB, 102 K, 4.58 ERA, 1.36 WHIP
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Yeah, hate to say it but that just isn't good
I think he’d be OK out of the bullpen as a lefty-killer but that just is not suggestive of the ability to succeed as a major league starter. It’s probably worth a try anyway, in an Eugenio Velez “who knows, maybe he’ll magically become awesome” sort of way, but my hopes are basically nonexistent.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
: ( ...
It’s those walks—the hit rate is fine, the HR rate is normal, the strikeouts are good … but those walks … damn those walks …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Sounds like Eveland except 3 years older...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Man, those are AAA numbers too
yikes
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Jul 29, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I have tickets to see Duke pitch on Friday.
I will be upset if he is traded.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
Note to Billy: turn off your phone -- sal's got tickets!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jul 29, 2008 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Or trade Duke to the Red Sox
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Friday
I’m heading up to B town on Friday as well, but I wouldn’t mind seeing Gio’s first start at all. Definitely Duke over Meyer, though.
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 29, 2008 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Thank you!
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
trying to get me some of those...
instead i got tix to today’s sox game. one of the few times I’ll actually root for them.
Looked for tickets to Friday's and Sunday's game
Price is just ridiculous though. In the 50s for standing room.
I might just walk over and see if there’s anything can be done with the scalpers.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on Jul 29, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Duke, Embree, Street and Crosby to the Dodgers for LaRoche, Kuo/Lambo/McDonald/Young and Gallagher
with the A’s paying the salary difference makes the most sense to me. I’d like Stewart, but I don’t see the Rockies trading him when they could trade Atkins.
There’s no one on the Mets I’d want other than Martinez. I don’t get the attraction of Niese. He’d be about our 6th best pitching prospect—Gio, Anderson, Cahill, Simmons are all clearly better, Mazzaro’s doing better at a younger age in a tougher league at AA, Rodriguez and Leon have a lot more upside.
Regarding SS, it’s not clear to me that DeJesus, Hu, Nelso or Flores are any better than Petit or Pennington. Anyway, we need hitters. If we were going to trade for a SS, I’d prefer Brignac or Wood.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
Heck, throw in Ellis and Murton if the second guy can be Kuo and Young
Dodgers would get a middle IF, starting pitcher and two relievers all of whom they can use right now.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh, and I'd throw in Braden and/or all Browns if it meant getting the deal done.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Lol
You’re already talking about a 4-for-1 or 4-for-2 swap on 40-man roster players. Any additional crummy throw-ins would simply result in them DFAing another of their own marginal players, i.e. would be worthless.
You’re falling into the “more mediocrity = more value in return” trap. The Dodgers don’t need an entire bloody team, just a couple of upgrades.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Arguably, the Dodgers just need one upgrade
but it’s an administrator, not a player. Or maybe a mediator!
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
OK, basically to get LaRoche, Kuo and Gallagher, I'd give the Dodgers a choice of
any four players from the major league roster other than Suzuki, Barton, Carlos, Sweeney, Gallagher, Eveland, Smith and Cust, and bear the 2008 payroll difference.
If I were Colletti, I’d choose
Duchscherer - new starter, maybe replaces Lowe
Street - late inning reliever and no loss if injured if A’s pay salary difference
Ellis - big upgrade over Kent, and no risk if A’s pay salary difference
Crosby - big upgrade over Berroa/Garciaparra/Maza, and no risk if A’s pay salary difference
If I wanted a righty bat I might demand Murton, Denorfia or Emil, and if I wanted a platoon partner for Blake, I might want Hannahan. Given the injury risk, I might demand these two in addition.
If they wanted a lefty bullpen guy to replace Kuo, I’d give them Braden, but not Hannahan.
I’m saying I would have no problem doing that. Maybe I’d haggle to get another prospect thrown in of the Matthew Spencer type.
If the Dodgers want a prospect (like Simmons or Mazzaro), I’d insist on another prospect in return that I really wanted, like Lambo. I wouldn’t trade Leon or Henry because I don’t think we’d get full value of their potential right now.
I see no reason why Colletti wouldn’t want to upgrade 4 positions, unless he likes Kuo as much as I do, which I doubt because he’s been a middle reliever.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Judging by current DL use
I’d say we have the bloodiest team in baseball.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Jul 30, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
New location for the A's if Fremont doesn't work out:
Flanders.
(Wow, that’s two World War I metaphors in one day. I blame this World War I boardgame [Paths of Glory] I picked up a couple months ago. The thing is *%^ing addictive—even when you’re playing it solitaire.)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
... and, of course, that would make them the Holland A's
I yust love that yolk.
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
To me
The Dodgers make a ton of sense for the A’s and Duke. The Dodgers now have Casey Blake at third, so LaRoche should be easier to pry away. And I imagine Duke would pitch very well at Dodger Stadium.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jul 29, 2008 9:10 AM PDT reply actions
Afear not. They're probably just haggling over money.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Give them what they want. Pay the salaries of whoever they're trading.
Christ, if it’s worth paying for Kendall’s salary to get Bowen and Blevins, it had better damn well be worth paying Duke’s (or Street’s) salary to get LaRoche.
We wouldn't send money to the Dodgers if we traded Duchscherer or Street, their salaries are too low.
Now, if it was Crosby or Embree, that would be a different story.
facepalm.jpg
Supposedly McCourt imposed a restriction that all trades have to be at least
payroll neutral. That’s supposedly why the Indians paid a chunk of Blake’s salary. All we need to do is achieve that and we’re all set. Even Street costs $3.3M this year, and Duke $1.2M. Not a lot but still not payroll neutral.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions
The mindset "do whatever it takes to get it done"
is the one Beane preys on, not the one Beane employs. Fortunately.
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
How does paying the salaries of players you'd have to pay anyway
cost anything? If I could get prospects back I really wanted, why not do it?
