If you're serious about fixing 3rd base, here's the way to go
It’s obvious that the A’s need a new 3B.
Chavez’s shoulder won’t let him make the necessary throws, Hannahan can’t hit and Jeff Baisley is, well, Jeff Baisley. What do we want from a new 3B? Let’s make a list:
Good, reliable defense.
Above average offense, preferably with 20 homerun RH pop.
Affordable.
Young enough to maybe give us some peak years production.
Under team control long enough to help the A’s compete in a couple years.
Healthy!
Doesn’t cost us Brett Anderson or Trevor Cahill to acquire.
Sounds doable.

I think I know a way to get all that but there’s a bit of a problem. The problem is the A’s lack a necessary piece needed to make the trade I envision. They need a young, B-grade or better SP who spent the 2008 primarily in A-ball. In essence, they need another Anderson or Cahill, pre-2008 version. Fortunately there’s a solution to this problem and his name is Huston Street. No, Street can’t be offered up in lieu of the unnamed prospect but he can be dealt to another team for a package that includes our A-ball hurler. Street is certainly worth more then 1 A-ball arm but the rest of that package isn’t relevant to my latest trade proposal.
The A’s need to pursue Washington Nationals 3B Ryan Zimmerman. And I mean it when I say pursue… the Nationals aren’t shopping Zimmerman. The A’s are going to have to go after him.
Let’s start with all the negatives that some people will fixate on when talking about this idea. Washington GM Jim Bowden is a tough person to deal with. Ryan Zimmerman is exactly the kind of young, talented player a team like the Nationals should be trying to build around. Zimmerman missed time earlier in the year do to a left shoulder injury, luckily he avoided surgery and is supposed to be fully recovered. (He’s hitting 313/366/489 since August 1, proof enough?) He could stand to draw a few more walks.
As to why A’s fans should want Mr. Zimmerman, let’s go back to our list. Zimmerman turns 24 in December and is under team control for 3 more seasons. According to the guy who runs Federal Baseball (SBN’s Nationals site) Ryan doesn’t seem to want to go through arbitration the next three years, he’d prefer a contract that covers the next few seasons. Assuming that’s true, I’d want to give him a contract similar to what the A’s gave Swisher a year ago. Sign him through his arby years at $3.5/5.5/7 million, $10 million to cover his first year of FA eligibility in 2012 and a $13 million option for 2013. Something along that line should suffice and those are his peak years at an affordable sticker price.
What would it take to make this happen? Again, talking to Ed over at Federal Baseball, it looks like a deal could be had that didn’t involve Anderson or Cahill if the A’s could find that A-ball arm I was talking about earlier. Mr. Doe, together with Mazzaro, Barton and Cardenas might be enough to land Zimmerman. In a strange twist, I was actually the one arguing that it should cost more to land Zimmerman! Bowden loves guys with tools and with Nick Johnson and Dimitri Young on the books through 2009 he doesn’t need a 1B ready to play in Washington on Day 1. That’s why I think Bowden would ask for Chris Carter instead of Barton. And since Bowden likes to push, he’d also want Henry Rodriguez. Rodriguez has the kind of power arm that Bowden tends to covet and today’s trade market has pushed quantity over quality.
So my official trade proposal is Mr. Doe/Mazzaro/Carter/Rodriguez/Cardenas for Ryan Zimmerman. A steep price to be sure, but a low-cost, Gold-Glove caliber 3B with 25 HR pop is hard to come by. Keep in mind this is the high end of what it would cost to acquire Zimmerman. I’d be perfectly willing to close the deal for less! In fact, I’m half tempted to scratch out Cardenas’ name from the list because I kinda doubt Bowden would push for Carter and Cardenas. On the other hand, if Bowden did push for both I wouldn't let Adrian Cardenas keep me from landing Ryan Zimmerman.
I’m sure some people are going to be put off by Carter’s inclusion in the mix. Believe me, I’d much rather it be Barton who got sent packing but that switch makes almost no sense for the Nationals. I’d ask for Carter if I was in Bowden’s shoes, why would I expect him to want less then me? This is why my last diary pushed so strongly for the A’s to sign a FA slugger, because I knew that Chris Carter wasn’t going to be an option if I somehow got my way in all this talk. The biggest hole in Washington’s organization is at 1B and Chris Carter’s 40 HR power potential offers the chance to change that. Add in an advanced SP prospect like Mazzaro and a promising young stud like Mr. Doe and I think the A’s are roughly three-quarters of the way to landing Ryan Zimmerman.
Let me know what you think.
8 recs |
342 comments
Comments
Carter
I don’t know about Carter. Bowden might not ask for Carter, but for Sean Doolittle. Where Carter looks like he might be a DH, Doolittle looks like a good defensive 1B. NL Teams can’t afford to cope with a no defense slugger as well as AL Teams can.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on
Sep 10, 2008 11:48 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
That wouldn't be a problem for me
Although it most likely puts Carbenas definitievly in the mix.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 10, 2008 11:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ironically, though, most of the glove-first 1B are in the AL
NL 1B are markedly more “DH-like” (good offense, bad defense) than AL 1B. The difference in OPS is something like 50 points.
The reason, of course, is that the DH-like players in the AL are… playing DH.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 4:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I saw Carter against SJ in the playoffs this week
and yes he does look good, but you must remember that the Stockton Ports park is TINY, so his HR’s are definitely inflated. Also, his BA isn’t all that great and he strikes out a lot. He could be a great player, but he is definitely no sure thing, and I don’t think trading him would be all that terrible. However, i wouldn’t want to include him and cardenas together.
"I talked to Paul this morning and asked if he could acquire some chemistry from another GM whose team is out of the race. But I'm concerned chemistry might not clear waivers."
--Beane
by DyeLongJustice on
Sep 11, 2008 5:13 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't want to pair Carter and Cardenas either
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As for his home runs being inflated
The anecdotal evidence I’ve heard is that Carter doesn’t hit too many cheapies. If you hit a ball 400 feet, it’s a home run no matter how tiny the park. This seems to be the general agreement. Has he had a few park-aided? Perhaps. But it’s not like he’s a 20 HR guy who just hits a lot of line drives that barely clear the wall. His homers are of the Cust/Dunn variety (not making a comparison in player types, just the ball going over the fence).
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 9:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The first night I saw Carter he hit 3 jacks.
All of which were absolutely shit on.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
by miggyk2 on
Sep 12, 2008 1:34 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
no dont get me wrong
he’s a legit power threat. but the jack i saw him hit in the playoffs was a warning track shot in most other parks.
"I talked to Paul this morning and asked if he could acquire some chemistry from another GM whose team is out of the race. But I'm concerned chemistry might not clear waivers."
--Beane
by DyeLongJustice on
Sep 12, 2008 9:21 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
plus
i think that maybe you could say instead of hitting 40 HRs, maybe he hit 35 in some other park. If that translates to the bigs, we’re looking at more of a jack cust type player (30 HR) with three true outcomes, rather than say a prince fielder/ryan howard (40+ HR).
"I talked to Paul this morning and asked if he could acquire some chemistry from another GM whose team is out of the race. But I'm concerned chemistry might not clear waivers."
--Beane
by DyeLongJustice on
Sep 12, 2008 9:25 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jack Cust could probably be a 40 HR guy in a park other than Oakland
by thejd44 on
Sep 12, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
+1
Jack Cust might be Ryan Howard (or better!) if they switched parks.
"are you like some sort of argumentative robot?"
by notsellingjeans on
Sep 12, 2008 2:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
and leagues
"I talked to Paul this morning and asked if he could acquire some chemistry from another GM whose team is out of the race. But I'm concerned chemistry might not clear waivers."
--Beane
by DyeLongJustice on
Sep 14, 2008 8:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I say Go for it.
I had Zimmerman on my fantasy team in 2007…and he was a good asset. He’s young too, and that makes it even better to think about.
by IM4Oakgal on
Sep 11, 2008 12:05 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Way too much
It’s insane how much you’re trying to give up for one player about whom you offer up his August stats as “proof enough.”
by RLangford on
Sep 11, 2008 12:06 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm really not surprised his point was lost
It was “proof enough” that his shoulder is healthy despite not having surgery. He wasn’t using the small sample size as proof of his overall ability, but just that he’s healthy. This is one case where the sample size really is useful because it’s the time when you’d expect the injury to have an effect on his play.
As far as the trade goes, Bowden may be tough to work with but I also think he’s a pretty dumb GM. I’m not sure Cardenas would have to be in the deal. I think the Mystery A-ball pticher, Mazzaro, Rodriguez, and one of the more toolsy guys in the minors (Corey Brown, perhaps) might be enough. Maybe give them Eric Patterson because he’s kind of the type of player Bowden likes. This might end up not being enough, but I don’t think you have to give up a lot to get Zimmerman, just the right pieces that might seem like a lot.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 12:13 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In mine eye
My max package is less then Arizona gave up to acquire Haren. What am I willing to give up? A 1B who spent 2008 in High-A, a 2B who spent most of the year in High-A, a SP who’s clearly 3rd best on the prospect chart, a guy who’s never played for the org and a power arm who hasn’t found the strike zone outside of A-ball. All that, and there is serious potential in that group, for a major league proven gold glove caliber 3B with 20+ HR power. Who, by the way, hasn’t even hit his prime.
And as thejd44 pointed out, I was referring to Zimmerman being over his shoulder problem when I posted his August+ stats.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 12:39 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
re
Zimmerman is not even close to as valuable as Haren. VORP has Haren literally worth three times as much this year. You’re talking about a guy who’s about the 20th best hitter at his position this year (by rate, exactly mlb league average for third base), not one of the top 10 or so SPs in baseball. Given the defense, Zimmerman is a nice player, and maybe he’ll develop into something more, but he’s certainly not there yet. This would be massive overpayment.
As far as the attrition rate for prospects, that’s just as good a reason to hold on to prospects as it is to trade them, especially when you’re talking about dealing five at one time. The A’s need to keep that pipeline big to ensure that the talent flow stays positive (and the payroll stays down, like it or not).
by 31Boots on
Sep 11, 2008 2:48 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What was Dan Haren's VORP when he was 23?