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
And by the way, this opportunistic, bargain hunting mindset of Beane has caused him to
lose out on some very high upside players that he might have had a shot at—Josh Hamilton (Goleski probably projected better in MORP), Alex Rodriguez (no one will ever convince me that diversifying risk among Loaiza, Kotsay, Kendall and the rest was a better deal than getting one of the top 10-15 players of all time).
Beane needs to get his head out of projections and just go for the best players, meaning value upside a lot more than in the past five years. I’m encouraged that he seems to value Inoa’s upside.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
If it were that easy i think the deal would be done...
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
WHY DOES IT MAKE SO MUCH SENSE
- The deadline is Thursday.
- Duke’s next start is Friday.
- Gio’s turn in the AAA rotation is Friday.
- Gio needs to be placed on the 40 man roster soon.
- The Dodgers want a pitcher.
- The Dodgers acquired Casey Blake and sent LaRoche down to AAA.
- The Dodgers don’t like LaRoche.
- The A’s like LaRoche and he would start immediately.
What else needs to be aligned in the cot damn skies for this to happen???
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
Patience grasshopper. I have faith a deal is nigh.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I think you undervalue our players too much
4 players for Stewart? who has always played in favorable hitting enviroments.
Ya, is Stewart really all that great? Please explain.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
According to Jayson Stark...
According to clubs that have been speaking with the Royals, they’ve been having extensive conversations with the Phillies about a trade that would send Mahay to Philadelphia for shortstop prospect Jason Donald, a member of the U.S. Olympic baseball team.
Is Mahay worth more to Philly than Blanton or was our load better than this Olympian?
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Cardenas is way better than Donald
But I hoped that Donald was a part of the Blanton trade instead of Outman/Spencer.
The A's wanted to add Embree for Donald as part of the Blanton deal
Philly thought they could get better than Embree and nixed it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Which begs the question that haunts AN...
Did the Phillies in fact be better by not having Embree?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Where'd you see that?
Too bad, that would have been great for us.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
there are already more than enough in the rotation
who are young and may need long relief…DiNardo can’t be expected to pick up for Gio as well (nor can the present short relief combos such as bailed out Eveland on Sunday)
From now on,
Please refrain from headlines on the frontpage that contain the words “Duke Traded” in big letters.
We really only have two good trade trips left (unless we’re counting guys like Sweeney, Suzuki or prospects) in Duke and Street. Past that we have a bunch of mediocre guys like Embree, a rental of Ellis, Cust, and Crosby.
So if we’re targeting a team like the Mets we have to get a top, top prospect. Which means Martinez. Which means blockbuster. Their holes or at least the positions they’re looking for are LF, relief pitching and then SP. They don’t seem to be interested in Jack Cust on steroids in Adam Dunn so I don’t think they’d want Cust (Note to self: “on steroids” not a good expression for comparing baseball players). But what about Ryan Sweeney (he reminds a lot of Buck last year except not as good), Embree (but if they want more maybe switch Embree for Street), and Duke for Martinez, and a couple of guys like Wilmer Flores, an international signee SS who supposedly has tools out the wazoo?
If we’re looking to the Dodgers we obviously need LaRoche, but I think we need one more top prospect like McDonald/DeJesus, and then a guy like Elbert, a high upside type guy. If we need to, I would not be opposed to taking on a guy like Andruw or even Schmidt if it means we can sweeten our pot with Kemp, or if we’re only trading Crosby and Embree. Crosby and Embree for LaRoche, Andruw, and Elbert?
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
trading with the dodgers could be a problem
If McCourt does not trust Colletti to spend his money, he should fire him now. If McCourt does not trust Colletti to run the front office, he should do the same.The perception around baseball is that the Dodgers’ front office is dysfunctional and factional. Three executives—all from different major league teams—said last week his club had been frustrated in trying to conduct trade talks with the Dodgers.
The Dodgers tend not to respond to trade proposals as quickly or decisively as other clubs, leaving those executives wondering whether to approach Colletti, McCourt or one of the assistant general managers for a prompt response and whether scouting guru Logan White is whispering into McCourt’s ear to hold onto the prospects.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I blame the dysfucntion on having a woman in the front office
ok, not really.
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
by black beane on Jul 29, 2008 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Calling Dr. Freud: typo on aisle three!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jul 29, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Interesting ploy by the other execs to bring the Dodgers to the table.
I wonder …
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jul 29, 2008 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Fodder for Plaschke
to take McCourt to task? Good thought, I wonder if you’re right?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Didn't know Frank McCourt and Peter Angelos were such good friends.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Far worse owners to have than Wolfe.
At least as far as the on field product goes. Meddlesome ownership must be a heavy burden to bear as a fan. Especially if it’s incompetent to boot.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
If Shapiro can do it, Beane can do it!
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
If the A's trade Duke they are conceding
(if they haven’t already) that they won’t be seriously competing before 2010. In which case they had better get some kick-ass help on the left side of the infield, in exchange for conceding that their “reloading” has in fact been no better than other teams’ rebuilding efforts – out of contention for at least three seasons and out of the post-season at least five out of six.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
i guess, but
isn’t a team playing .500 ball with a very young squad a better rebuilding effort than a team that has the worst record in the majors?
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
by black beane on Jul 29, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Depends on your perspective
A team winning 81 games is certainly more fun to watch as a fan than a team that only wins 60-70 games, but the team with the 60-70 wins is going to get better draft picks and has a much better chance to acquire true impact players that will allow a team to become a true contender.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 29, 2008 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
And the team playing .500 ball
has been a 60-70 win team since it traded Harden/Blanton – which it had to do in order to continue rebuilding.
My complaint is that this young team is NOT the rebuilt team. We don’t have the “next 3Bman” or “the next SS” getting his feet wet, or the “next big bat” getting experience. If we had Cardenas and Chris Carter struggling so they could be a great 3Bman and a great power hitter next season, that would be exciting. This is just “filler”.
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
so, to what magical properties will you attribute the couple of weeks when they play like a 90-win team?
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
"ebb and flow"
A team that starts three of Hannahan, Conrad, Bankston, and Emil Brown,has both Eveland and Braden in the rotation, and is in the bottom third of the league in power, is no better than a 70-win team. 70-win teams occasionally have two-week periods where they play like a 90-win team.
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
80- to 85-win teams have stretches where they play like both
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
No doubt - so do you think this roster
represents an 80-85 win team?
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
Okey dokey then.
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
Bankston,Conrad, Emil
So, were Barton’s shallow dive and Beane’s signing Emil in the offseason crushing psychological blows to the team as well?
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
No. Did you have any other questions?
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
Why do you ask?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jul 29, 2008 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Good point!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jul 29, 2008 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay, here's one: was it ever determined why(-oh-why) Nico needed to contact SLF?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jul 29, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
His listed email address wasn't valid
Everyone on AN has to have a valid email address.
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
Interesting hobby.
Is he filed under S or F?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jul 29, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno
Just because we don’t have those bats at the MLB level doesn’t mean this squad isn’t rebuilding.
You would be happier if Cardenas and Carter were playing everyday at the MLB level than what we’re seeing now?
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
by black beane on Jul 29, 2008 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
No, of course not - I'd be happier if they
were MLB ready enough to be here, but they aren’t and that’s not their fault. But they will not be contributing in the next 2 years, so they are not part of being competitive in 2009 or 2010.
If this rebuild only aims to be competitive starting in 2011, then fine – and it’s time for Beane to stop talking about rebuilding any better/faster than anyone else. The premise was “we rebuild faster and better”...Oh?
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
Beane said that?
I guess I could see him saying something like that, but I must have missed out on that one.
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
by black beane on Jul 29, 2008 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Beane didn't say anything of the sort
The people who said “we rebuild faster/better” were primarily… smug A’s fans.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Remember 2005? "This is going to be the worst
A’s team for the next 5 years.” Remember (paraphrasing), “When I took over as GM we had been mediocre for several years in a row and I vowed not to let that happen again”?
If it’s 1998 or 1999 right now, good job Billy. If it’s 1996 or 1997, then…eh.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'd have to find the quotes
But in 2002-2005, Beane was quoted on several occasions saying things to the effect that “smart teams don’t have to rebuild,” and “5-year rebuilding plans are the result of poor planning by teams.”
I do agreee that most of the reloading rather than rebuilding came from smug A’s fans, however.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 29, 2008 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
2005 isn't now
I agree that a 5-year rebuild time is far too long, but really, I don’t see how that’s the case. It’s taken the A’s 8 months just to finish offloading the old talent. If it takes another season and a half before the pieces are in place for a playoff roster, then that’s too bad—but it’s hardly a five-year plan.
As for the “smart teams don’t have to rebuild” philosophy, it appears Beane doesn’t believe that anymore, because he’s doing it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If we take until 2010 or 2011
to make the playoffs again that is either 5/6 or 6/7 years missing the playoffs. That may not technically fit the definition of a 5-year rebuilding plan, but that’s still a whole lot of years of not making the playoffs.
As to your second point, that’s kind of Nico’s point as I can figure it. Beane had previously stated that the A’s would never enter a long phase of rebuilding, but that’s pretty much what we’re in right now. That’s not so much a criticism of Beane as it is an observation that Beane was unable to do what he hoped; Beane wanted to buck the system and show that a small-market team can be a perennial playoff team without rebuilding. It’s pretty clear at this point that Beane did not accomplish that goal (nor has any other small-market team.)
I personally am fairly bullish on the A’s chances to compete in 2009 if particular moves are made in the offseason, and I am planning on drafting a fanpost on that subject after the trade deadline has officially passed.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 29, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Eh
The Giants missed the playoffs 4 years in a row 2004-2007. Rebuilding plan? Not so much. Toronto hasn’t made the playoffs in forever. Are they rebuilding?
Sucking is not rebuilding. Last year’s A’s team sucked but it wasn’t part of some 5-year plan.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Agreed.
Nor was missing the playoffs in 2004 in one of the most brutal two week stretches (although this current one is close) in recent times.
by Pucking Insane on Jul 29, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
STDH2R was a negotiating position, like "Chavez is healthy"
Beane likely said that as fodder for other GMs, so he could insist that what he was doing wasn’t, in fact, rebuilding.
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
we did rebuild faster/better than everybody else
above .500 in the AL is, for some teams, a huge accomplishment (look at the NL West).
once again, I think you’re being unnecessarily drastic saying the rebuild has failed. To say that our PEAK is in 2011, does not say we are not competing in 2009.
Yes, but I didn't say the rebuild has failed
I said if we don’t compete – at least to 1999 levels – in 2009, then I think it has not been nearly as successful as advertised.
In order to compete in 2009, I think the A’s need to keep Duchscherer, use the chips they have to get a major-league ready 3Bman or SS, and add a right-handed bat for the middle of the order. Given the minor league depth the A’s have, plus options available on the FA market, it’s still doable.
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
so if they add LaRoche, Holliday, and keep Duke
but still fail to compete, is the rebuild a success?
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
by black beane on Jul 29, 2008 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes - because they SHOULD compete with that team
There are no guarantees, but some rosters give you a chance, some don’t.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I guess I think the rebuild is damn close to done.
We have a competitive squad. By all accounts, if Angels didn’t win every close game ever, we’d be leading or at least competing for the division.
I’d say competing in 2009 is very possible without duke, especially with the upgrade Stewart/LaRoche would represent at 3B.