If Ryan Zimmerman hadn’t missed any time this year and had put up numbers identical to his 2007 performance it would take one of Cahill or Anderson, Bowden’s pick, to land him. If he had matched his 2006 numbers he might be completely unobtainable.
The guy hasn’t even turned 24 yet and you’re implying this is it, he’s not going to continue to develope? Sure that’s happened before but it’s an extremely unlikely scenario. Odds are Zimmerman WILL continue to develope and get better. If you wait until he has a season (say in 2009) that proclaims “I’m really, really freakin’ good!” he’ll become even more expensive to acquire.
Meanwhile, Jack Hannahan is at the top of the A’s depth chart at 3B.
I realize that this is an expensive move and it is not without risk but the payoff is huge.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 6:39 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not too familiar with the Nats roster or depth chart
but I’m wondering if they might have a need for an outfielder that the A’s could throw in as opposed to including Chris Carter. The A’s obviously are going to have an overcrowded outfield going into the off season and I think that would be one of the positions that Beane will be looking to clarify. I don’t think the rest of the names you propose in that trade are too far off from getting a deal done. Let’s throw the names of the guys that are on the roster out there: Sweeney, Cust, C-Gon, Buck ( i still consider him a big league guy), Raj, Archie, Patterson (even though he’s mostly played 2nd) and guys off the top of my head in the minors:Corey Brown, Chris Denorfia, J-Herrera, Danny Putnam. Obviously, not all of these guys are big league caliber or it remains to be seen but I think from that group you could throw one of the in to be part of the deal instead of Carter.
I just think that considering how much Beane values power, especially when it’s coming from his own system, that Carter will be the one player that won’t be dealt outside of Cahill or Anderson.
A fantastic read by the way, grover. Cheers!
by mrod on
Sep 11, 2008 10:31 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Keeping in mind I haven't spoken to Jim Bowden...
I was pretty much told at the start of the conversation that the Nationals weren’t looking for another outfielder. Aaron Cunningham didn’t even come up, which should indicate how strongly they felt about focusing on a 1B.
Glad you enjoyed the read.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So it sounds like Barton
would definitely or Doolittle would have to be part of that conversation, eh?
by mrod on
Sep 11, 2008 11:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Be honest though
If you were the GM on another team, talking to the A’s about acquiring a young 1B, who’s the sexiest bitch of the bunch? It’s Carter.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 12, 2008 12:00 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Poor season aside I'd probably take Barton.
Especially considering his impressive defence at first. I could see why you’d fall in love with 40 HRs though.
by OldhamA on
Sep 12, 2008 7:57 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
re
I did write “maybe he’ll develop into something more.” You’re taking for granted that he will markedly improve though he’s shown no improvement since his mlb debut, as in zero improvement. There is no evidence based on his track record that his production will explode. And I do not believe that’s a gamble the A’s can afford to take (for the price you name.) They can (and will) better Jack Hannahan without giving up the farm (literally.)
You’re also not addressing the payroll issue here. The financial cost of Zimmerman isn’t just his contract. It’s his contract plus however more the A’s have to pay the players further along the arbitration spectrum that the traded prospects won’t be replacing. It’s also the cost of stopgaps that have to be brought in when an underperforming big leaguer has no replacement ready in the minors. Every prospect that pans out saves the team at least $5m, and potentially a lot more than that. Guys like Eveland and Smith, who will probably settle in as league average or slightly above, will cost the A’s $15-20m more apiece than pitchers in the 1-3 years, if the A’s are forced to hold onto them through their arby years (due to lack of replacements.) If the A’s trade Cardenas they guaranteed have to sign or trade for a 2B or SS. How much is that going to cost? It’s all a domino effect, and it would be nice to believe that the payroll isn’t much of a factor, and the A’s can absorb the additional costs easily, but with this owner I don’t have that kind of faith. If Billy is going to be working with $50m budgets, he can’t afford to trade five solid prospects for Albert Pujols, let alone Ryan Zimmerman.
Finally, it’s also absolutely not essential that the A’s now, or ever, find a long term solution at the position. They could sign a guy like Blake for 2/20m, get average or above production and be just fine, with the bonus of holding on to the prospects. They could get Beltre after next year. I’m sure they could come up with twenty other solutions I can’t even conceive. There are options. I understand that your post presuppose that Zimmerman won’t just be the player he is now, and that the payoff will be huge, but even going by the theory that the A’s need to add a huge payoff player, they could easily find a lower risk player at a different position and shore up 3b with lower cost moves. I’ll just say once more, Ryan Zimmerman is being outhit by over half the starting third baseman in baseball this year. I don’t see how that counts for nothing.
by 31Boots on
Sep 12, 2008 1:45 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm amazed by the number of flat-out wrong comments you just made
I suppose the kind thing for me to do would be to address these mistakes without any snark but you insulted me in the process of making yourself look foolish by accusing me of not doing my due diligence in considering the A’s financial constraints before proposing this trade. Let me tell you what I knew about the money side of things before I wrote the first word of my last diary. I’m projecting the A’s, as currently constructed, to have a $39 million payroll next year with $11 million going to Chavez and $5.25 million to (hopefully) finish Crosby’s Athletics career. Chavez is signed through 2011, with a guaranteed $12 million payday in 2010 and $12.5 option ($3 million buy-out) for 2011. The A’s are looking at 4 serious arbitration cases over the next two years with Duke (2009) Casilla (2010) Street and Cust (2009, 2010). I admit I’m assuming that Bowen, Murton and Denorfia get shipped ala Marco Scutaro before they get expensive. The 2010 payroll looks to be roughly on par with the 2009 numbers.
I didn’t do any serious number crunching for 2011 because there are too many unknowns. Does Duke get an extension? Do Buck and Barton rebound? Is Cust still around? Does Beane sign any free agents in the next two years? I consider all these things before I wrote any of this. You can tell I thought about them because I wrote all this and posted it on AN.
Moving on, it was flat out foolish of you to even suggest that Beane is going to be stuck with a $50 million budget over the next few years. From 2004-2007 Beane’s payroll burget ranged from $55 million to $79 million. There is no reason to assume that Beane wouldn’t have those monetary resources available to him if the situation presented itself.
Ryan Zimmerman is 23 years old, he had a bit of a sophmore slump with the bat in 2007 and he was banged up over the first 4 months of 2008 so yes his numbers are down from his rookie year. For now, anyways. I’m actually expecting his 2008 OPS to rebound and finish higher then his 2007 numbers, which would then allow you to cram your "zero improvement arguement in an appropriate local. And by the way, while Zimmerman’s bat did produce less in 2007 then it did in 2006 his defense improved but I understand if you don’t want to acknowledge that.
You want to argue that his track record shows no evidence of improvement and you choose to ignore the volumes of evidence that state how players Zimmerman’s age tend to improve as they get older. It’s possible that his 2006 was a flash in the pan but there are too many indicators that suggest otherwise for me to give it much thought.
As for giving up the farm, well, that’s just plain silly.
Mazzaro is no better then the 3rd rated SP prospect in the A’s system. Cardenas is not a SS, but look at him as a MI and there’s Petit, Pennington and Sellers above him (in terms of readiness if not pure talent) and Weeks, Horton, Christian and Leyja behind him. Hell, I don’t care if you consider Cardenas a SS, 2B or 3B he’s still looks to be at least a year and a half away from helping in Oakland. Carter has a big time bat but the A’s have CarGon, Buck, Cunningham, Sweeney and Cust ahead of him in the OF, Barton and Doolittle ahead of him at 1B. Rodriguez is a relief pitcher and Mr. Doe is coming from someone else’s organization.
Giving up the farm? I didn’t even tear down the chicken coop!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 12, 2008 8:27 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Reasons why expecting a 50 million dollar payroll in 2009-2011 is not foolish
In 2004-2007, your point of comparison:
1: The A’s were "contending", justifying a higher level of expenditure on statistically-predictable "filler" type players (see Jay Payton, Scott Hatteberg….) to reconfigure/retool an existing aggregate that was never perfect, but good enough to make it to the crap shoot. Right now, that aggregate is damn near non-existent. Further, though I like the idea that Billy Beane’s competitive streak will prevent him from bearing out a third/fourth consecutive losing season – I place about as much faith in that little nugget of conventional A’s folk wisdom as I do in Lew Wolff’s claims of "Billy won’t spend my money!!" Personally, I think Beane’s pre-emptive tear down at best saved us from the slow decline of the club, a la 94-96. But I think you need to warm up to the possibility of a few more years a la 97-99 – where the A’s let their farm system sort itself out on the cheap with the big league club, and then made the type of prospects-for-established-young-major-leaguer (Damon, Dye, Lilly…) deals you are suggesting only after getting an idea of how their first round of blue chip talent plays out. Until then, prepare to suffer the Wasdins and Telgheders of outrageous (mis)fortune.
2. The A’s were not trying to build a new stadium. In discussions of their annual expenditures, the A’s were (and are) always quick to point out operating costs at the Coliseum, the problems of dealing with large walk-up crowds, etc… hence the conception of the giant glad bag over the upper decks. If these seemingly minor venue issues pose such a significant impact to the team’s bottom line that they are willing to risk alienating and effectively pricing out a portion of their already meager audience to save a few bucks –why wouldn’t this same ruthless efficiency be applied to the costs of the new stadium venture? Yes, the A’s are obviously saving a lot of dough on player costs right now, and I agree that money will be/is being spent – but to assume that it will be spent on more players any time soon is wishful thinking. That money is being consumed by the stadium process. By extension…
3. The A’s were not (quite so) boldly proclaiming their intentions to leave Oakland, or at least the prospect of it had not yet become so real/inevitable to the fanbase. I love the 40 year anniversary radio spots and commercials, but (especially with the soundtrack in the retrospective commercials) they are steeped in the somber tones of a memorial. The "All-You-Can-Eat" section has replaced Oakland on the upper deck glad bag. Attendance has been on the decline since 2006. Yes, the economy sucks – but with last season’s final purge of identifiable player names & faces – it’s safe to say that the "casual fan" backlash is on. One virtue of fielding a much younger team is the potential for a modicum of roster stability that the "casual fans" feel cheated out of– but until the Giambi’s, Hudson’s, Tejada’s, and (yes) Zito’s of this new group emerge and the team develops another stable public identity, those wounds will stay fresh, or worse yet gauzed by an impenetrable indifference, and fans will stay away in droves. Faced with this reality, why would you field anything but an inexpensive team of homegrown talent that was merely good enough, until such time as you were: a) a piece or two away from contending, and/or b) by way of a contending, charismatic team, or a new, charismatic ballpark – reaping the rewards of increased attendance?