I think you're either overrating the group of
Gallagher, Smith, Eveland, Braden, and a rookie, or underrating the importance of starting pitching to anyone, especially to the A’s – because a lineup with the current group plus Ian Stewart is not going to suddenly light up the runs column.
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
Speaking of Eveland and Braden
If they are in the rotation next year, then we are in deep trouble.
The way Eveland has been pitching the last 2 months, he is not performing even up to a #5. Things may change but I doubt it but that’s just my opinion.
I hate unproductive outs and the A's are producing them at record production
Look the argument is marginal, not the overall
you say that losing Duke is the lynchpin. For that to be true, the downgrade from Duke to the rookie has to be significantly higher than the upgrade at 3B.
But all you’re arguing is that our rotation minus Duke would be atrocious. In that case, our rotation with Duke should at least be below average as well.
You’re not defending that Duke is the lynchpin (which is what you claim). You’re defending that our rotation without duke would be shaky, which is a completely distinct claim.
Make the argument about the Margin. Tell me that Duke is worth 5 games over the rookie, but LaRoche is only 2 games above Hannahan, and the 3 games are critical. (those #’s are hypothetical, and only illustrate the outline of what the argument should be).
i would agree if this was the NBA
but getting higher draft picks in MLB doesn’t really assure you of the top prsopects, and even if you do land some, it’s gonna take a season or two of minor league performance before they gain their true trade value.
if anything, i would say a team that has young talent that’s winning on the mlb level has a bigger chance to acquire a real impact bat.
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
by black beane on Jul 29, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
There is a huge difference
in success rates between the first 10 picks of a draft versus other picks. It is no guarantee of success in drafting - see the Pittsburgh Pirates as Exhibit A - but the majority of superstar and star players are taken very early in the draft.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 29, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
And that effect is only getting greater...
as the years go on and drafting is becoming more and more of an exact science.
Drafting is not the “crapshoot” it was made out to be even as recently as “Moneyball”.
Having a top-5 draft pick is more valuable than any time in baseball HISTORY. Why? Because now, there is more and better video analysis than ever before, and better statistical analysis than ever before.
If you want to get the next Ryan Braun or Evan Longoria, you have to be in the top-5 picks. Period. That’s my take, anyway.
We’re punting on the rest of ‘08, and we’ll at least guarantee that we finish with a pick in the top 15, which is nice, because if Beane decides he wants to sign a Type A FA, that means he’s got a protected pick and he’s only giving up his second rounder.
In ‘09, this team could conceivably have one of the 10 worst records in baseball. It won’t compete, but it’ll procure a great draft pick. I think that’s all part of the new plan.
After 2009, John Lackey and Vlad Guerrero’s contracts run out. (And even if they re-sign both, that’s a ton of money, which has an impact on the quality of the rest of the roster). To me, that’s the Angels’ best hitter and best pitcher. I think the first time the A’s will be better than the Angels on paper is 2010. That’s the first contending year.
The wild card might be more attainable by 2010, too. I’m predicting the Yankees, for one, will be worse in ‘10 than they are now or next year.
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 29, 2008 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Wouldn't that have been the case with trading Harden?
If the goal was to compete next year, keeping Harden and Gaudin for 2009 seems to be a no brainer.
Not if the A's felt Harden's health was too uncertain.
The A’s should be building a core group of players they can count on. Swapping an injured ace for a potentially solid #2 starter (as soon as 2009) was a good move, IMO – plus a couple other pieces could be important contributors in 2009 and beyond.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I don't understand this post -- they are building a core
Along with CarGo, Suzuki, Sweeney, Barton, and possibly Buck – that covers 5 of the 8 position players, leaving 2B 3B and SS. It can be assumed that at least ONE of Patterson, Cardenas or Weeks should be able to handle 2B, leaving just the left side of the infield at SS and 3B.
Which, incidentally, is what everybody is hoping that one/some of Street, Ellis, or Duke are traded for.
When, though? Cardenas and Weeks
won’t be ready before 2011 and Patterson represents a huge dropoff defensively, from one of the best to someone below average, who has to prove he can hit.
And you still have gaping holes at two very key positions (SS and 3B). And if you trade Duke, you can’t expect your rotation to excel before 2010 at the earliest, more likely 2011 (when Anderson and Cahill would likely be performing to potential).
So you have a team that cannot be expected to be a contender until 2011 – and that’s a special rebuild of a team that has sucked since 2006?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You wrote a front page post about Patterson
In it, you said that - by all accounts - he can hit.
Mark Ellis, as great as his defense is, can’t hit his way out of a wet paper bag this year. It’s really making the pain of losing him a whole lot less than I was thinking it was gonna be. Will there be a dropoff from Ellis to Patterson? Yes, of course.
I dunno, I just think it may be a mistake to expect Duke to be a frontline starter for 3 more years. He’s never pitched this much before, he’s 30, and he’s got a bad back. I love to watch him throw, and it would be kinda bad to see him traded, but if it means aquiring a top of the line 3B who is basically ready to go (LaRoche, Stewart) I’m all for it.
By all accounts, Patterson CAN hit
That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to prove himself at the major league level. Other players who, by all accounts, could hit: Nick Markakis, Alex Gordon, and Brandon Wood. How about Ryan Sweeney, Travis Buck, Daric Barton? Some surprises more pleasant than others, predicting with success an exact science it isn’t.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make now.
The pieces ARE in place, save for 3B and SS, to contend as soon as next year. Sure, certain things would have to fall into place (Chavez 100% for 2009, Barton not horrible, Crosby at least average) but the offense is likely to be better than it is next year… simply for the fact that Hannahan, Brown, Davis, etc won’t be getting significant amounts of playing time.
So except for having no 3Bman, a lousy SS,
and no power, we’re good to go?
Chavez 100% for 2009???? I’m just hoping for 70% ever.
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
Good to go in the infield
1st – can’t hit
2nd – can’t hit
SS – can’t hit
3rd – can’t hit
Enjoy the game
your overall point is certainly true, but ...
Markakis’s OPS ‘06/07/08: .799/.848/.869
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
I meant he was good - I was showing a range of results
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
Not disagreeing with you or anything,
Markakis is one of the best, and most underrated young OFs, in MLB. While others, like Chris Young, Delmon Young, Lastings Milledge, struggle, Markakis has only produced and become better every year.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Markakis "could" hit?
He can hit. His OPS+ the last three seasons is 106, 121, and 132. The last two numbers are better than anyone on the Oakland roster is doing this year, unless you want to count Frank Thomas.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
If you wanted the A's trades
to look more like the Harden deal, where the A’s got a bunch of “ready now” averageness, and less like the Blanton deal, where they got impact players who were a little farther off, then I’m sorry, I cannot agree with you at all. I thought the return they got for Blanton was vastly superior, and would have given up any two of the players in the Harden deal to get Vitters instead, because he actually projects as an elite talent.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
agreed on vitters
i still am waiting for them to announce a PTBNL on that
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
I agree, except on Gallagher
I would say Vitters instead of any two of the other three. And I agree – the haul for Blanton was better. Health matters!
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
oh that's what i meant
i woulda been cool with gallagher and vitters for harden to be honest
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
I said what I said and I meant it
I would rather have received Vitters/Murton/Donaldson (I’m assuming we agree those were the worst 2 of the 4). Gallagher is a fine player—but he’s fine in a way that a lot of other A’s pitching prospects were already fine. Vitters would instantly have become the best 3B prospect in the system. And I think that had they kept Gallagher, they would have felt OK with not getting Gaudin because he represented a serviceable replacement for Harden still on their roster.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I think you underestimate Gallagher's value
Gallagher was one of the Top 100 prospects in baseball coming into this year, and his minor league numbers were very good (480 IP, 482 K, 188 BB, 2.77 ERA.) while he was young for every level he pitched at.
What has he done this year? Well, he showed up for Spring Training in better shape, has produced an ERA+ of 109 as a 22 year old, and has shown the ability to spot a 92-93 mph fastball while dialing it up to 95-96 when needed to go along with very good curveball and an acceptable changeup.
There is a significant chance that Gallagher will be the best pitcher for the A’s over the next 5 years, and if the A’s multitude of pitching prospects all reach their ceiling, Gallagher will have tremendous trade value in two years as an established young veteran pitcher still under team control.
I think you are letting your desire to get Vitters cloud your view of how valuable Gallagher really is, and how smart Beane was to acquire him when he did. Beane took advantage of Hendry’s desire to win now to turn a gigantic health risk (Harden) and a guy that the A’s for whatever reason had marginalized (Gaudin) into a young #2-3 starter and three other players.
The people who criticized the Harden deal will be looking pretty silly in a couple of years, IMO. I wanted Vitters as well, but I understand why Billy wanted Gallagher.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 29, 2008 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't underestimate Gallagher's value
Well, maybe I do from your perspective if you think he’s a #2—I think he’s more like a #3 who might pretend to be a #2 in the Coliseum.
Maybe I OVERestimate Vitters’s value, but if I do, so does everyone else. It’s not often you have a shot at the #3 overall pick WITHOUT sucking horribly for a year. Where is that kind of impact bat in the A’s system? Heck, how COULD it be in the A’s system? They haven’t picked that low since, what, 1998? Mulder?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
talk to me in two years
And then we’ll see who’s right. Until then, we can both think we’re right.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 29, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll only disagree by saying that,
Beane would’ve never taken Vitters with the No. 3 overall pick. So yes, Vitters is a No. 3 overall, and it was a unique chance to get No. 3 overall…
but, if we take that logic alone, then the Pirates under Littlefield drafted a crappy reliever with the No. 4 overall pick a few years back. Nobody would’ve valued that a “No. 4 overall pick” in trade negotiations with other teams.
I think Beane saying “we respected them too much to ask for Vitters”, that’s a smooth P.R. way of saying, “Vitters isn’t our type.”
I love what we got for Harden. Doesn’t it speak volumes that Beane had asked for Gallagher for months, was denied…and finally they caved and gave him to us? When I heard that, I loved the deal. Gaudin wasn’t gone be on an A’s playoff team anyway – because again, it’s not happening in ‘09 and Beane never believed it was as soon as he started the rebuild.
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 30, 2008 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Is Jemile Weeks, Beane's "type"?
What about Not Corey? Or maybe both Beane’s supporters, and detractors, should stop looking at everything Beane does through the prism of Moneyball, by trying to apply some “formula”, some “market inefficiency”.
And comparing Vitters to Daniel Moskos is ridonkulous. The Moskos pick was pretty much universally regarded as an overdraft, a stupid pick by a lousy GM backed up by a pathetic scouting department. The Vitters pick, not so.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Jul 30, 2008 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Using the phrase "ridonkulous"...
is ridiculous. I really hope that one gets retired by the 15-25 age group soon. While we’re apparently lecturing each other on things we both already know, I can assure you that the phrase “ridonkulous” has never helped someone’s argument in an intelligent conversation.
I didn’t compare Mouskos to Vitters. My argument instead clearly pointed out why draft position shouldn’t be a proxy for what a player’s universally perceived “value” is on draft day. It was meant as a reply to Paul.
Jemile Weeks is exactly Beane’s type. So is Patterson. Beane’s type has nothing to do with race or weight or position – it has a lot to do with having a significant enough amount of good performance data to reasonably project good future performance going forward. That hasn’t changed for Beane in 15 years – but emphasizing certain stats that may be cheaper to acquire as the economy continually changes have. (For example, I’ve noticed the A’s have acquired a few guys of late, Weeks included, who steal bases with a terrific success rate). Weeks had very good college stats and demonstrated great control of the srike zone. Patterson has hit well at several minor league stops.