I think Zimmerman would be a decent acquisition for the A’s organization on the field, but at that cost, it seems premature to me. It seems pretty clear to me that the goal of fielding anything resembling a "complete" team is secondary to the organization at this point to doing as well as they can while continuing to collect mlb-welfare until such time as they can move into their new digs. I find it more likely that the glaring holes will be filled with relatively low-cost, passed-their-prime veteran "gamer/mentor’ guys a la Jaha, Velarde, Thomas, Sweeney, et al. Until then, every extra cent goes to the new venue. Fortunately (for Oakland), I think they will be on the upswing before they ever get to Fremont. As I said in an earlier diary, at the pace that the new stadium is moving along, it’s increasingly likely that the A’s will be playing out their 45th anniversary season in the Coliseum.
by elhefe on
Sep 12, 2008 1:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is an interesting direction
Although I don’t think low-budget necessarily means struggles in the Win/Loss column. The A’s are in a unique situation where roughly 80% of the 25 man roster will be making less then $450K a year for the next two years and Eric Chavez is the only big ticket contract to deal with. Chavez will (probably) go off the books in 2011, just when (and this is a quick & dirty roll call) Suzuki, Eveland, Smith, Barton, Buck and Devine are all eligible for their 1st round of arbitration. This group will almost certainly cost more then the $12 million the A’s pay Chavez in 2010 but that money will go a long way towards covering their increased cost.
So if the A’s were determined to go strictly with homegrown talent (not counting a possible elder statesman add-on) then their budget would stay around $50 million but their winning percentage would be tied directly to how well they scouted their current crop of guys above low-A ball.
I think the logic of your arguement falls apart when you consider that saving $20 million a year and investing that cash into the new stadium for the next 3 years wouldn’t amount to more than 20% of the estimated $300 million cost of said priject. Now, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that $60 million isn’t real money but it seems more practical to invest that money into the on-field product. It’s not like Wolff and Co. went into the new stadium deal $60 million short of the mark! Why not have a winning team ready to open the new park?
I’ve got nothing against the homegrown approach but the reality is if you look at the organizational depth chart there are some serious deficiencies at 3B, SS and maybe 2B. (I’m still not sure about CarGon as the long-term answer in CF but that’s another discussion.) These are positions that need an upgrade before the A’s can be expected to contend. You can’t necessarily wait until 2011 or 2012 to try and address these areas because there might not be anyone available at the time that’ll get the job done. I’m pushing for Zimmerman today because if he breaks out in 2009 like I think he’s eventually going to then he’ll be completely unavailable to the A’s in the future. It would be like trying to go after David Wright now and that’s simply too costly a deal to make. I think Zimmerman can be had at a somewhat reasonable price now, I’m not sure that’ll be the case a year from now.
Thanks for the reply.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 12, 2008 4:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
love the idea of a winning team in the new park
I’m just of the opinion that said park will most likely cost $360 million (or more) by the time it actually breaks ground.
Other than that minor point of contention, good read as always- thanks!
by elhefe on
Sep 12, 2008 10:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Point number 3
it’s safe to say that the “casual fan” backlash is on. One virtue of fielding a much younger team is the potential for a modicum of roster stability that the “casual fans” feel cheated out of– but until the Giambi’s, Hudson’s, Tejada’s, and (yes) Zito’s of this new group emerge and the team develops another stable public identity, those wounds will stay fresh, or worse yet gauzed by an impenetrable indifference, and fans will stay away in droves.
Or perhaps, if “casual” fans see that the team is actually trying to make an effort at contending, instead of only wanting to contend in 2010 / 2011, they will actually show up?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 13, 2008 5:22 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sounds good in theory
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 13, 2008 7:11 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
re
There is nothing remotely insulting in my post. I have no idea what you’re having a tizzy about. I didn’t say you didn’t do your due diligence. I wrote that you’re “failing to address the payroll issue”, and, allow myself to lmao since you just wrote that you didn’t consider it for 2011 and beyond, which is exactly when it becomes important when the new players hit arby, hence me citing Smith and Eveland (and ftr, you did not address the payroll issue beyond Zimmerman’s contract in the original comment; that’s 100% accurate, go read your post; I’m not a mind reader.)
Btw, considering your entire idea hinges around the idea of Zimmerman breaking out, maybe it would behoove your argument to present the “volumes of evidence” indicating that’s likely. Or, you know, a lick of evidence at all. All I really see is your gut feeling. Maybe you’d also like to address the volumes of evidence that players who’ve established a level of play for three full seasons don’t often make dramatic jumps in the level of their play. I’m sure Zimmerman is more likely to improve dramatically, given his age and pedigree, but it’s not close to a safe bet it will happen. You can get upset at me, but nothing you wrote reconciles that.
Anyway, calm down bro. You got your back up for no reason. Really, I feel kind of bad you took my post personally.
by 31Boots on
Sep 12, 2008 2:13 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
I understand you can't read minds but I assumed you could read
I don’t see how anyone can do any serious (keyword, I used it last time as well) number crunching on the 2011 roster because there are simply too many questions around who will actually be on the roster. If we assume that Buck, Barton, Suzuki, Eveland, Smith, Devine and Sweeney are all still on the roster and none of them have received long-term deals from the A’s then they’d all be in the 1st year of arbitration. We’re lacking two crucial years of performance data that would be absolutely critical in determining what kind of financial reward they’d be looking at. Is Devine the closer? Are Buck and Barton starters?
There are other questions as well. Cust would be entering his final year of arbitration… but when was the last time Beane let that happen? Cust will either get a contract buying out some of his arby years or he’ll get traded. Then again, maybe Duke sets a precident by playing 1 more year and then walking out the door. It’s possible the A’s offer him arbitration and let the chips fall where they may because injury has kept Duke’s arby settlements low. What about giving him an extension this winter that covers 2009 through 2011? That’s a plausible scenario. There are a lot of questions here that no one has the answers to at this time.
Your mistake is thinking that all these questions have to be answered before the A’s could make a play for Zimmerman or any other “big ticket” player for that matter.
Why can’t the A’s make a trade for Zimmerman and then build the 2011 and beyond rosters around him, as if he was the cornerstone of what the A’s were trying to build. Like the idea or not, trading for Zimmerman makes him a franchise cornerstone and that is something the A’s don’t have right now. Boots… you gotta start somewhere and the sooner you set the foundation the quicker you can build.
As for the rest of your poorly conceived post, do you really need me to provide you with evidence that 23 year old baseball players who stay healthy tend to get better as they get older? Would a list of names suffice? This is one of those things that if you pay any attention to baseball you tend to be a witness to the phenomenon. For some reason I’ve got the Mets on the brain but Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes, David Wright, Carlos Delgado, Billy Wagner, John Maine, Johan Santana, Moises Alou and Pedro Martinez are all examples of baseball players who got better as they got older.
Would you like me to look at another team for more examples?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 12, 2008 4:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
re
No point in simply repeating ourselves endlessly, but, you don’t have to do any serious number crunching to realize that the A’s payroll is going to go up significantly in 2011 when the players hit arbitration. What is difficult about that? Having ready replacements will mitigate the increase. What is difficult about that?
And, my literate friend, I don’t recall ever disputing that young players tend to improve. I think (think) my point was that it’s too big of a gamble for the A’s to trade five top notch prospects for this particular player, who has not shown improvement (zero) over a quite significant stretch of time.
by 31Boots on
Sep 12, 2008 5:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bumping the payroll
Just last year the A’s spent $79 million on payroll. Next year I’m projecting a $39 million payroll. Are you suggesting that there’s a ceiling lower then $79 million? There is no reason to believe that when 2011 rolls around Beane won’t have access to the same funds he had last year.
Because I did ask myself this question. I tried to figure out if the A’s could afford Zimmerman and pay Teixeira $23 million a year on an $80 million budget in 2011, especially with all the arby calls coming into play. I don’t have an answer to that one.
As for the improvement issue, I’m predicting Zimmerman’s OPS will be higher then his 2007 numbers when this season is over.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 12, 2008 5:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Asides from age,
VORP doesn’t take into account a position player’s D, and doesn’t separate a pitcher’s pitching from his team’s D.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 9:55 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
VORP is a counting stat and it's already been established that Zimmerman missed time this year
That’s not exactly a fair comparison unless you’re claiming that injury is something that’s going to be a problem in the future, a potentially fair argument but not one you’re making.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:22 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is your better, cheaper alternative to Beltre?
First of all, not even sure its better,
EQA 2006-2008
Zimmerman: .282, .273, .266
Beltre: .275, .282, .281
UZR 2003-2007: Runs saved per 150 games
Zimmerman: +2
Beltre +12
Yes, Zimmerman certainly has potential and he’s nearing his prime while Beltre is probably on the other side of his, but Beltre’s isn’t the type of skillset to decline that quickly I feel. They’ve been very similar players the past 3 years, Beltre arguably being better when you factor in what appears to be superior D. Also not too fond of young guys with shoulder problems.
And if this is your proposal, he’s certainly not cheaper. You’re going to pay him 30 mil at least over the next 4 years (Assuming there’s like a 4 million buyout attached to his 2013 option). Beltre would likely command something like a 3 year 40 million deal (at the high end) and he wouldn’t need to sign him until after 09 (I don’t think adding Zimmerman to the 09 team is pushing the A’s to the playoffs so his 09 value isn’t all that useful).
The value you give up trading away Mr. Doe/Mazzaro/Carter/Rodriguez/Cardenas (that’s a ridiculously large package), like 30 seasons worth of players who very likely may be MLB caliber for 3-4 seasons of Zimmerman? There’s no way that group of players + Beltre is worth less than Zimmerman.
I know PECOTA might disagree with that sentiment, but most of that MORP value is based on Zim’s defense being 2 wins greater than Beltre’s, which most other metrics seems to think ain’t true.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on
Sep 11, 2008 12:25 AM PDT
reply
actions
1 recs
Fair enough, although you drastically underestimate Beltre on the free market
Beltre is currently making $12 million a year and will make that amount again in 2009. He turns 30 next April, so realistically you’re talking he’s 31 when he starts his next contract. You honestly think Beltre, who will argueably be the best FA 3B on the 2010 market, is only going to get a $1 million annual raise? And only 3 years? I don’t think you thought that contract through.