Weeks, like James Simmons a year before, represents taking a slightly less sexy pick in exchange for getting a player that Beane is almost certain will become a big leaguer. Because of the opportunity cost of using a first-round pick, he’d rather have a player he’s very confident will be a big leaguer, even if he sacrifices some sexiness/upside. The A’s apparently feel that sexiness/upside is best reserved for moves with virtually no opportunity cost (Inoa), or at least far less opportunity cost than the middle of the first round. In other words, they’ll draft Hunter in the 7th or Dixon in the 10th, because you can’t find anything close to a surefire big-league contributor in those rounds by taking a safe pick.
But of course, ideally Beane would like both in his top draft pick – great performance (stats) and great projectability. IF Beane had had the Cubs’ 3rd pick in ‘07 instead, he would’ve taken Wieters or LaPorta, depending on if Beane/Wolff felt they couldn’t sign Wieters. Either of those picks would look pretty great right now. Vitters, conversely, has yet to hit at A ball. That’s not a typical Beane acquisition. That was my point to Paul – that Beane might actually rather have Gallagher than Vitters, as crazy as it seems, regardless of what he said publicly, which was something to the effect of “we had too much respect for them to ask them to part with Vitters.”
Also, Lastings Milledge will not hit 466 home runs. That’s simply ridiculous.
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 30, 2008 5:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Lessee
Jemile Weeks, year by year OPS in college: 1001, 882, 1093.
The Walrus: 1022, 1219, 1279.
Who has the better performance data here? Who is more likely to become an acceptable big leaguer?
Conversely, who has the higher upside?
Whom did Beane pick?
And I’m not even sure why you’re bringing up race here.
As for your reply to Paul, it’s still not valid. Just because a lousy GM, with poor scouting department, who was trying to save his job by spending his budget on Matt Morris, makes a bad pick, doesn’t mean that the position in which a player is picked should not be used as a proxy.
As for the word ridonkulous, you’re welcome to your opinion.
Finally, let me guess, stolen base percentage is now the new “market inefficiency”, and players who steal bases at a good rate are now “undervalued”.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
If Beane is closing off an entire avenue of talent,
an entire type of player, out of nothing more than fear—well, that’s a mistake. I don’t actually think he is doing that, not in a systematic way, at least. Supposedly the A’s would have drafted Hicks if he was willing to become a pitcher, but he wanted to become an outfielder. Kind of throws a wrench into the “only draft low-upside college guys” theory.
For that matter, Weeks was viewed as having not even close to the kind of certainty of reaching the bigs as most of his compatriots, particularly in the crowded 1B/DH mold (Wallace, Davis, Cooper, etc etc.). The reason why a lot of people, myself included, were angry about that pick was that he combined not-particularly-high-upside with not-particularly-high-certainty. He was a really bad value pick for the #12 overall pick. As can usually be said of overdrafts, which Weeks pretty clearly was.
Now, going back to your original reply—while I agree that draft position is not a great proxy for player value, signing bonus amounts are. Moskos was not paid like the other top picks in that draft, thanks to the Pirates’ (at the time) imbecilic draft policies. Vitters got paid like the #3 overall player ought to. No one was either surprised by nor upset by that pick. I didn’t read everybody’s analysis but I’d be surprised if any analysts had him outside the top 5 players in the draft. You yourself said that the increase in video analysis, etc. has made drafting more of an exact science—but you’re not applying it in this case!
In any event, whatever Beane’s putative preferences in the draft may be, he’s shown no signs at all of holding to them when he’s trying to acquire talent from other teams in trade. Look at the centerpieces of the 4 major deals so far—Carlos Gonzalez/Brett Anderson (Latin, HS), DLS (Latin), Gallagher (HS), Cardenas (HS). There’s no college bias there—if anything, it’s entirely the opposite. Of the 16 players in those four trades, only Matt Spencer, Eric Patterson, Matt Murton, Josh Donaldson and Greg Smith went to 4-year colleges.
Clearly he felt there was something about Vitters that was going to lead to him being a bust, be it injuries, hitch in his swing, whatever. I’d incline toward injuries, since he’s been pretty fragile so far and the A’s haven’t got a clue how to keep position players healthy. Bottom line, though, Vitters was really the only talent that could have justified that trade, and the A’s did not get him. If they didn’t want him, they really shouldn’t have been trading with the Cubs in the first place.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I agree with most of this
except that who Beane trades for should not be seen as an indicator of his draft strategy. There’s no reason to fear trading for a HSer, because by the time you trade for him, he has a minor league track record.
Not a college bias!
Nope, didn’t say that! He doesn’t have a college bias. He has a performance bias. He’d prefer a history of performance. Indirectly, that means a college bias in the draft, all other things being equal, because the stats are more reliable and there’s a greater body of work. We can’t really say if he would’ve taken Hicks or not, just like we don’t know if his comment about Vitters is real. All we know is his track record, which is more valuable in this discussion than anything speculative.
You’re right, Beane will acquire a guy who didn’t play in college – that’s obvious. They have to have performed for him to covet them, though. Cardenas had great minor league numbers when he was acquired.
I realize Vitters has done well in low-A ball since the Harden trade. However, at the time of the Harden deal, which is all we can use, Vitters had hit awful in a combined 14 games of Rookie and low-A ball last year, hit awful in a dozen or so games of “A” and low A ball this year, and had been injured. That’s a small sample, and it’s not fair to Vitters, etc. – the point is he had yet to prove he could hit professional pitching of any type – even rookie ball – and he had already demonstrated a penchant for injuries.
That’s in opposition to Gallagher, who had terrific minor league stats, was 22, and is already close to getting through the injury nexus unscathed.