And it’s also your belief that a 30 year old Beltre will continue to out-produce a 24 year old Zimmerman as the years progress? Very interesting if highly unlikely.
Oh, Zimmerman’s shoulder is healthy. Young guys tend to recover from minor injuries.
Furthermore, the defensive stats I have say Zimmerman was a much better defender last year (I don’t have any data for 2008) to the tune of 14 runs saved. According to THT’s RZR Beltre was a better defender in 2006 but Zimmerman ranked higher in ‘07 and Beltre has a slight edge this year. Any way you cut it, Zimmerman’s youth means he’s more likely to improve or at least maintain his defensive ability over the next 5 years.
You complain/worry about the package. It’s a smaller package then the one the A’s got for Haren! Furthermore, that’s the absolute high end of what it could cost. The guy I talked to at Fedarl Baseball thought Mr. Doe/Mazzaro/Barton might get a deal done… which I still think is a little low but would be more then willing to go with if that’s what the Nationals wanted!
And the 30 seasons stuff… you think every A’s prospect is going to hit? A year ago I very much doubt you were singing the praises of Mazzaro. You may have been proclaiming the soon-to-be greatness of Andrew Bailey, but I’m willing to guess you weren’t thinking such warm and fuzzy thoughts about Mazzaro. I like all these guys in the A’s organization (except for Mr. Doe, he’s a jerk) but they are prospects, not proven big league ballplayers. Mazzaro’s the only one who’s had any real success above A-ball so a lot can still go wrong with these guys. Sometimes you have to trade potential for actual ability.
I think this is one of those times.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 1:04 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Doe/Street, Mazzaro, Barton
is a DONE deal in my book. Throwing in another decent arm like Lansford, or if you’re frisky, Outman, would probably be ok in my book. However, I think Cardenas is being wayyy undervalued in the above proposals. Here’s a question…Who’s the better prospect for the A’s: Cardenas or Carter? Cardenas or Mazzaro?
I’d say Cardenas is the best, or at least, most important (to the A’s) of the three.
by ohmangoAs on
Sep 11, 2008 1:51 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's an interesting discussion point
I rate Carter over Cardenas, because when I look at Cardenas I can’t help but ask “Where’s the power?” I trust the scouts enough that I believe them when they say it’s there but he’s had two full seasons and he hasn’t shown it. And if I’m going to trust the scouts when they say the power is there then I have to believe them when they say he doesn’t have the range for SS.
It’s tougher for me to rate Cardenas vs. Mazzaro. The way I see it, the one things the A’s have in spades is pitching. They have it at the big league level and it filters all through the minor leagues. That makes a guy like Mazzaro, a guy who had a great year but isn’t at the top of the importance list, expendable.
Mr. Doe/Mazzaro/Barton should be a done deal with every A’s fan. Which is why I don’t think it’ll actually fly, because Bowden is being paid to be a Nationals fan!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 6:53 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Haren was signed to a ridiculously low contract beforehand
like 16 mil over 3 years. Zimmerman is signed to no such deal and will get expensive in arby. Unless you can have a deal worked out with him before a trade (can that happen, is that tampering? I know teams have extension windows and such like with Johan Santana but this doesn’t seem the same thing). Haren is just also a much more valuable player than Zimmerman so he’s going to cost a bigger bundle..
Obviously I don’t think all the prospects will pan out. the 30 years is just 30 possible years. That being said I think Cardenas is a stud though, as is Carter. So that’s 12 very likely years that they will be major leaguers (they’re both going to end up likely top 50 prospects next time around) the arms I’m not nearly as concerned about.
The defensive data for 2008 says Beltre is tops at 3rd and by a good margin.
Also I agree with the guy below that says Cardenas is being way undervalued. You just don’t find middle infield bats on the market like you do corner infield ones.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on
Sep 11, 2008 2:16 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I guess its the guy above me then
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on
Sep 11, 2008 2:24 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Where you getting your 2008 Runs Saved data?
I’d like to look at because THT’s RZR doesn’t include Runs Saved.
Yes, Haren is more valuable than Zimmerman. Haren is at his peak while Zimmerman has yet to reach his. The A’s traded Haren while he was/is at his peak ability and I have to believe that Bowden will charge the A’s for the opportunity to experience Zimmerman’s peak years.
Look at it this way.
Zimmerman’s floor is that of a league average hitter who can play an above average 3B. That’s his floor and he’s already proven at the big league level that he can do better then that. He’s proven that he can be a good big league hitter with a gold glove caliber glove at 3B and he’s still 2-3 years away from hitting his peak. That raises the price on the tag.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:14 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A couple places I go for D data
There’s John Dewan’s +/- at Bill James Online (its like $3 a month for the site its worth it to me just for the fielding bible data but there’s other stuff)
Also use Dial’s D part of Offense + Defense which he posts every so often at Baseball Think Factory.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on
Sep 11, 2008 10:47 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dial had Ty Wigginton as a better all-round 3B than Zimmerman this year
We’d better be buying low, and not buying a sinking ship.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 10:54 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh, Chavez' shoulder is healthy. Young guys tend to recover from minor injuries.
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 9:19 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
duh
"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
by flipgatey3 on
Sep 11, 2008 12:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I was trying to figure out when Beltre became such a hot commodity again
Looking at his numbers in Seattle, I’m still struggling with the notion that all that great. In four years with Seattle, his OPS+ has been 93, 105, 112, and 111. Very mehverage numbers for a 3B. Yes, he has a good glove, but offensively, he’s Eric Chavez—and I mean the JV version that played from 2005-2007 (108, 105, 102). Beltre’s highest OBP as a Mariner, posted this year, is .329.
Zimmerman’s numbers are about the same, too, although you have to wonder how much playing for the Nationals has to do with that. Beltre’s actually had some offensive help as a Mariner.
Anyway, I don’t have any better ideas, so I’ll shut up now.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on
Sep 11, 2008 1:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know that he's a "hot commodity"
What he is, is probably fairly cheap to obtain, because he has a burdensome contract. He’s low-risk because the A’s don’t have to give up that much for him, and the reward is potentially high.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 4:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The reward is potentially high
only if you’re banking on another contract year performance. Which would be fine if we were talking about the A’s being contenders in 2009, except we aren’t. The only reason a trade for Beltre makes sense is if you want the A’s to sign him to an extension. Beltre has spent his entire Mariners’ career (to date) proving that you’ll end up disappointed.
Even then, trading for Beltre makes little since. If you sign the guy as a FA you lose a draft pick, probably a 2nd rounder based on the way the A’s look heading into 2009. It’s going to take more then that equivalent value to trade for him even if the Mariners are looking at making him a full salary dump… which I don’t think is going to happen. If Seattle puts Beltre on the market there will be enough interest to keep them from having to accept a cut throat deal to move him.
But I’m not here to talk about Beltre.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:45 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lookout Landing hasn't been disappointed by him
and frankly, I trust their opinion more than that of the “gosh, he’s so overpaid” baseball punditry.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 10:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ya but the overall point that it's silly for the A's to trade prospects for a one year rental now stands.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 10:45 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I thought you were that baseball punditry
Seriously, you were just talking about his “burdensome contract”.
What point are you trying to make again?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 10:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Two points: first, it appears more burdensome than it is
and second, it’s much more burdensome to a team that’s terrible as opposed to one that is not terrible. He really is useless to the Mariners, except as a potential Type A guy. It should be possible (if the Mariners play along with Oakland, which is by no means necessarily going to happen) for the A’s to capture that value for next season while not surrendering more value in prospects (or at least not significantly more) than they obtain through those compensatory picks.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 10:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To what end?
There are a lot of things that need to happen before the A’s can contend next season. They could go out and sign Tex (or if you’ve got a more preferred hitter, insert his name here) and trade for Beltre and they’d still have at least 4 holes in the line-up and maybe 3 question marks in the rotation.
The A’s don’t seem to benefit in the long run and the short term gain seems insufficent. So… why do it?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 11:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The alternative seems to be putting the money in a safe deposit box...
Also, keep in mind I think the Angels sort of suck and aren’t even anywhere close to how “good” they are this year on a talent basis. I think 85 wins is a potentially realistic number to win the division next year.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 11:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting
I haven’t really looked at the Angels’ 2009 roster. I know they’ve got some guys maybe leaving via FA, hard to say what they’re roster is going to look like 7+ months from now.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 11:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ya that Angels suck theory is a good point.
90 wins may well do it.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 11:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I also wouldn't be surprised to see K-Rod re-sign and kind of suck
Because of all the back-to-back (and worse) games that Scoscia has overworked him just to get a meaningless record.
by thejd44 on
Sep 12, 2008 11:06 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hmm
In reverse order: Offensive help? Really? I dunno, the Mariners offense has been pretty piss-poor, too. I wouldn’t call Vidro and Sexson “help,” and I’m not sure that Ichiro being a decent hitter has benefitted Beltre all that much.
As for Beltre: I think he’s the best defensive 3B in baseball right now. In the past three seasons he’s had an EQA of .275, .282, and .281. Is he a superstar? Nah. But is he not just an above-average 3B, but easily the best in the A’s organization if he were to come to the team? Absolutely. He’s also worth the money, and possibly worth an extension depending on years and dollars.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's fine as a stopgap, but the Mariners probably want something good in trade.
That wouldn’t be worth it to me.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 10:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah seeing what their asking price was for Washburn, I doubtBeane would be interested in
parting with what the M’s would require.
They are going to need to rebuild a little bit around what they get back for Beltre, arguably their best trade piece
witty remark
by dtownmbrown on
Sep 14, 2008 2:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Pedro Feliz and Scott Rolen
are better defensively.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 11:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
True
People, and I include myself in that, don’t really believe, in their guts, that Pedro Feliz can be good at defense. “Pedro Feliz,” they say, “sucks. He can’t possibly be good at defense. Everyone knows he’s terrible.”