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 30, 2008 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Beane said that the reason why they didn't trade for Vitters
was because they didn’t even bother asking for him-they knew they couldn’t get him. Apparently the Cubs LOVE Vitters.
facepalm.jpg
i disagree
would you be saying the same thing if duke was putting up a 4era?
i would even argue if duke was still part of the BP, that it wouldve questionable they’d sign him long term past 09
duke has been an experiment out of need and its turned out great up to this point, but he’s still 31 yrs old, having a career yr, and still with durability/sp track record issues.
i doubt he remains here past 09 and no point in giving him a 20-30mill extension if the plan is to go young all around
by Asfan4ever723 on Jul 29, 2008 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
This is unnecessarily alarmist.
I think a runs-replaced approach (which I am not sure how to do) would probably say the replacing Duke w/ say, Stewart or LaRoche hardly harms 2009.
The difference between a regressed from career half-season (and possibly injured) Duke and Gio over 2009 vs. the difference between LaRoche/Stewart and Hannahan.
I’m not sure that’s as big as we think. Certainly, it will never seem bigger than it is now.
They might be conceding, or they might think that Duke (given injury risk)
is going to fetch players who can help the team more in 2009, or even 2008. Your point would only be true if they acquired players three and four years away.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
too much for stewart
duke + street? no way. i know, stewart’s a great prospect. but duke has been one of the best (if not the most consistent) starter in baseball this year…he’s had ONE bad start, everything else only 2 or (rarely) 3 ER. that’s pretty damn impressive. if the rockies want duke, we should insist on stewart in return. throwing street in is insane, as he should be able to fetch a pretty nice haul himself. street + duke in one deal better get us at least 2 top prospects in return, not one.
Two bad starts
Cust’s flub un-earned a handful of runs for Duke.
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
I totally agree - no way would you trade your best starter
and your best reliever, both established quality major league pitchers, for one guy who is still unproven. “Duke and Street” can land you Holliday/Bay level talent (especially when you have “extra arms” as good as Simmons and Mazzaro to play with). If you are going to deal your last two of six legitimate trade chips, you’d better get either solve two needs, or get a guy who is, or will very likely be, a star.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
exactly
street and stewart being key parts of a deal, cool. duke and stewart, cool. duke + street for stewart, hell no. and personally, i’m a little worried about laroche, and would rather we target stewart if we’re trading street and/or duke. when i think of infielders and wrist injuries, i’m immediately reminded of nomar hitting .372 pre-injury, and not being nearly as good after the injury (possibly coming off ‘roids might have also played a role). laroche hasn’t really gotten enough ABs this season to really evaluate how much the injury has messed him up, but i’m concerned.
by guy incognito on Jul 29, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
good points all the way around
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Absolutely agree 100% Nico
I think it’s safe to say you and I are Duke’s biggest fans and would rather not see him go, period. But, if he must, than you better get somebody that makes you say, “Godamn!!!!”...........
and probably afew other guys that are at least decent. Duke may be 32 and have an injury past but I have a real sneaking suspicion that Duke is gonna hold up just fine for years. Remember, their ain’t no tougher son’bitch around and I would hate to lose Duke because Billy is shivering about him getting hurt or because he’s desperate and makes a bad trade.
Street, like I said last week, Beane may well end up hanging on to….at least till the off season, if he feels there are not any deals that address pressing needs/that make sense etc…
Duke may be 32, but in fact he's 30 -
He’s the anti-Tejada!
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
Beane can hang onto all of the guys pretty much
Ellis is the only real trade chip who might walk after the season. Duke, Street, and Embree are all under A’s control.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 29, 2008 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
And whatever he gets in arbitration, Duke will be a bargain
Plus in the Winter the A’s have the chance to do – as they almost always do – an “avoid arby” contract (one year or multi-year extension).
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
right on
we can resign duke to a reasonable deal. he’s a very good starting pitcher. you don’t trade him unless you get a top prospect (like stewart) in return. if you package him with street, you better get at least 2 top propsects back.
by guy incognito on Jul 29, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
And to make things worse
can you imagine Duke this lineup having to face Duke next year and beyond? The horror is almost too much to bear…....
He can't be harder on us than Carlos Silva.
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
whoops!
I guess I got a bit worked up there…..
Anyway you slice it, this lineup sucks and having to face my favorite player in another uniform brings tears to my eyes!
:’(
The Stewart trade doesn't make sense
It’s just not the way the market works in baseball. You don’t trade 4 established players for 1 prospect. All of the established players have more value than the prospect.
The A’s really should be trying to convince Philly to take Embree. Not for Donald, just take him. At this point, I’m terrified that the A’s are going to pick up his option for 2009.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 29, 2008 11:01 AM PDT reply actions
So what if they do?
Especially if the A’s trade Street. It’s not like his $3M option for one season is going to to cripple the A’s from signing anyone else.
If you can’t trade him this year and the money doesn’t hurt you next year, might as well bring him back and try it again. If it doesn’t work out, he’s gone after next season anyway.
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
by black beane on Jul 29, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Problem with that...
is that Embree might then take some crucial development time away from Blevins and Braden, who look to be key cogs in the bullpen of the next competitive A’s team (2010?). So, I’d rather those guys get as many opportunities in high-leverage, late-inning situations as possible and take their lumps during a likely-hopeless year (2009) than having Embree do the same thing but cost more money and use up a roster spot.
Does Street have a 2009 option? Where did you see that?
When you have a chance to get a guy like Sean Gallagher, you take it!
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 29, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm referring to Embree
"Do you know that the guy really doesn't like baseball all that much?" - J.P. Riccardi
Effectively, Street has 2009 and 2010 options...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
It's pretty foolish
to worry about “development time” for middle relievers. They rarely stick with clubs the full six years before FA, they frequently have good years and terrible years, and sometimes remain around til their late 30s or early 40s. If a young reliever is pitching well (Blevins or Ziggy), nobody is going to take time away from him. If a young reliever is pitching poorly, you really don’t want him in a game situation.
Besides, relievers are the most fungible players in all of baseball.
So...
You are arguing for the A’s to exercise the option on Embree? I don’t really care that much about the “development time”, it’s just one more minor reason for the A’s to use the roster spot on a younger pitcher that might turn out to be pretty good in a specific role if given the opportunity. You’re not gonna find out if Blevins and Braden can be shut-down relievers if you’re constantly running out the Embrees and Foulkes of the world in the 7th and 8th innings.
Hell, look at the Ziggy situation. He was probably a few months away from declaring for minor league free agency, when injuries allowed him to come in and make major league history. Now the A’s have a very effective set-up guy under team control for 5+ seasons.
Exercising the option just buys time
You could still trade him all the way through spring training. Someone will need a lefty reliever.
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 30, 2008 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Earthquake time in Southern California
who apartment rocking. Major jolt.
I hate unproductive outs and the A's are producing them at record production
Not that I know of
Just a bunch of screaming girls running around.
Gotta turn on the radio and find out.
One of my cats just sat there while it was going on.
No bid deal although it pisses me off that I have no phone
I hate unproductive outs and the A's are producing them at record production
Looks like it was a 5.8
I love being in the US – for us, a 5.8 is not a huge deal. In some parts of the world, it is a major catastrophe.
"There's m'fn sprinklers on the m'fn infield!'" - Ice Cream (AN), 6/13/08
thats a LOT of earthquakes in a row
But yeah, I guess the reason why those 5.8 earthquakes don’t do too much here in California is.. well… we’re used to em, and we buil with them specifically in mind.
Granted, in the Mid West and East Coast, like Charleston North Carolina, they are built on known faults. Hell, the biggest quakes in US History have happened in those places. And let me tell you, if another quake hits in either place, especially Charleston, they will be leveled.
facepalm.jpg
Why are they screaming???
What will that help??
Of course, I’m asking a rhetorical question.
My wife was close to apoplexy when we last had a 4.0+ here in Bay Area.
It was early AM, and she bolted upright in bed, then started to run out of the bedroom.
“What are you doing???!!” was my obvious question. She could have been hurt running into things, and the bedroom is the most nailed-down, quake resistant room in the house..precisely because of AM quakes.
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Jul 29, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
my bedroom is the most nailed-down, quake resistant room in the house ...
... precisely because of entirely different reasons.
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
Hey -- take it easy on the unborn!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Jul 30, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Only a 5.6
My farking home phone is out and my cellphone is out.
I hate unproductive outs and the A's are producing them at record production
They've downgraded it to a 5.4
I was sitting in Arby’s eating lunch when it hit.
Brought back memories of the ‘94 Northridge quake. I was nine years old and at a friend’s for a sleepover that morning IN Northridge… AND I slept through it. We went to bed around 3:30am, about an hour before it hit. Plus I was sleeping on the top bunk and didn’t feel a thing until my friend’s dad woke me up and rushed me out of their badly damaged house.
by baseballnut020 on Jul 29, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
"I was sitting in Arby’s eating lunch when it hit ..."
That’s the beginning to many a sad tale …
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
This thread alone has been a highlight reel for you man
I’ve already laughed on four monkey posts.
Bookmark this in case you ever become a free agent and need to send a demo thread to another blog.
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 30, 2008 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions
No, what he said was that you're a knuckleHEAD
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
you forget my simian heritage?
He called me a knuckleDRAGGER.
Worse than being dead is being hot. @('.')@
I was working on a cabin in Big Bear Lake
in 2005 when a large afternoon quake hit. It rolled rolled rolled, and everything creaked, rattled and rocked. My neighbor who had been sawing with a chainsaw, stopped abruptly as soon it was apparent we had a quake going.
After twenty-five seconds, I yelled out “Ride ‘em, Cowboy!!” and he laughed.
All that, and it never made the news!!
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Jul 29, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm for keeping Duke no matter
cheap, effective, and according to “driveline mechanics”, the website, Duke has the best mechanics of the pitchers rated on that site.
His only downside is his non-pitching-related strains and back problems. But I’d go with it.
"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer
by One won lost won on Jul 29, 2008 2:19 PM PDT reply actions
Rockies out(?)
The way they’ve laid down in this series to the Pirates, and are now 12 games under .500 with 27 hours ‘til the deadline, they can’t still be in “buyer” mode. Can they?
I’m still hoping the A’s get Jon Niese from the Mets or LaRoche from the Dodgers.
"The painting was a gift, Todd. I'm taking it with me." -Wedding Crashers
by notsellingjeans on Jul 30, 2008 10:02 AM PDT reply actions
I'm thinking the odds of luring away Holliday have increased.
If I were the A’s, I’d give up on LaRoche – it’s too difficult to try to get something done with the internally-dysfunctional Dodgers, and LaRoche’s injury calls into question his future power at a position the A’s really need to get some legitimate HR power (because they’re not getting it anywhere else on the infield). That’s why I’m more interested in players like Allen Craig, who I have to think is attainable for a reasonable bounty – players with true power who are with organizations that know how to make actual deals actually happen.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Do Something!!!
No one is going to pay to watch a powerless, nameless team. The casual fan is going to completely disappear. Unless they lower prices to a buck as shown by yesterdays 26K, mostly summer youth groups though. Getting swept by the Royals is possibly a sign of the apocalypse. The Royals did play well, although it’s hard to judge given that the A’s made the Royals look REALLY GOOD. 15 men left on base (?) yesterday? Please acquire some power, all the pitching talent we may have will not win if your offense is totally offensive.
Enjoy the game
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