In fact, you’re right, he consistently comes out way in front in all the metrics. Not to say Beltre isn’t good (he is) but Feliz is definitely better. He’s actually a league-average player when you account for his defense, perhaps even a little better than average. The Phillies got him on a good bargain.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 12, 2008 12:01 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Feliz I believe
But I’m not sure if Rolen is still better. I’m basing that on Rolen being 33 and having a whole bunch of injuries to deal with. I made an assumption .
Ok, so Beltre is possibly the third best. I think the points about him still stand.
by thejd44 on
Sep 12, 2008 11:08 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Vidro and Sexson
may not be “offensive help”, but they do go a long way toward explaining why Lookout Landing hasn’t been disappointed with Beltre’s contract….
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on
Sep 12, 2008 2:07 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think Beltre has disappointed (though his first year wasn't very good)
It’s good to see they’re not disappointed, but I suspect that LL is a lot like AN, and their opinions might not reflect the overall fan base opinion. That doesn’t make LL wrong – on the contrary, I think that further justifies their (and my) opinion that Beltre is good. But I was speaking to general perception; is Lookout Landing giving that, or are they giving a more educated, more informed, more intelligent opinion?
by thejd44 on
Sep 12, 2008 11:09 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Very much the latter
Going to LL and complaining about Adrian Beltre being overpaid is one of those (many) things that will immediately get you written off as an idiot there.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 12, 2008 12:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's been pretty much as good as
the contract would indicate. Not really better or worse. That’s why.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on
Sep 12, 2008 11:14 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like Zimmerman, and think Beane should make a fair offer for him, but...
Depth is very deceiving…especially minor league, prospect depth. On paper, it looks like we could stand to lose H-Rod, Mazzaro, Carter, Cardenas and/or an A-ball pitcher and still be fine long term with the current crop of pitching prospects leading the way. However, uneven performances from “sure things” like Buck, Barton and Gio just go to show that you can never be too sure about players until they have 2-3 seasons of sustained performance under their belt at the major the league level before you can be sure of their value to the organization long term.
Trading away all those guys you mentioned would put a whole lot of pressure on the current guys to produce, which they already have shown they aren’t quite up to the task of doing. I wouldn’t really advise the A’s to take such a risk.
Your idea is bold and could pay off in spades if Zimmerman were to stay healthy, produce and sign a Swisher-esque contract with the A’s, but so could hanging on to 2 of the 5 guys you mentioned in the trade and seeing what they could do for the team in the next 2-3 years.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on
Sep 11, 2008 12:39 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
The truth is
if the current batch o’ guys don’t produce (and keep in mind that I’ve kept Cunningham, CarGon, Gio, Cahill and Anderson) then the A’s are screwed regardless. At least, they’re screwed until the young guys Beane just drafted/signed are ready in 4-5 years.
Which two guys do you think could be worth as much as Zimmerman in the next 2-3 years? H-Rod is bullpen bound and he’s got some serious work to do finding the strike zone above A-ball. Carter and Cardenas could out-produce Zimmerman, especially if one of them can man 3B (Cardenas) in the process. But those guys are probably a year and a half away and then they’d need (by your count) another year and a half to prove anything. Mazzaro had a break-out year but he’s clearly 3rd on the depth chart in terms of untouchable SP prospects. Hell Taj, you were willing to ship him to Colorado for Stewart!
But sure, the A’s could stand pat and see if any or all of these guys could help them in 2-3 years. Or they could work a trade that would start to help the team Opening Day, 2009 and would still be helping them 3 years down the road.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 1:14 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Zimmerman is a proven commodity.
The young guys might be good in the future but that’s all speculation…Zimmerman can help the team in 2009. I can’t stand the thought of another year like this one. Sign Zimmerman ASAP!
by IM4Oakgal on
Sep 11, 2008 1:23 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm with you Grover.
Cardenas is one of the best 2nd base prospects in all the minor leagues(might be able to shift to either SS or 3B) and Carter, although he can’t field at all, is a BIG time power/rbi prospect that the A’s haven’t had for a long time. I believe that you can place these two guys alongside Cahill and Anderson as untouchable prospects and we might be adding Donaldson to that list soon. I hope Beane let’s this group grow together.
I would also like to see Barton take a stab at 3B, he has a cannon of an arm and is still young enough to make the transition. This would free up 1st base for Carter/Doolittle long term and Chavez for the short term. I also like the idea of Suzuki moving to 2b, freeing up the catcher position for Donaldson and saving Kurt’s legs for the long haul.
I like Zimmerman but he certainly isn’t worth 4-5 prospects- especially not the ones mentioned in this post.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on
Sep 11, 2008 1:34 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So you're not with me then?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:15 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like his style
He is very agreeable, and then states the facts that support his position. Brilliant!
Let me try:
Good points grover. I am also worried about how Zimmerman would play in the future. Sure he had a great rookie season, but his OPS has declined each year.
.822 in 2006, .788 in 2007, and then .720 in 2008
Exactly what kind of player would we get for 2009?
by Hang Man on
Sep 11, 2008 8:21 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually, his 2008 OPS is 780.
And I think Zimmerman will be a very good player in 2009.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:46 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, your right.
I was using The Baseball Cube, and they are only updated to his first 229 ABs. I see on the Nationals home page he has 376 ABs and an OPS of .780 However, that still shows he is trending downward. Such a trend worries me. Put me in the camp of people who think the offer is too much talent to give up.
by Hang Man on
Sep 12, 2008 9:00 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No, it doesn't ...
He is hitting for a higher average and higher OBP this year than last …
He is all of 4 total bases behind last year’s pace in slugging percentage. One extra home run and he’s on pace there and ahead in Avg and OBP. Can you say “Small Sample Size”?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 12, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How is Cardenas manning 3B going to help him out-produce Zimmerman?
Its much harder to find a 2B that can hit than a 3B.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on
Sep 11, 2008 2:21 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Practicality
For one thing, I’m not sure it’s tougher to find a 2B who can hit because one of the toughest things to find in baseball is a 3B who’s a competent defender and can actually hit the ball.
More importantly, look at the A’s depth chart. At 2nd base you’ve got Patterson, Pennington, Petit, Sellers, Guzman, Horton and 1st round pick Jemile Weeks.
At 3rd base you’ve got Jeff Baisley and… that’s really it. Chris Carter isn’t going to last at 3B, I’ve read too many scouting reports that say he’s destined for another position.
I think Cardenas has the hands and arm to play 3B, which if you’ve watched Hannahan all year you know the A’s have a need for a 3B.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:20 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Street (Doe), Outman, Mazzaro, and Doolittle
That’s my offer. 3 good SP prospects and Doolittle. Doesn’t that compare favorably to the Swisher haul?
by ohmangoAs on
Sep 11, 2008 1:55 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, the pitching prospects in the Swisher deal were top 50ish pitchers
but Swisher was signed to a very good contract.
That being said I would be willing to trade this for Zimmerman no problem. I think Cardenas should pretty much be off limits.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on
Sep 11, 2008 2:24 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think that deal flys
Although I wouldn’t be broken hearted if it did.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:15 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have not followed baseball for 2 months
I’ve been traveling overseas, so I am out of the loop. (Which given the way this season has panned out, has probably been a good thing.)
So now, I am learning that Chavez is likely toast at 3b. Injuries have been a major problem the last 4 seasons, but there was always hope that he could still hold down a steady job at 3b.
Could someone please tell me, in a sentence or two, what will be his new role? DH? Will he have a role or is retirement or some other kind of separation from the A’s likely?
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on
Sep 11, 2008 4:23 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
In my world, Chavez gets healthy enough to play 1B
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:20 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not convinced he'll be a better hitter than Barton next year
I don’t want Chavez to be hurt, but part of me is writing him off because I don’t think he’ll out-produce any of the guys he’d replace in the lineup. It really sucks that his contract isn’t ending after this year (or even next), because he’s quickly becoming an albatross.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:28 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm hoping Chavez can play 2B. Maybe not in 2009 but 2010.
I’ve no idea why I think he can do this, other than the A’s need him there and Ellis did it.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 10:34 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nobody knows for sure.
Think of the probabilities as a bell curve ranging from complete recovery as 3B on one end and career over on the other end. In the middle is move to 1B or DH. One’s expectation is a measure of one’s optimism, but most of us are guessing somewhere in the middle. Chavez’s own words sound pretty pessimistic, but then he usually does.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on
Sep 11, 2008 2:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks for the update!
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on
Sep 11, 2008 4:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
check-casher
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on
Sep 13, 2008 5:25 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No way!
In 3 years when the A’s start getting good Zim will be leaving as a FA and we have nothing to show for those guys but maybe 2 draft picks.
If you do trade for a young 3rd baseman he should be at AA or AAA now so that all the young prospects come up together. Not leaving as we are just starting to get good.
by calas on
Sep 11, 2008 6:06 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I addressed this
The info I have suggests Zimmerman is interested in signing a contract that would run through his arby eligible years. If you have info that says otherwise then please share it. If you DON’T have info that contradicts mine you can’t just ignore what I’ve already said on this subject.
I advocate trading for Zimmerman and signing him to a contract which keeps him with the A’s for 5 years, not 3.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:22 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
here's the problem with that scenario, though
Zim, while decent, isn’t exactly an elite player, on O or D; yet you’re leveraging prospects not only as if he is elite, but as if he’s one of the 2 key missing pieces (along with your previously theorized Big FA Bat) to vault the A’s into contention next year.
I think the risk:reward ratio is way too high on this deal — and, even if it all pays off, I think Beane likely deals Zim within 2 years of extending him anyway (or his left arm falls off, and we’re right back where we started).
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 9:24 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're not going to get a
23 year old, going on 24, who’s an elite player. Sorry. Not without emptying out your farm of top prospects: Cahill / Anderson types, AND being prepared to pay him a very large salary.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 10:02 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
understood
I don’t dispute that. I still think grover’s price is too high for the target.
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 10:24 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Before this year, a lot of people thought Zimmerman would challenge Wright for best 3B in baseball
That hasn’t happened, but it doesn’t mean he can’t/won’t still be really, really good.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:29 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
touche
"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
by flipgatey3 on
Sep 11, 2008 12:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oops
I meant to say “best young 3B in baseball.” You’re absolutely right. I didn’t overlook A-Rod, I just didn’t quite explain the parameters properly. Nice catch.
For what it’s worth, there was a slew of White Sox idiocy on the radio today. People were calling in saying they’d rather have Joe Crede than A-Rod, and if they had both guys on the team they’d pinch hit a healthy Crede for A-Rod in a clutch situation. The hosts made fun of these people and told them they shouldn’t be allowed to consume baseball anymore.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
best over 162 games and the playoffs, not "best in May"
< / typical yankee fan >
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on
Sep 13, 2008 5:27 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Several things I need to address here
I don’t think Zimmerman will ever be an elite hitter, I doubt he’ll ever post a 1.000 OPS (although I bet he does some heavy petting with .900 for a season or three) but I do think he’ll be a good hitter for the A’s. He’s good defensively, although maybe not the “best”. So a good defender, a good hitter… that makes him a really good player in a position that doesn’t have a lot of really good players to choose from.
He’s not even 24, monkeyball. This kid has a ton of upside left in him. I’m not going to guarantee he’ll be elite in a few years but he’s going to be damn good and more importantly, he’s the absolute best guy the A’s have any shot at acquiring in the near future. Unless the A’s convert Cardenas to 3B they haven’t got a player in the system (that I’m aware of) who could come close to producing like Zimmerman will. Even if the A’s do make the move with Cardenas it’ll be 3 years minimum before he’s producing like Zimmerman could next April.
As for what Beane might do with Zimmerman 3 years from now… whatever it is, I’d like to see it happen!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 7:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I realize the price seems steep, but what did you expect for a real solution?
This isn’t some meaningless one year dance with Beltre, this is a guy who’ll be in the line-up for the next 5 years. And if you trade for Beltre with the intention of signing him to an extension or plan on going after him once he hits free agency you’re talking a 4-5 year deal costing $15 million annual for his age 31-36 years. You’d be paying big money for a guy smack in the middle of his decline phase and Belte’s bat has only been impressive one time.
Some folks are worried about losing Carter, I understand, he’s a very intriguing bat. But let’s get this straight, he’s not a 3rd baseman. So where’s he going to play?
1st base? The A’s have Barton, Doolittle and probably Chavez ahead of him.
OF? Buck, CarGon, Sweeney, Cunningham and Cust (if he’s not the DH) are all ahead of Carter. Plus I’ve spent the last week arguing that the A’s should go out and sign a big time bat, one that could end up in the OF or 1B or maybe DH.
I’m not saying that Carter couldn’t eventually establish himself as the top dog in one of these spots, I’m saying the A’s can live with it if he never does.
I’m amazed that people are more worried about the hole or holes that may form if we let this group get away then about the ship sinking gash that is already there! 3rd base has replaced SS as the life sucking hole in the A’s line-up and Ryan Zimmerman is a solution that creates a complete 180 to the problem. He’s a proven big league regular with all-star potential and he’s cost controlled to boot!
Cardenas is worth some more discussion, but the work calls.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 8:09 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think people are worried about specific positional holes that would be created
I think people are worried about (a) overpaying for a non-elite player, and (b) trading some of our higher-ceiling prospects in the deal. You can’t be projecting specific holes to be filled 3 years down the line, either way — and we’ve all bemoaned the lack of high-ceiling guys in the A’s system.
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 9:26 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Which elite player do you believe the A's can get?
Who’s also young(ish), say 27 or younger, without giving up at least one of Cahill / Anderson?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 10:04 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Where'd you see me advocate doing so, and the likelihood thereof?
Hey, if there is a genuinely elite talent available (I dunno … David Wright? Chase Utley? Not that either is "available"), and it takes Cahill or Anderson to make the deal happen, and the packages exchanging hands are equitable and make sense for both teams, I’d be all for it.
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 10:27 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Utley will be 30 next year
I actually think Beltre is a more valuable player when you factor in defense/position/league/park even though Utley has better raw numbers. Maybe I just really, really like Beltre, but I think he’s one of the most underrated players in baseball because he hit almost 50 homers one year and people think that’s his true talent level when his actual true talent level is below that, but still very good.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:32 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I've been convinced by you and the rest of the Beltre Brigade
I’d love to see Beane try and get him from the M’s. I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to a reasonable extension; I doubt that signing him in a year without having traded for him would be cost-effective, though.
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 10:42 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Utley's tailed off a bit this year in the latter half
But he’s still a lot more valuable than Beltre.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on
Sep 11, 2008 10:45 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dial had Beltre as 20 runs better than the average AL 3B including offense and defense.
and Utley as 46 runs better than the average NL 2B. The average NL 2B really can’t hit at all.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 10:50 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, that's a bit of a confusing stat
And I didn’t mean to strike up a comparison between the two players because it’s not really relevant to the discussion. My only point here is that Utley is deemed an elite player and Beltre, to a lot of people, is seen as disappointing or not reaching is potential (because of one outlier season). I think that Beltre is probably as valuable as Utley. At the very least, he’s pretty close.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:56 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think he isn't simply because 3B hit a lot better than 2B in general.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 11:01 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
B...uh?
No. Just, no. Utley was, IMO, the true-talent MVP in the NL last season.
Utley’s defense is only marginally worse than Mark Ellis’s and far beyond any other 2B in baseball. It’s worth more runs than Beltre’s. And he’s a far better player offensively.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 4:21 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
so, would you sign on for an Anderson-or-Cahill-plus-plus-plus pkg for Utley?
(Not that it’s going to happen, or that it’s even worth debating; I’m just curious.)
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 4:38 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes
I’d offer Cahill/Cardenas/Doolittle/Buck/Mazzaro for Utley. The Phillies wouldn’t take it, though, which relieves me of the anxiety of wondering whether that would be a good long-term move for the franchise.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 4:52 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah, I'd buy that for a dollar
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 4:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No way Jose'
Utley’s a stud but he is no spring chicken either, Maybe if he was about three years younger I"d consider it.
by mrod on
Sep 11, 2008 4:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Remember the "Devo Principle"
Overpay for Hall of Famers, but not otherwise.
Utley is a first-ballot Hall of Famer unless he really tails off. There hasn’t been a 2B with his combination of hitting and defense since Rogers Hornsby.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 5:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Devo was a principle?
JK… I see your point I just would prefer to have him a few to several years younger, that’s all.
by mrod on
Sep 11, 2008 5:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sweet ... now I have a principle to go with my conundrum ...
and if I’m BB, I would absolutely do that deal . While not cheap, he’s underpaid for the next five seasons and one of the ten or so best players in the game. Of course, the Phillies know that he’s one of the better players around and are and should be in win-now mode, so I’m sure we’re not getting him
Speaking of the Phillies, with an infield that includes Howard, Utley and Rollins and a solid outfield of Burrell, Victorino and Werth — how are they not better than they are? They have a solid enough pitching staff and a pretty darn good bullpen …
Utley is going to have to keep “peeking” for another 2-3 years and then not tail off too drastically to be a sure fire HOFer. I’m willing to bet that he will, as I’d be willing to pay quite a bit to get him, but that’s by no means a sure thing. He’ll be 30 next year and while that’s far from a death sentence, plenty of good players have started back down the hill at or before that point …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 11, 2008 5:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
what's your conundrum? I hope you're not horning in on mine
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 6:21 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
not sure why the link didn' work ...
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/3/24/332448/the-great-clutch-project#3065142
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 11, 2008 10:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ah, right -- forgot about that
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 12, 2008 9:48 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
On Utley's HOF chances
He’s had 4 pretty damn good seasons. If he’s going to be in the HOF, he’s going to need another 4 damn good seasons and he better stay in Philly where he can keep putting up the ridiculous numbers.
How many offensive players have had about 800 career hits on their 30th birthday and made the HOF?
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm of the opinion that it takes 6-7 HOF caliber seasons to qualify one as a HOFer ...
And I’d more or less define a HOF caliber season as being at least roughly 10 wins above replacement …
It’s a bit of an uphill climb for Utley because he started pretty late, age-wise … but we’ll see …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 11, 2008 11:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Utley's not a first ballot HOF
not if he has a normal ageing pattern. He won’t have the counting stats. He will have to follow the Jeff Kent career path, for him to get into the HOF without question.
Also, you’re forgetting Joe Morgan. Utley’s career high in OPS+ is 145. Morgan had 5 seasons with an OPS+ better than that: 187, 169, 159, 154, 149. And Morgan was a better baserunner. And it wasn’t as if Morgan was bad defensively.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 11:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jackie Robinson had three years better than 145
He was pretty good too.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 11:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're failing to take into account
that Joe Morgan is a lousy baseball announcer and is an even worse analysist. That’s gotta be worth a 15-20 point OPS+ hit annual.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 11:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So the difference between the NL and AL?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 12, 2008 12:20 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OK OPS is not OPS+
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 12, 2008 12:20 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But Morgan mostly announces NL games
so tje OPS+ hit isn’t as bad as it could be.
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on
Sep 12, 2008 7:05 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That must have been the punchline WC
was going for.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 12, 2008 7:30 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, I agree that Utley was more deserving of MVP last season
But that’s partly because Rollins was the 4th or 5th best player on the Phillies.
As for Utley, while I certainly think he’d still be a good player if he were to join the A’s, I’m not convinced he’d even be a guaranteed All-Star (well, he’d make it, but he wouldn’t have eye-popping numbers). For his career, he has an .867 OPS on the road (compared to .936 in a hitter’s best friend). And that’s in the weaker league. So in coming to the A’s he’d be joining the better league and moving from one of the best hitter’s parks to possibly the worst. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think he’d be maybe an .800 OPS guy.
As for defense, I don’t have 2007 numbers, but I know from 03-06, Ellis was 15 runs better than Utley according to UZR. I don’t really know how everybody else ranks, but I didn’t think Utley was considered in Ellis’ class (is anybody though?).
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:13 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's really, really unreasonable
The combined park and league effect might be, eh, 70 points of OPS. Not 120.
Dial’s OPD has Utley and Ellis at almost the same this year; every stat I saw last year had Utley slightly back of Ellis but in the same ballpark (and vastly ahead of everyone else).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 11:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Being a mere 15 runs behind Ellis over 4 years is really frickin' impressive ...
I also think the difference between leagues is drastically overstated on this website …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 11, 2008 11:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
FWIW anecdotally, Clay Davenport seems to think it's about 0.3 Wins/550 PA
judging by the difference between WARP1 and WARP2 for David Wright and Alex Rodriguez. It’s not nothing.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 11:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Which is what? 15-20 points of OPS?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 11, 2008 11:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How do you figure that?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 12, 2008 12:00 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Rough rule of thumb: 5 points of OPS = 1 run per year= 0.1 win
so 3-4 runs a year is 15-20 OPS points.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 12, 2008 12:02 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It seems kinda significant.
It’s not like the NL is AAA or anything though.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 12, 2008 12:19 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's not nothing ...
but it’s not a huge thing, either …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 12, 2008 1:27 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I should've posted my reply here
I trust Tango/MGL more than Davenport, and they go with .5 wins (so 25 points of OPS). So what would the difference between parks be?
by thejd44 on
Sep 12, 2008 11:12 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Purely anecdotal ...
but it seems to me that Tango/MGL do a lot of rounding — for example, all of the position adjustments they (Tango?) make are multiples of 5 …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 12, 2008 11:27 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I seriously doubt that
Cahill AND Anderson is going to net David Wright. Or Evan Longoria.
Most teams aren’t going to trade young(ish) elite players, especially not those who appear to be on HOF paths, like Wright.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 10:50 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well, again, I wasn't arguing for that
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 11:08 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Non-elite player
Zimmerman has shown he can be an above-average and better player. He’s still got a lot of room to grow and he will get better as he nears his peak years. Like I said before, I won’t call him elite, just really freakin’ good.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 8:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Grover's solution -- finally!!!
you’ve kept us waiting long enough…;-)
anyway, I like the general outline. While I also think the cost seems really steep, one of the reasons you want a well stocked system is to be able to make trades like this.
by OaklandSi on
Sep 11, 2008 8:24 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Are you convinced that Zimmerman's consecutive years of declining offensively are from his injury?
by OPS+ he’s gone from 114 to 107 to 103 this year.
With the amount of talent being proposed, I’d kinda expect a guy who will be about a 110 or so with good defense for the next 5 years.
by mikev on
Sep 11, 2008 9:04 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
OPS+
Rookie year to slight Sophmore slump to banged up for the first 4 months. I predict that by the end of the season his OPS+ will be higher then his 2007 number.
Which would hopefully make him an easier sell to AN.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 8:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Carlos Hernandez
I believe the A’s might have another version of Cahil / Anderson in Carlos Hernandez.
Here’s his ERA / IP / BB / K line for Vancouver: 1.82 / 39.2 / 7 / 38
And for Kane County: 2.29 / 35.1 / 7 / 29
And he had a great start the other night for the Ports facing an even higher level of competition. 6 IP, 0 ER, 3 hits, 10 k, 1 bb.
by GusanoQuemador on
Sep 11, 2008 9:18 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
One difference between Hernandez
and Cahill / Anderson is age relative to level. Hernandez is 21, with time split between A- and A. Cahill and Anderson are both 20, with split between A+ and AA.
Cahill and Anderson are both one year younger, 20 compared to 21, AND at 2 higher levels of competition. AA compared to A.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 10:09 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Shrug
ARL is pretty marginal for pitchers.
The reason Carlos Hernandez isn’t on their level is that Cahill has 2 plus pitches and is a groundball machine, and Anderson has 3 plus pitches and elite command. Hernandez does not. As I understand it, his fastball is high-80s (as compared to low-mid 90s for both the other two). I don’t know anything about his breaking stuff.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 11, 2008 4:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dude he struck out Buster POSEY!
He clearly is on the path to greatness.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
by miggyk2 on
Sep 11, 2008 7:23 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I bet I could strike out Buster Olney...
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:17 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I bet I could strike out with Parker Posey.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on
Sep 12, 2008 2:01 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree
development time is development time.
But regardless, there’s also the fact that Cahill and Anderson have both succeeded in hitter’s leagues, have made the transition to AA, whereas the older Hernandez has yet to do it.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 11:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I really don't know what you mean by "development time is development time"
As for whether ARL is important or not for pitchers, we’re clearly going to have to agree to disagree. I think a 21-year old in A is worth more than an 18-year old in A with identical stats because he’s less likely to get hurt.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 12, 2008 12:05 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Cahill and Anderson
are one year younger than Gonzalez, and 2 levels up. They have more time to develope, and need to develope less. That’s what I mean by developement time is developement time.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 12, 2008 2:02 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
my boy 'los
i’m excited that he is figuring it out this season…i don’t think i made solid contact once off him in jc ball
"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
by flipgatey3 on
Sep 11, 2008 12:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
you’re AN’s buster posey!
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on
Sep 13, 2008 5:29 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i don't understand the reference
probably because i don’t read MCC…help please
"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
by flipgatey3 on
Sep 14, 2008 10:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wonder if
Dallas McPherson would be a cheap and easy solution
I guess they probably could have had him and didn’t go after him before
Let's have our Piazza and eat the Cust too - SPWC
by closetasfan on
Sep 11, 2008 9:30 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting, and I do like Zimmerman
First of all, nice job on the idea grover. I’m always impressed by the amount of research, thought, and creativity that you put into these proposals.
Zimmerman is an intriguing option, and I agree that he’s much better than anything the A’s currently have in house (other than a completely healthy Chavez pipe dream). As others have mentioned above, I’m a little concerned about the successive drops in his OPS+ over the last three years. It’s not so much the OPS+ numbers themselves, but the fact they are going down when you’d think they would be going up as he approaches his prime.
That said, I think it’s worth pursuing a deal to get him. He’s a known quantity offensively and defensively at the ML level which brings some peace of mind to a team that will be trying out so many young players at most of the other positions next year (and maybe 2010). Since it’s Crazy Jim Bowden on the other end, it might even be possible to find some other minor leaguer(s) who are all tools and little success to trade instead of some of the guys proposed, and as grover notes there is a good chance it won’t even take all of Mr. Doe/Mazzaro/Carter/Rodriguez/Cardenas to get him. Just off hand, I’d also suggest that it might be possible to get two players for Street instead of one that could be used in the deal and substituted instead of one of the guys listed.
I say go for it.
Will there ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark?
by JLeverenz on
Sep 11, 2008 10:06 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Mr. Doe and Huston Street
I do believe that Street could net more then Mr. Doe, its just that the extra piece or pieces weren’t relevant to this discussion.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 8:04 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If the prospects Street would net plus Mazzaro and a toolsy player such as Patterson could get the job done I would do it in a heartbeat.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
by miggyk2 on
Sep 11, 2008 8:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you're giving up too much ...
I’m okay with Mazzaro and Carter but adding on Cardenas and John Doe makes the price pretty steep … too steep, me thinks …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 11, 2008 10:17 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Also Henry
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 10:18 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
we can't trade John Doe
… we’d lose the X factor.
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 11, 2008 10:28 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know
on one hand he doesn’t even know his own name. But he would certainly be the smartest player we ever had.

"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on
Sep 11, 2008 11:26 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Interestingly, Mr. Doe is probably more key to this then Carter
Again, this is coming from the Washington side of this discussion, but getting that pre-08 Anderson clone was THE key to doing a deal in his mind. Maybe Bowden has a completely different take on this and a deal could happen with players already in the organization.
I don’t include Carter and Cardenas unless I’m getting a quality 3B in the process because I think that’s the position he’ll end up at if he makes the Show.
Seriously, what has Cardenas done to make him so untouchable? He slugged .399 this year and that number dropped off once he left the FSL for the Cal League and later Midland.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 8:10 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm OK with giving up Mazzaro, Cardenas, Henry and Doe, but not Carter.
I’d do it if they’d take Doolittle instead. To me Henry is the best player in the non-Carter trade, and that’s an acceptable price to get Zimmerman. I really like the bold thinking in any case.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 10:33 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Is there a price benchmark for a player like Zimmerman?
I seriously doubt BB would get fleeced by Bowden. Have there been any similar deals that we could analyze to determine how much the A’s should be willing to pay?
by Flash G on
Sep 11, 2008 10:37 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Miguel Cabrera and Nick Swisher.
Zimmerman’s somewhere in between and so is Grover’s proposal.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 10:45 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Zimmerman might command more than Miggy did.
Miggy was looking at a 150 million dollar extension right after being dealt. Zimmerman will receive far less money and might eventually be a similar hitter while being a serviceable 3rd basemen his entire stay in Oakland. Zimm is no Miggy offensively, but makes up what he lacks with the bat with the leather.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
by miggyk2 on
Sep 11, 2008 8:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There were something like 6 other players in this deal
And a lot of them significant pieces. I don’t think calling that a Garza for Young trade is exactly accurate
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 10:57 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
More like Garza and Bartlett for nothing?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 11, 2008 11:01 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think in the long run Minnesota got the better end of the deal
I don’t think Garza is special, but I do think Young will become a very good player. And I’d rather have Harris than Bartlett.
by thejd44 on
Sep 11, 2008 11:05 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Brendan Harris' D is abominable.
He’s realistically a 3b.
And Delmon Young’s D is also poor.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Sep 11, 2008 11:23 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I didn't say it was exactly accurate. The question was asking about "similar" deals.
Zimmerman is in his 4th season (3rd full) at age 23. Young is in his 3rd season (2nd full) at age 22.
Zimmerman is slightly better this year by OPS+, 103 to 98, but he’s trending downward. Young is better than he was last year.
I mean, I can’t even think of any other 23 year olds who were traded after playing a couple seasons in the big leagues.
by mikev on
Sep 11, 2008 11:13 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think we're giving up too much
Washington needs similar players as the A’s namely young good cheap and cost controlled for a number of years to build around. Zimmerman is good now but not as long term as prospects.
I think it would take 3 B to B+ prospects to get him or an A- and a B+. I don’t think Street wouldn’t make as much sense as guys still in the minors. Every team needs pitching and that is the strength of the A’s farm right now. GMs seem to like getting one “right now” type player so maybe Street would fit the bill there.
Cardenas is needed for 2B / Util and Carter is needed for power and might end up a DH anyway which wouldn’t help the Nats.
I’d trade Zimmerman for A) Mazzaro or Simmons, B) Patterson or Cunningham or Sweeney and C) Street or Henry Rodriguez.
RIVER CATS: AAA CHAMPS!
by niallmack on
Sep 11, 2008 11:12 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You've got some things mixed up
Street doesn’t get traded to the Nationals, he gets dealt for prospects to some other team and one of those new guys gets shipped to Washington. It’s a 3-way trade without me going into specifics.
You say Carter is needed for power, a week ago I was arguing that the A’s should go out and BUY that power on the FA market. You know the difference between Chris Carter and Adam Dunn? Dunn has actually hit 39 HRs in the big leagues.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 11, 2008 8:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
and he is black
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
by miggyk2 on
Sep 11, 2008 8:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like this trade....
“I’d trade Zimmerman for A) Mazzaro or Simmons, B) Patterson or Cunningham or Sweeney and C) Street or Henry Rodriguez.”
Mazzaro, Sweeney , and H-rod I’d do in a heartbeat. Throw in Outman if you have to.
To give up Carter, Cardenas, Buck, Mazzaro, and Rodriguez for Zimmerman would be insanely retarded though.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on
Sep 12, 2008 9:05 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
When did Buck get added to the mix?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 13, 2008 7:12 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also, i don't think BB wants to trade Sweeney
If I recall correctly he was offered Rasmus for Harden and Sweeney and turned it down. Of course there could have been other issues like he really wanted Gallagher more than Rasmus at the time.
Grover, I have to disagree with a statement you made earlier and that is that there " are some serious deficiencies at 3B, SS and maybe 2B." I think we have a potentially good but not great SS and 2B possibilities in our system. Where I see the deficiencies are at 3B and 1B right now. If Barton can’t straighten things out next year then he can be replaced by Carter or Doolittle and we would be ok. I like your idea of going for a young high upside 3B like Zimmerman or even Stewart. Both would be hard to get but worth it.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on
Sep 13, 2008 11:32 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Rasmus bit
I haven’t seen any links to that rumor.
Who do you see at SS and 2B that gives you warm fuzzies?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 13, 2008 11:38 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think We can have a good SS / 2B from Pennington, Petit, Patterson or Cardenas.
Yes, I would like to have a better choice but we already have them and it would be an improvement over our current SS situation and be ok at 2B maybe better than ok.
Like your focus is here, I think corner IF power and defense is the best objective. Just for giggles, if we were to get Tex and Zimmerman or Stewart for our corners wouldn’t that resolve a lot of our issues?
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on
Sep 13, 2008 11:46 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tex + Zimmerman = drools
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 13, 2008 11:59 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What do you think of Stewart?
Is he in the same class as Zimmerman?
Do you think that we could do a better deal with the Rockies?
I like the idea of going for someone who is still young and in the majors… or maybe in AAA and ready to come out. We need time for our outfield to sort itself out but one pricey free agent (Tex) and one good deal (Zimmerman or Stewart) and we could be right where we would like to be.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on
Sep 13, 2008 12:06 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Stewart has more contact issues then Zimmerman
I’ve tried to get myself enthused with the idea of acquiring him but I’ve got issues with guys who K a bunch. Stewart is only half a year younger then Zimmerman and he’s not nearly as proven a player.
The biggest problem with Stewart is the Rockies have yet to decide what their plan is in 2009. They’d like to trade Helton, bump Atkins to 1B and have Stewart play 3B every day but that’s going to be tough to pull off.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 13, 2008 12:17 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That begs the obvious question:
What about trading for Helton?
If the Rockies eat a sizable part of the contract (33-50%), and he doesn’t cost beaucoup prospects (maybe Mazzaro and a relief arm, eg), is it worth talking about?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 13, 2008 11:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The more money the A's take on, the less the cost in prospects
He’s owed $16.6 million a year in 2009 and 2010, $19.1 million in 2011, and has a $23 million club option for 2012. He also carries a full no-trade clause that I’m sure he’ll be happy to waive if the A’s guarantee to pick up his option. He’s 35 and has back issues.
He’s still got the OBP but the power looks like it might be gone. We can talk about him, but where’s the upside?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 13, 2008 11:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The power is probably not coming back... and the injury issues make it a dangerous trade
Then again, couldn’t you say that for just about every team out there? He’s going to be almost impossible to move at this stage unless they start eating some serious salary pie.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 14, 2008 12:14 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I mentioned that up above somewhere, I think.
Would taking on Helton’s salary be enough to get Ian Stewart?
I don’t know that I’d expect the A’s to give up much in the way of a prospect considering the amount of money being taken on, but is Stewart that level of a prized aquisition?
by mikev on
Sep 14, 2008 9:36 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No one does trades like that
Even if it’s theoretically justifiable, the PR would just be horrible. So, to answer your question, no.
Besides, Stewart (and Atkins) is/are the reasons why they’re trying to move Helton to begin with.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 14, 2008 10:31 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I wish teams did deals like that
The best candidate for that type of deal would be Zito.
Reaquiring Zito and taking on a significant chunk of his salary and getting the best of their farm system in return.
Like you said though, it would never happen.
That’s an NBA-style trade, a salary-cap induced trade.
"Some of the men didn't wait for the women and children to jump off the sinking ship that is our season." - 67MARQUEZ
by notsellingjeans on
Sep 14, 2008 9:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm still not seeing the upside to making the deal
Care to explain your reasoning?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 14, 2008 7:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Upside?
It’s Todd Helton. The upside is a guy who’s had four or five seasons which are what we hope, in our most optimistic moments, that Daric Barton might one day approach. Even the post-power Helton was still an excellent player until this season’s injury-induced problems. If— big if— he bounces back, he’s still one of the best hitters in baseball.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 14, 2008 10:19 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Todd Helton of 2000-2004 no longer exists ...
but if he can stay healthy enough to play 150 games, the Todd Helton of 2007 is a better hitter than anything the A’s currently have to offer …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on
Sep 15, 2008 12:22 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Roughly $40 million over 4 years
for a 35 year old OBP hitter with back issues. That’s like getting the deluxe version of Scott Hatteberg. Eventually you reach the point that matter the added features, it’s still Hatty.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 15, 2008 6:23 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
9 SCOTT HATTEBERGS IS TEH BEST OFFENSE INB ASEBALL!11one!!
by mikev on
Sep 15, 2008 9:55 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
AND NOW, WITH EXTRA CUPHOLDERS!
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 15, 2008 10:20 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I thought you had your own blog Paul
The 2009 A's draft pick... getting higher every game.
by rebus on
Sep 15, 2008 11:02 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There, there little muppet (grover)
let me get you a towel to wipe your mouth with……Now that would be bad ass if it were to happen. Chances of it actually coming to fruition? Slim to none in my opinion.
by mrod on
Sep 13, 2008 2:06 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This was in reference
to getting both Zimmerman and Texiera.
Actually, the more I think about it the more it really would come down to money/years for Tex. How much and how long? And is it in line with the long term plans of the franchise? Do Wolff and Beane pull the trigger? and do they actually have the stomach to deal with Scott “Fucking Leach” Boras"?
The Z deal I think could get done without having to deplete the farm too much because the Nats don’t have squat in their system from what I can tell. So, I’m sure if Beane were to make an offer for RZ it would be more than fair and certainly adequate.
by mrod on
Sep 13, 2008 2:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just a note for Warm and Fuzzies
If we were talking about Asset Management, Problem Management or Alternative healing like EFT or Reiki or Acupressure or even Shamanism I would be able to put up a much better response. I look at people like you, grover, and Taj and others to give me the insight for players. I am just a very very long term (since the 60s) A’s fan and the above is my view of this.
That rumor was in the threads and I didn’t keep a log of them but it was real, or at least a real rumor. ;-)
My question to you is, if you could only improve by trading from the big league club or some minors at two positions which would you choose today?
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on
Sep 13, 2008 11:54 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Rumors
The thread you’re referring to is the only place I’d ever seen it. I’d love a link to the source material.
I’m a little unclear on your question. I can only trade from the big league club or I can trade anyone in the org?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 13, 2008 12:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
All of the players your are talking about trading, except for Street are in the minors.
How about something including Barton, Buck, Eveland, Braden, Smith? Or even one of our good BP pitchers?
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on
Sep 13, 2008 12:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Anyone in the org. is fair game to me
As for the positions I’d target… 3B and SS.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Sep 13, 2008 12:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Rasmus-Harden-Sweeney source
The source for that rumor was Jason A Churchill, writing on Prospect Insider. In early July he had a general story tracking rumors about several of the likeliest suspects for big trades. In the discussion that followed in the comments section, Churchill made a follow-up comment, saying:
I emailed an A’s scout who was very involved in the Harden talks with STL and Chicago, and he said the Cards were willing to trade Rasmus in a deal for Harden, but wanted Ryan Sweeney coming back with Harden.
I can’t find the Prospect Insider page anymore, but if you Google you can get a cached version.
Some other blogs picked up the comment and it spread from there. I think they all trace back to Churchill and no one else.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on
Sep 15, 2008 1:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Probably what I thought for a few moments while reading.
It had been a bit afer you mentioned the trade of street for Mr. Doe, and when you mentioned him again I thought “Mr. Doe??” Then years of watching The Sound of Music as a child kicked in and I decided Doe=Buck.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on
Sep 15, 2008 9:41 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
no, no, no
“Doe, a Deer”
Doe = Cust
cocky whacko @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Sep 15, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I didn't know the steroids had turned him female
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Sep 15, 2008 11:21 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He does throw like a girl.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on
Sep 15, 2008 3:21 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nope, I Don't Buy It
I am not convinced Beane is doing anything and that unless Chavez says to him, “Move me to 1st or DH” , he is our 3bman for the present and future.
He did the smart thing by accelerating his recovery by having a 2nd shoulder arthroscopy to “clean up” the debris from his 1st arthroscopy. His L shoulder healed well and his back didn’t give him serious problems after his microdiscectomy.
Chavez is a unique talent especially considering his cat-like reflexes and his power. Ww forget how solid of a player he was with the level he performed at (earning Gold gloves) while his body was deteriorating. The fact that this team was going nowhere in Beane’s eye made it clear he should go on the IR and rehab for next year.
I really believe we will be pleasantly surprised with the progress he has made and will see a productive year out of him in 09.
Now we get to keep all of those prospects that have been rumoured to be traded for Zimmerman.
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King
by Gerard on
Sep 11, 2008 11:26 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs



