Players Teams Have Made Available This Offseason
by stranahanahan on Sep 21, 2008 9:53 PM PDT
Email
PrintFree agency aside, this thread is devoted to discussing those players who other teams have made clear are either available or whom they will be exploring possible trades with. Now I clearly will not have all listed, but I will name a few whom I think could be a possible trade candidate for the A's, and what they will have to give up in return (let's keep it to hitters, I think it's fair to assume the A's won't be going for any major pitchers)...
Jeff Franceour- The Braves have made it clear they are disappointed in his performance (as evident by them sending him down to AAA after 2 straight 100 rbi seasons), Franceour to the Royals has been popping up lately, but i don't think so. Would the A's be interested and what would they have to give up? With the Braves losing most likely Glavine and Smoltz (I've heard they won't resign him) they would most likely want some starting pitching and maybe even an outfielder in return. Beane has dealt with the Braves before but I say this would not be a smart move.
Prince Fielder- If the Brewers don't make the playoffs it has been made clear they will have a major shakeup and apparently they are more than just willing to explore a Fielder trade. They are gonna lose Sheets and Sabathia, so they need starting pitching. Would Duke be a possibility with some fillers? Mazzero? Would you part with Simmons, Cahill, or Anderson? Personally, I would pounce on a chance for Fielder. He's a great player and is only going to get better/ stay consistent. He's my guy for green and gold in '09. Plus, will his inability to recreate his monster season in '07 lower his value maybe a bit?
Aubrey Huff- Coming off a career year, he's clearly overvalued, both by other teams and the Orioles. Beane won't do it, and maybe if this was last year it would be a consideration, but i say no way.
J.J. Hardy- How about a blockbuster, Fielder and Hardy to the A's? It's a possibility....
Dan Uggla- For sure available, but is he overpriced tradewise? Could we get anyone else from the fish? Ramirez? Jacobs? Who would you like to see the most?
Jimmy Rollins (?!?)- This name may surprise a few, but recently he has soured in Philly, and the Phillies may make him available... Do you like him? Too close to past his prime? It would certainly be a homecoming for him and I'm sure it would make him more than happy... But for what?
Atkins, Holliday- Well, it seems that Atkins is way overpriced, but Holliday? I would love to see him on the A's and he can hit away from Coors. Again, they need starting pitching, but how much?
So, this is just a bit to start the thread. Who would you want that it is clear is available. Obviously, I have only mentioned top stars, because that's what we would all love to have, but post your thoughts, and other guys you see as a fit, whose your top guy. Me, it's Fielder...
190 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Of the ones you mention, Hardy would interest me the most
He’s not a good SS but could potentially move over to 3B if necessary as the A’s have needs at both. I would be interested in Holliday if he weren’t a Boras client, but I don’t see him signing an extension and I’d only trade for him if an extension were a real possibility.
Other names I’ll add:
Ryan Garko, maybe Victor Martinez? I’d make a play for Chase Headley and see what it would take – the Padres are bad enough that it might make sense for them to trade Headley in exchange for multiple young players. The A’s have Street, Mazzaro, H-Rod, Buck available potentially without mortgaging the team’s future core, and Patterson might even be a good fit for triples-friendly Petco. Just a thought.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think the Indians are done with major dealing
They have a good amount of talent on their roster at present and they’ve been somewhat unlucky this year. There’s no real reason for them to sell off their pieces— they could sign a second-tier starter in the offseason (eg Lowe) and have an excellent shot at their division next year.
Garko will probably be available because he’s a supernumerary, but I don’t really see what he does for the A’s other than block a bunch of prospects.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I suspect the Indians want to trade for Street, since they claimed him on waivers and
Beane said something about the parameters of a deal being discussed that they could resume in the offseason. I’m hoping Asdrubal’s involved. The Indians could certainly use someone better than Lewis and Kobayashi.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2008 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions
My subject line really should have said "selling," not "dealing"
I think they might well make “lateral” or “buying” trades. I just don’t think they’ll be auctioning off Martinez or Sizemore for major prospect packages.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I could see the Indians wanting Huston Street...
and giving up a good prospect or two or a supernumerary guy.
Street is very likely to get dealt this offseason. He pitched well again in the last month and a half, easing the concerns that swirled around his performance near the trading deadline.
And, the demand is clearly there. Lots of contenders need a better closer, and the only two FAs are K-Rod, who’s gonna get 60-million plus, and Fuentes.
Suddenly 2 years of Huston Street at less than 12 million total looks pretty attractive.
"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 22, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
In a vacuum I could definitely see the A's going for Garko
RH hitter, pretty good pop, young, coming off a down year. But in reality I’m not sure where he would play. He’s stuck at 1B and we’ve got a ton of guys that would/should be getting ABs there.
Does "just a thought" mean "don't criticize me too harshly, I haven't put much thought into this and I'm a sensitive guy"?
In any case I can see the Padres trading Kouzmanoff for pitching — their ERA+ is 90! — before trading Headley. If they were to trade Headley, I’m sure they’d want something similar to what the A’s got for Haren.
I guess I can see Hardy as a 3B, maybe for Simmons or Street. I wouldn’t trade Mazzaro, Henry or Buck, because I think they’re all a lot better than their trade value. For example Mazzaro and Simmons probably have similar trade value but I like Mazzaro a lot better. Similarly Sweeney and Buck. I’m not sure where Henry’s trade value is, but I suspect it’s similar to Simmons, whereas I think it should be similar to Gio or Anderson.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2008 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Some interesting comments
Care to explain why you prefer Mazzaro over Simmons?
And why do you think that Henry’s value should be similiar to Anderson’s?
If these questions sound like I’m setting you up, well… you never know.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Mazzaro's mle's are a lot better than Simmons (3.63 FIP for Vince vs 4.36 for James), and
looking at the details it makes sense to me why that should be true. Simmons just gets hit a lot harder — 7.4 (2B+HR)/100 PA vs 6.0 for Vince. Vince compiled these numbers partly at AAA, while James spent the whole year at AA. The promotion tells me the A’s like Vince more. They usually aren’t strategic about their promotions. Vince also maintained his numbers at AAA. These mle’s are from minorleaguesplits.com, but Baseball Prospectus’s Peak ERALF tells much the same story — 3.64 for Vince, 4.32 for James. James does have recovery from the sleep disorder on his side though. Also Vince came out of nowhere and this could be a career year, but so did Tim Hudson in 1999.
Henry had an absolutely miserable season. He had zero control, zero command, zero confidence, and horrible results. It’s hard to imagine him pitching worse than this. And yet his FIP was 4.00. His MLE was 4.49 (similar to James). Looking at the details two things stand out. 1) Batters can’t make contact off him (27.5K/100 BFP, similar to Cahill and Anderson and way better than Simmons) and 2) When they do, they don’t hit the ball at all hard (4.7 [2B+HR]/100 PA), much better than Brett or Gio, albeit at lower levels. His 51% GB% is a very good sign also. His .354 BABIP tells me that he was probably a bit unlucky and/or he’ll look a lot better with a major league infield behind him. Peak ERALF confirms my thinking — about 3.80 for Henry between Stockton and Midland and 3.74 for Gio and about 3.95 for Brett.
His style and results remind me a lot of Jose Rijo at 21 (91 ERA+). I had a soft spot for Jose as well, and didn’t approve of the trade for Dave Parker at the time. So even if Gio turns into Barry Zito and Brett into Mark Mulder, I’d put Jose Rijo’s career up against theirs anytime, despite the rocky beginnings. All turned out to be very good.
OK, I’m well set up now. Fire away.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Anderson's numbers would be a lot better if not for those two starts with the thumb injury
when he gave up about 15 hits and 15 runs in 5 innings.
I really don’t buy this “they don’t hit the ball hard” thing. HR/FB and BABIP are largely a matter of luck and Rodriguez gives up more fly balls than Anderson, albeit fewer than Gonzalez. Bottom line, he struck out more than the other two but also walked a TON more for a much weaker ratio, got many fewer grounders than Anderson and not many more than Gio, and pretty clearly has the worst arsenal of the three from a stuff standpoint. He has a juicy fastball and no other average pitch; Gio has an average fastball and change and a 70 curve; Anderson has 3 plus pitches.
And then there’s the elephant (so to speak) in the room— he appears to be heading to the bullpen. This is not some crazy decision by the A’s; every observer I’ve seen comment on him thinks he’s a bullpen pitcher eventually. I can’t tell if you’re in denial about this or what, but guys in the bullpen are less valuable than starters. You have to pitch at Papelbon/Rivera levels to be comparable in value to a good starting pitcher. Rodriguez does not have that kind of upside and even if he did he would be highly unlikely to reach it.
As for the Simmons/Mazzaro comp, I have them as roughly similar, but it’s a bit telling that you aren’t using the same comparative metrics. Simmons strikes out more and walks fewer. Mazzaro gets more grounders and might have a lower hit rate, but has a weaker track record. He probably has slightly superior raw stuff. I just don’t see much difference between the two.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Where are you getting the info that Henry has "no other average pitch"?
Here’s what BA had to say:
“He has hit 100 mph, though he has bought into the philosophy that command is more important than lighting up radar guns. His changeup shows signs of being a plus pitch. He likes to throw inside and is aggressive on the mound. He’s athletic, repeats his delivery and fields his position well.”
Are the assessments regarding the respective “stuff” of the pitchers based on your observation or do you have a link?
Regarding the move to the pen, it may or may not be a permanent thing. Rijo was in the pen for his first year with Cincinnati too, as was Duke till this year. So if that’s what you mean by “denial” then yes, I guess I am.
In any case you’ve done a pretty good job of summarizing the collective opinion of AN. Do you have any hard numbers to back up your “conventional view”? Can you present any evidence at all, other than your assertions?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 1:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Can you present any evidence at all, other than your assertions?
HR/FB and BABIP are largely a matter of luck and Rodriguez gives up more fly balls than Anderson, albeit fewer than Gonzalez. Bottom line, he struck out more than the other two but also walked a TON more for a much weaker ratio, got many fewer grounders than Anderson and not many more than Gio
Are you disputing this? I didn’t spend half an hour citing the exact numbers, but that doesn’t make it wrong. In four stats which tend to predict a guy’s future success (K rate, BB rate, K/BB ratio and GB rate) he is respectively 1st, last, last and 2nd of the group, and that comparison is probably unfair to Gio because he was pitching at a harder level all season.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If your point was that Rodriguez has worse control than the other three
I never disputed that. My argument was that his perceived value is more similar to that of Simmons, when it should be more similar to that of Anderson and Gonzalez. His numbers, particularly K-rate are more similar to those guys than to Simmons. Are you saying that you agree or disagree with the basic premise? If you disagree, what evidence can you present in support of your argument? If your argument is based on personal observation, that’s fine, but please say so.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I disagree with that premise, based on the facts that I just presented in my previous post
I’m not sure why you keep asking me for “evidence” when I’ve already cited it, twice. His walk rate and K/BB ratio are not indicative of a player with any chance to succeed in a major league rotation. He is going to end up in the bullpen, and as a reliever prospect he is at least second if not third in the organization.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Sorry for not being clear. One last try.
1) My memory tells me that sometimes guys with really awesome fastballs sometimes take longer to develop — e.g. Koufax, Unit, and our own Rijo. I also believe that the ability to strike people out is the most important thing in a minor league pitcher other than health.
2) Guys who strike out a lot of hitters, but also walk a lot are frustrating to watch, and can be perceived as not being very good prospects compared to those with better control. I’ve seen Rodriguez in this forum discussed as though he’s just another overrated hard thrower like Colome, Valentine or German. However I believe that the ability to strike out hitters is way more important than control in minor leaguer. Further I also believe that the ability to prevent hard hit balls, as evidenced by XBH and ground ball tendencies, is about as important as the ability to limit walks in a minor leaguer. This is just based on my personal observation so far.
3) The MLE translation system on minorleaguesplits.com agrees with me as does Baseball Prospectus’s Peak ERALF formula as they’re a lot kinder to a really wild strikeout pitcher — Rodriguez — than they are to a more polished pitcher at a higher level — Simmons. In fact their optimism about Rodriguez’s future is a lot closer to their view of Anderson and Gonzalez’s future despite Rodriguez’s vastly worse control.
5) I think it’s even a better sign that his projections are good, despite how badly he’s pitched on the surface.
4) Apparently you disagree with my personal observation, which is fine, since my personal observation is not very scientific. However if you also disagree with the MLE formula and the Peak ERALF projection system, it would be nice if you’d provide some evidence of your own.
5) All you’ve done so far is reiterate that Rodriguez has no control. This has already been taken into account. Do you have anything else? Have I misunderstood your point? If so, I apologize.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Ugh. Bad numbering.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions
That's ok - I believe that the ability to number
is less important than the ability to use letters.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I know math people who would punch you in the eye for that
by thejd44 on Sep 23, 2008 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Mathematicians are notoriously violent
I still have a scar from having an equalateral triangle thrown at me in high school.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
it apparently lodged in the part of your brain that governs spelling
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
What's funny is that I started to type
isocel—eh, too hard to spell, and went with equilateral…and then mis-spelled that.
OK, not so much funny as sad.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
This is basically an extended way of saying "I think walks are irrelevant"
which is, I am sorry to say, hogwash. Pitchers do not routinely improve their command as they age; as many get worse as get better. You’re cherrypicking a handful of examples while ignoring the vast majority of this species of pitcher, guys like Daniel Cabrera, Oliver Perez, Brandon Backe, etc. If you tell me a guy has a tiny chance of being Rijo, a decent chance of being Brandon Backe and a high chance of being Edwin Jackson, I’m not going to value him very highly.
Franklyn German is actually a pretty good comparison, but German was actually a superior pitcher in terms of Ks and walks in the minors.
As I said above, putting as much weight in “ability to limit hard hit balls” as walks is ludicrous. Pitchers in MLB do not demonstrate the ability to limit hard hit balls. It’s not a skill. Pitchers who cannot limit hard hit balls get weeded out of prospect status long before they reach the big leagues. We’re talking like Low-A ball here. MLB pitchers can generate ground balls and popups, and doing so tends to lower the damage that hits do. That’s about it.
I’m frankly unclear where you’re deriving this “his projections are good” thing, because his MLE is 4.49. For a guy who spent a third of a season in the bullpen, that’s league-average at best. It’s worse than Simmons’s, not “a lot kinder.” The other formula is kind of a black box. It’s a point in his favor, but I don’t really know how to evaluate it.
We seem to be at an impasse here, because fundamentally I think walks are important and you appear to believe that they are totally irrelevant. I will ask you this, though— if you think that Rodriguez is as good as Anderson and Gio, why do you not think the same thing about Carignan, Demel and Andrew Bailey? Demel in particular is just strictly superior to Rodriguez in every aspect— more grounders, more Ks, more popups, every indicator of “dominance” that you can come up with.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I don't think those guys are as good as Rodriguez because:
1) They were pure relievers and Rodriguez’s numbers as a starter were most of his innings — 100.7 compared to 19.7 as a reliever.
2) Scouts don’t rate their stuff as highly as Rodriguez’s stuff.
It’s not that I believe walks are irrelevant. It’s that I believe they’re way way less important than strikeouts for a prospect.
I don’t think Rodriguez is as good as Anderson or Gio, certainly not now. I do think that his future prospects aren’t as far removed from theirs as the conventional wisdom says.
Regarding the cherry-picking, it’s true that Brandon Backe and Edwin Jackson didn’t turn out as well as Rijo, but I’m pretty sure I could find pitchers with Gio’s profile that didn’t turn out as well as Zito, and pitchers with Anderson’s profile that didn’t turn out as well as Mulder. The didn’t invent the TINSTAAP thing for no reason.
Also oops on the Simmons MLE thing. Not sure what I was looking at there.
Thanks for bearing with me.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Bailey hasn't been a pure reliever
He has a higher career K rate than Simmons (roughly 9.6 to 8.2) and the vast majority of those innings were compiled in a starting role (and in turn, most of Simmons’s pro innings last season were as a reliever, so that proportionally they have similar percentages of “starting innings”). I don’t think he’s a better prospect, I’m just saying that by your rubric there’s a reasonable argument for considering him a better prospect.
Carignan and Demel, of course, are pure relievers. I think you overestimate the stuff difference between them and Rodriguez, though. Demel’s stuff combo compares pretty well to Joey Devine (mid-90s heater, and plus slider) and Carignan’s fastball is not much slower than Rodriguez’s (like H-Rod he currently lacks a high quality offspeed pitch). Bailey also has a mid-90s fastball with a solid curve and a decent changeup.
It is, of course, true that any of these guys can flame out, even Anderson and Cahill. Sometimes things just don’t click at higher levels of play.
I have to say, though, that I’m a lot more optimistic about the eventual success of guys who have already bested the AA hurdle in terms of quality performance. I also have a much higher tolerance for guys who simply need to “not regress too much” than for guys who actually have to improve their numbers in some key stat at higher levels to be effective. I like Aaron Cunningham’s hitting because even if you knock it down a bunch across the board to account for the higher difficulty of MLB, he’s still a good hitter. Similarly, even with more walks and less strikeouts, Brett Anderson is still a #1-#2 type pitcher.
It’s hard enough for guys to move up in levels and just maintain their stats; it’s far harder for them to actually upgrade those stats to a higher plane. It does happen, eg Hanley Ramirez, but it’s the exception and not the rule.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Bailey's kinda interesting.
Fewer K/BFP — 23% vs 27.5%. He is a lot easier to hit than Rodriguez — 6.7 (2B+HR)/100 PA vs 4.7 for Henry. You don’t believe the latter is meaningful, but the MLE translation sure seems to. Bailey has a 4.21 FIP (after park and luck are taken out) which translates to a 5.65 MLE. The more severe translation’s probably partly because he’s about 3 years older than Henry. Peak ERALF is a similar story with Bailey at 4.82 about a full run higher than Rodriguez.
I’m certainly thrilled that Anderson (and Gonzalez and especially Cahill) all have #1-#2 potential. I just think that because they’ve been so good, and Rodriguez doesn’t have the results yet, he’s been underrated, despite his similarly good projection.
Similarly Mazzaro, who wasn’t highly touted at the beginning of the season had more or less as good a year as the Top 3 guys, but remains relegated to the second tier.
I’d rank them as:
Cahill
Anderson
Gonzalez
Rodriguez
Mazzaro
Simmons
Hernandez
Carignan
Demel
Lansford
Bailey
Rather than the conventional view which seems to be on AN:
Cahill
Anderson
Gonzalez
Mazzaro
Simmons
Hernandez
Rodriguez
Carignan
Lansford
Demel
Bailey
Even if Rodriguez is a reliever initially, he has the potential to convert to starter at some point, much more than the pure relievers do.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 5:29 AM PDT up reply actions
BTW I'd put Leon above all the other relievers too
and right up there with Rodriguez. Heck maybe even higher. I just haven’t decided yet.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 5:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I wasn't saying to compare Bailey to Rodriguez
I knew he’d come out worse in that one, because he had a similarly miserable season as a starter and is older. I was saying to compare him to Simmons.
It is worth noting, though, that Bailey was by far the better of the two once they went to the pen.
As for Mazzaro, I think people acknowledge that he had a great year, they just want to be sure it wasn’t a fluke.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Sorry I misunderstood. OK, I'd much prefer Simmons to Bailey.
Three years younger. First full professional season vs repeating AA. Slightly lower K-rate 21% vs 23, and slightly higher XBH rate 7.4 vs 6.7% but Bailey had about 35% of his innings in relief and Simmons had massively better control. 3.75 K/BB vs 1.96. Also, Simmons improved a lot after that sleep disorder was addressed.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Bailey wasn't repeating AA...
He spent last year between KC and Stockton.
He also led the system in strikeouts in 2007…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Ugh. I need to learn to read.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 24, 2008 2:12 AM PDT up reply actions
"It’s not that I believe walks are irrelevant. It’s that I believe they’re way way less important than strikeouts for a prospect."
That’s an interesting statement … and one that I would suggest is both true and false …
I would suggest that high strikeout rates would suggest a player has a higher ceiling, while low walk rates suggest that a player has a higher chance of reaching his ceiling.
With his fastball and the potential for a plus change, if everything works out, he could be a dominant starting pitching, just a step below a healthy Rich Harden, who features a dominant fastball and a plus-plus change.
On the other hand, he is going to have to cut his bb-rate in half, continue to successfully develop that change and continue to learn to pitch (the mental side of it) if he’s going to have any chance of even sniffing that upside.
James Simmons, on the other hand, does not have the same upside. In a perfect world, he probably tops out as a good #3 starter. Of course, he is almost ready to fulfill that promise today.
Simmons has very little downside. Injuries aside, there is very little chance that he does not develop into at least a replacement level MLB starter, with the most likely outcome somewhere in between replacement level and a #3 …
So which is more valuable? Well that depends on what you value. Rodriguez has more risk but he also has more reward. Simmons is practically a sure thing — but that also limits his upside.
The A’s are in the enviable position that they really don’t need either. With high end, yet remarkably safe young talent in the guise of Cahill and Anderson and an embarrassment of riches in terms of young, relatively safe, future middle of the rotation guys the future is bright regardless. With that depth, though, I’d say that the team has every reason to shoot for the moon, in which case they should probably value H-Rod more for his upside than Simmons for his security.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
How much more "security" does Simmons provide than Rodriguez?
If all pitching prospects are basically risky, I’d think that real security comes in having a lot of them. This the A’s have. But in choosing between them in deciding whom to trade is it really “safer” to trade the ones farther from their ceiling?
I think the answer lies in your baseline. If you take replacement level conventionally as something around a 90 ERA+ (or whatever it currently is) then the fact that Simmons is very likely to reach that becomes relevant to you.
If you change your baseline to something like “average” and then the player that is most likely to provide value over average becomes more valuable to you.
I submit that for a top prospect or a starting player we should look at value above or below average rather than replacement level. Then we get a better feel for how well the team projects above or below .500, and how much a player contributes to that difference. “Replacement level” may be relevant for bench players or AAA emergency backups, but not really for players that you want to be in the lineup most of the time. The fact that a player has a very high likelihood of contributing 1 win above 60 but a very low chance of contributing 1 win above 81 isn’t that important in a starter.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
VORP is much more useful for prospects
Free agents are one thing, but when you’re talking about guys who are very likely to never produce any value above average at all, VAA isn’t a good metric. 90% of prospects would be essentially worthless under that rubric, and that just doesn’t make sense. Teams have to fill out a roster somehow, and most teams can’t afford to buy solutions at every position.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Yes but having below average players in starting
positions are filler, not the objective
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Who cares what the "objective" is?
Sometimes players don’t turn out as good as your “objective.” That doesn’t make them worthless.
It’s an arbitrary example, but a guy with a 10% chance of being 1 win above average and a 90% chance of being completely worthless is obviously much less valuable than a guy with a 10% chance of being 1 win above average and a 90% chance of being average.
Obviously no one is that extreme, but it’s equally obvious that not everyone’s outcome chart is the same shape. Some guys may be very good at their 90th percentile projection and not even MLB caliber at the 70th percentile (and I’d argue Rodriguez is in that group). Other guys are far more likely to produce at acceptable levels even if they don’t turn out to be studs.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I think you underestimate the riskiness
involved in all prospects, especially pitchers. Almost all are not MLB caliber at their 70th percentile. The choice is between a higher upside really really risky option and a lower upside really really risky option.
I think too many analysts go for what they perceive is “safer” — ie. more likely to make the majors — rather than what’s actually useful, ie. more likely to contribute above average.
If you don’t believe me, look back at BA’s Top 20 League lists from five years ago, and ask yourself how many of those top prospects you even remember. Today I learned that Mike Moustakas was the #1 prospect in the MWL. He was also the first teenager to lead the league in HR since….Steve Gibralter.
I think these analysts who focus on value above replacement, rather than above average, even for top prospects, are too quick to give up upside in exchange for “feeling prudent”. If they’re wrong then no one remembers since they did the “prudent” thing. If the supposedly riskier pick doesn’t make it — well then the GM is a fool.
BTW it’s not that different in the investment world. Ten years ago I was an idiot for thinking that international diversification was less risky than putting all your investments in the US, because…well other countries are riskier….they must be. I don’t hear that as much anymore.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 24, 2008 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions
You are committing a very fundamental probabilistic fallacy here
Every player’s value is a function of the probability of success times the utility of that success.
If player A is twice as likely to succeed as player B, player B’s success utility has to be twice as high to make him an equivalent prospect. It doesn’t matter a whit whether the actual probability of success is 100/50, 20/10 or 2/1.
So unless you are actually suggesting that all prospects are equally likely to reach MLB, the success rate of “prospects as a whole” is irrelevant. I’m not going to bother arguing against that position.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That's funny ...
because Baseball America, among the major prospect authorities out there, is the one that probably comes closest to your viewpoint re safety/upside …
And of course diversification is safer — although this is the second time you’ve attacked that straw man, no one is suggesting otherwise as its silly and doesn’t really fit in this discussion, anyway …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Okay, well I think that Simmons has a better chance of contributing 1 win over 81, too ...
As far as how much, I would suggest that he is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4 times more likely to be at least a non-problematic (call a team of 25 of him a 70 win team) and probably twice as likely to be at least average.
But, umm, you did realize that I was ultimately agreeing with you, right?
I’m not generally in the habit of having people question me when I’m agreeing with them … Is this a Socratic thing?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just that your post
got me thinking. And now it’s done it again.
I now submit that it’s not the likelihood of 1 win over 81, it’s the sum of all projected wins over 81 that should be the yardstick. So more like VOAP.
Sorry if the prior post came off as confrontational. It wasn’t meant to be.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, like PT said, there are very few prospects out there who would put up a positive number in that regard ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Hmm...maybe then we should just use the
positive side and ignore Value Below Average. I’m not sure, but I’m definitely not convinced that being above “replacement level” — which I understand to be somewhere below AAA — is the right baseline for top prospects.
It doesn’t matter if the expected values are very small for most prospects, since they’d just be compared to each other.
In any case the metric should match the objective, which is winning major league games.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 24, 2008 2:30 AM PDT up reply actions
OK
So the majority of prospects will produce zero or negative value relative to average in MLB.
Weighting prospects by their likely value above average would suggest that it’s actually better to have nothing at all than prospects who will on average come out in the “below average/above replacement” zone.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
It depends what replacement level you're talking about ...
there is no single standard — Baseball Prospectus’ is comically low but even with theirs I don’t think “somewhere below AAA” is even remotely accurate. It certainly doesn’t jive with the standard you set above of a team full of that player being a 60 win team. Simple arithmetic tells us that this player would be .8 wins below average, which isn’t bad at all.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Well, that's not quite true
Bench players probably only add up to about one starter’s worth of plate appearances. Bullpen pitchers add up to maybe two starters’ worth of innings. So you’ve got 17 or 18 player-seasons worth of play for a team. So a true replacement level player would, if you set the baseline at 60 wins, would be a little more than 1 win below average.
Actual replacement level seems to be about 1.5-2 wins below average, so that’s more like 25-35 wins below average on a team basis. So a replacement level team would likely win 45-55 games.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Fair point ...
while on my hypothetical team, every player is equally sub-par, so they’d get more or less equal time, but in comparing them to others, we should prorate it out to a full time starters’ playing time …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
On the MLE thing, I think I was looking at the fact that
Simmons’s FIP jumped from 3.41 in Raw Stats to 4.36 in MLE, while Rodriguez’s FIP only increased from 4.00 in Raw Stats to 4.49 in MLE. That’s what I meant by “a lot kinder”. Thanks again for your responses.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Pitches who can't limit hard hit balls get weeded
out of baseball by low A? What do you base this assertion on?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Haven't done a quantitative study
but it seems like BABIP starts converging toward league-average figures well before players reach the major leagues. I see a lot of “unhittable” players in rookie ball, almost none in AA and AAA.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
But it isn't a binary question.
Some are better than others even in AA. I think we need a quantitative study for AA or AAA showing that XBH allowed isn’t a repeatable skill before we arrive at that conclusion.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Given what we know about pitching in the majors,
I submit that the burden of proof should be to show that something IS relevant in the minors if it isn’t relevant in the majors.
We have a metric. We can either use it or not use it. Given that we know that it’s useless for evaluating MLB players, isn’t it logical to presume that it’s useless for minor leaguers until someone actually shows that it’s worthwhile?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Not if you agree that's it has value in Low A
Then it’s an open question whether it’s valid or not at levels in between Low A and the majors.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions
So I guess I'd use the metric at least up to AA
without knowing anything else.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Why?
The majors are clearly a different level of competition from the minors. The studies that have been done on BABIP in the minors show that in the minors it IS a skill.
This is even before taking into account the fact that BABIP studies, even done in the majors, do not account for the fact that BABIP can be a skill that varies; ie the DIPS studies assume that a player’s particular BABIP, if it exists, is constant.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
When you factor in age, injury history, contract, and defense
I don’t think Victor Martinez is more valuable than Kurt Suzuki.
by thejd44 on Sep 22, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
agreed
"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 22, 2008 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I like Headley, but I don't see Street in San Diego
Grented, he would be a good fit, and fill a need, but Kevin Towers is notorious for fashioning inexpensive bullpens from other team’s scrap piles and I can’t see them giving that much up for a closer when they are going to continue to overpay for Hoffman again – out of the organization’s penchant for sentimentality.
I don't know why I feel the need to say this but...
Hoffman pitched pretty well for the Padres this year, and if he doesn’t want much more then the $7.5 million he made this year I don’t see any reason for the Padres to not want him back.
The monster at the end of this blog.
He'll probably accept less than that...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The only sticking point I see will be the length of the contract.
They are more than willing to bring him back for next year, but he has stated in the local press that he would like to play for a “few” years more. His line sill looks pretty good, but if you’ve watched him pitch much this season it feels like the wheels are about to fall off. Hius fastball seems to have more pop than years past, but it’s also straight as an arrow. It reminds me a lot of Eckersley’s last year or two in Oakland, where it seemed like he was getting by on mystique alone, and if he didn’t get the batter out within 3 pitches, you were in for a long innning….
I tried to come up with a more expressive reply but
Huh?
How can his fastball have more “pop” yet be straight, especially since his fastball has always been relatively true. Which has never really mattered before because his change-up is what makes or breaks him.
The monster at the end of this blog.
He's heading towards Keith Foulke territory -
Your changeup can be what makes or breaks you but it has to work off of a fastball that keeps hitters honest. Hoffmann’s fastball is less and less of a “factor” and it is affecting his changeup, which hitters can now look for and still adjust to the fastball. I think the end is very near for Trevor and it will happen quickly. There’s a fine line between the Foulke of old and the Foulke of now.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'll agree with that arguement
I’ve watched Hoffman throw 2 pitches this year… and I don’t remember what happened in the at bat. What I’m trying to figure out is the unusual scouting report elhefe offered up. Hoffman has always had a straight fastball. If he’s shown a bit more velocity this year then that does not support the claim that Hoffman is going downhill. It argues that Trevor still has gas in the tank.
Check out Hoffman’s numbers. He struck out more then a batter an inning and has a K/BB ratio of nearly 6:1. The longball was a bit of a problem but he’s only given up 1 HR in the 2nd half. He’s given up less then a hit an inning.
I’m not saying the A’s should go sign him, just wondering what the fuss is about. The guy got it done in 2008.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I totally agree - his line still looks good
as I said in my first comment (albeit in a morass of typos – my apologies). But if you saw more of him, I don’t think you would be quite as confident in that evaluation. Granted, I still think he still has something to offer, I’m just not convinced it’s in the ninth inning anymore.
+1
thank you for stating that much more eloquently than me.
He has been consistently throwing his fastball a few ticks faster since his offseason surgery, but he seems to be fooling people far less often.
Sorry, but his numbers say otherwise
His H/9, K/BB, BB/9 and WHIP all say he’s pitched fine. He struggled with the long ball in the 1st half but seems to have made some adjustments. Or his luck changed.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Trevor Hoffman
Should be apologized to for being compared to Keith Foulke, besides the changeup being their best pitch they have nothing in common. Hoffman was rocked early this season but has shown he still has some in the tank. And also Keith Foulke has come off a major injury where he missed an entire year of baseball, I dont think one of the best closers of our era is “approaching” Foulke territory.
Granted, I haven't seen him pitch much this year ...
but, as you noted, his fastball is faster than in the past — about 1 mph than over the previous 3 years. His change is too, so the separation is about the same.
He posted the third best k/bb of his career and his highest k/9 since 2003 so it’s hard to see where the assertion that he’s fooling people less often is coming from.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
his gb/fb ratio leaves a lot to be desired
His baseball prospectus player card has him around the bottom 5 percentile. And as opposed to velocity, I think the problem with his fastball stems more from location. There have been a lot of close calls and we’ve see him benefit from a lot of long flyball outs down here.
If he’d take a one-year deal, I don’t think it would hurt the team to have him around. But it’s the aforementioned “few more years” comments that make me nervous…
That may be ...
but it’s better than his career average (at least the portion of which the data is available), so I don’t think it’s cause for concern.
If you have any reason to believe that his problem his location, other than your casual observation, I’d be interested in hearing it … but absent that …
The guy turns 41 in less than three weeks. There’s obviously plenty of risk that the clock might strike midnight at any moment. That said, there is no statistical reason to believe that in his 2008 season he has been any less excellent than he has been over the last half decade.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I've said this before on another thread
With the amount of money Fielder is going to make in arbitration, paying the price in prospects that he will command would require almost criminal idiocy on the A’s part. It would be vastly, VASTLY preferable to sign any of the many “big bats” on the free agent market this offseason.
People need to remember that the “surplus value” players provide is frontloaded. Even assuming a healthy and probably unrealistic amount of player skill growth, the pre-arbitration years will amount to about two-thirds of a player’s surplus value. And to make matters worse, players with Fielder’s skillset (defensively incompetent sluggers) are routinely overpaid in arbitration awards relative to other players with the same service time. He’s not going to be worth it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
What if they don't get Teixeira or Dunn?
Then would you prefer Fielder to Burrell or the others? I probably would.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Absolutely, unquestionably not
There is no circumstance short of a genuine swindle (eg they accept something like Patterson/Carignan/Sweeney/Mazzaro for him, which they won’t) whereby I could envision Fielder being a better deal than any of the major free agent hitters on the market. I would rather the A’s stood pat and did nothing than that they traded for Fielder.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If you added Street to those four, it might be enough.
But then I wouldn’t do it either.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2008 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
i probably would
street is a small price to pay to
a) get fielder
b) give cunningham everyday ab’s next year (by trading sweeney)
c) get rid of patterson (because i’m still not sold he’s nothing more than a quad-a guy)
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
I might agree, except that I'd like to use Street to address the SS-3B problem.
If Fielder would put the A’s over the top by himself, I might think differently.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 1:42 AM PDT up reply actions
hey i can't fault you for that either
that would be my first choice as well
"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
True
Look at Ryan Howard’s Super 2 payday ($10 million!!)
"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 22, 2008 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Fielder would be nice
but I might rather have Rollins. I don’t know how long his contract is for, but maybe we could sign him to an extension with a discount since he is from Oakland?
The A’s are running more, and Rollins can swipe a lot of bases. He’s only 30, has a better Fielding % than Crosby, would get some fans to the games, and is a true lead off hitter. This is something that the A’s are lacking.
by green_and_gold on Sep 21, 2008 10:10 PM PDT reply actions
Rollins isn't a "true leadoff hitter"
at least assuming your goal is to win baseball games.
His career OBP is below average. He shouldn’t even be batting in the top half of a lineup.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Hes more of a lead off hitter
Than anyone we got
... you could actually back this up with some kind of evidence
or not, it’s really up to you.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Evidence? If Joe Morgan doesn't need "facts" for his analysis, why should anybody else?
by thejd44 on Sep 23, 2008 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Joe Morgan is a Hall of Famer ...
is pbra17 is in the Hall of Fame?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
For all we know pbra17 is Joe Morgan
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 24, 2008 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Haaaaannnleeyyyyyy.
If we could keep ANYBODY on our farm after a trade like that, we’d make out like bandits.
Why would the Marlins trade Hanley now?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2008 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions
They wouldn't
but I’d offer up anything the marlins wanted to get him
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on Sep 22, 2008 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions
we have enough outfielders
that guy is a terrible shortstop
"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
it was kinda tongue in cheek
"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
Crosby is a good short stop.
He is just not a good hitter.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
I don't think he's a good shortstop
I think he’s an “OK” one.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
He is not bad enough to warrant 6 question marks.
Only like 3.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
No fancouer
We have outfielders so no need to add another one. Fielder would be good but for what? I like Rollins but it will cost them as much as a Fielder. Uggla is a terrible 2b. Jacobs from marlins would only cost a starting pitcher so that maybe more likely.
Fielder would be good for hitting. The current A's mostly are not.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2008 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions
You know why Jacobs would "only cost a starting pitcher," right?
Mike Jacobs sucks. He’s not even a league-average player for his position.
That’s the problem I have with almost all of these targets. They’re either actively bad, massively overrated, or players that aren’t going to be traded in any case. I haven’t seen a player suggested on the thread yet that I’d bother (if I was Beane) to make more than a cursory inquiry on.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
why does everyone think the White Sox want Crosby?
His name gets tossed into every White Sox package. Is this something someone threw out there once and is now the wishful thinking CW, or did I miss something like Kenny Williams saying he’s always loved him or whatever?
Orlando Cabrera is leaving as a free agent
Crosby is cheaper and, shockingly, not that much worse offensively.
Magglio moved on from Chicago
quite some years ago…
I know all Midwestern cities look alike, but their teams’ player personnel departments don’t.
Of course, this still begs the question: why would ANYONE want Crosby? You could make a good argument that including him in a trade package would actually lower the value of said package.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
whoops!
I totally blanked on the which-team-is-Magglio-on thing, and then once my brain said White Sox I went to Kenny Williams. What I meant to say is, why would the Tigers want Crosby, has Dombrowski intimated some love affair? Crosby is thrown up as bait in every single Magglio offer.
Nah, it's just that they don't have an established shortstop
They were uber-disappointed by Renteria, and they don’t really have any high-level prospects available. They need some kind of solution at the position.
Personally, I think Detroit is in a real, serious bind right now. They’re very close to being locked into a mediocre roster. Not a lot of roster flexibility and not a lot in the farm system. I think they need to rebuild— it might be a year too early but, as we all know, it’s better to do it then than a year too late. If they go the rebuild route, they won’t want Crosby, of course.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Unless they get really lucky with the rotation bouncing back ...
they should count their blessings if they finish even close to .500 next year. While Granderson and Cabrera are studs and Ordonez probably still has a year or two left in the tank, the rest of the lineup is aging and offers little reason to hope for any net improvement in 2009.
I doubt they will, but they should try to move anyone with trade value … except, probably Cabrera … (Granderson should be able to net such a ridiculous return, thanks to age, ability, position and contract status that, as much as they won’t want to, they won’t be able to complete a decent rebuild without him)
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
if they go rebuild ...
… think they might take Petit or Pennington?
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
I can't imagine why they would ...
Why would they want major league ready players with limited upside?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
they have, basically, *no* SS right now
P&P are both cheap, project to field at least adequately, can step into an MLB role immediately … I’m not at all proposing that either would be the centerpiece of any sort of deal, but that either might be more attractive than Crosby as one element of a Street-IF-OF-SP deal.
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
If they're rebuilding, why would they want Street ...
if they aren’t rebuilding, what would we be looking for in return, since their farm system is barren?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
If a deal gets done with him and not without him,
they might accept him knowing that they plan to subsequently flip him for actual prospects. This is similar to what we saw with the Ryan Zimmerman suggestions, where we would assume that Washington might take him and turn him into “John Doe” (or, alternately, that the A’s might trade for Doe and then re-trade him to the Nats).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Porcello is an interesting piece on the Tigers
I agree with you, they’re in no-man’s land, which is what makes Porcello so intriguing.
If they’re going “all-in” in the next 1-2 years, which is what they’re set up to do financially, then he’s not really in their contending window, and they could trade him to get stronger.
If they are rebuilding…well, that’ll look ugly, because they won’t be doing it as cleanly as the A’s have. Lots of ugly, unmovable contracts there.
"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 23, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions
They have ugly contracts ...
but also plenty of worthwhile trade bait …
Ordonez is not overpaid and still good
Polanco is cheap and good
Verlander is cheap and has a good chance of being good again
Granderson is cheap and very good
Cabrera is not overpaid and very good, maybe even great
Bonderman is someone that a team wshould probably be willing to take a chance on …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I agree, I think that if they opt to, they can get good value out of their free agent contracts
Last time I checked, Carlos Guillen was pretty darn good too.
They’ll probably still have to deal off one of the younger studs, but they ought to be able to turn their older players into a bunch of solid prospects. That’s a lot more than you could say about the ‘07 A’s, whose older players were essentially crap (although Beane managed to somehow get decent returns for some of them anyway).
The Tigers are probably unique in MLB in that the contracts that make you scratch your head and wonder what the GM could possibly have been thinking are all pre-arb players— Inge, Willis, Bonderman, Robertson.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Guillen is well paid ...
and his bat is much less impressive when he’s not playing short …
It’s really hard to imagine what they were thinking with Willis …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
115 OPS+ plays pretty much wherever you want it to
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
115 is, what? Maybe average at 1b?
That ain’t bad, obviously, it’s average — but it also ain’t good …
With a big-ish contract, he’s not going to command much in return.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Good, then the A's should trade for him
and play him at third base.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Polanco would look nice in the A's lineup
I wonder what he would “cost”.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Let's offer them Ricardo Rincon!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think I'm just going to back slowly out the door ...
I can’t even keep up with who we’re talking about trading for …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
It seems like they'd be more interested in the guys further down the ladder
viz, Leyja, Coleman, Christian. The problem there is that at present none of those guys are actually tradable— it’ll be February before Coleman could be traded even as a PTBNL.
I would offhandedly assume that BOTH one of the P twins and one of the low-level SS would be heading Detroit-ward in the deal. If I was constructing an offer package for Detroit, it would probably be something like
Cahill or Anderson
Demel
Simmons
Petit
Christian
Corey Brown
which would be a sizable hit to the A’s system but might well end up being worth it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I think the three of us are all on the Maggliowagon
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
Granderson... good lord, I wouldn't offer anything like that for Ordonez...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Granderson's signed reasonably thru 2013 so I'd
probably do that from the A’s perspective. You then create a logjam of OF though — with Buck and Carlos having upside and Sweeney and Cunningham being pretty decent already. It might be even more fun to go whole hog and include Carlos and Barton to get Cabrera.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I can see a couple NL teams wanting Crosby
due to the combination of:
1. How bad their current SS is
2. The chance that with a “fresh start” Crosby could actually turn a corner
3. The additional benefit of hitting in the NL
Personally, I think St. Louis would be a pretty good fit, and maybe the Dodgers – I mean come on, Angel Berroa???
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm hoping Crosby for Gary Sheffield plus cash in case we don't get Dunn or Teixeira
I don’t know about St Louis. They’re usually pretty smart. Orioles aren’t though.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
You do realize how awful Sheffield is now, right?
Average (or worse) hitting, injury prone, no defensive value. And he’s a clubhouse cancer on top of it.
Shit, you want that, just re-sign Milton Bradley. I’m sure enough money would make him and Billy best buds again.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Better yet, why not get Jose Guillen?
If you’re into guys who are clubhouse cancers, he’s the best combination health and performance of the three.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Uh...
Health, maybe.
Performance, not so much. That sub-.300 OBP is not exactly lighting my world on fire.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well the Sheffield deal has the advantage of jettisonning Crosby
But I don’t disagree with anything else.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions
He's almost as good as Bobby Crosby!
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
If the Tigers are going to move Sheffield and pay for him
They’re going to want something decent in return, at least a flyer on a guy who might be somewhat good at some point. Crosby ain’t that. He may not be GARY SHEFFIELD anymore, but there are still teams that will gamble he’s got another year or two in tank.
Ya, Crosby certainly shouldn't be the Tigers first choice.
But then again Renteria shouldn’t have been either.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Ugla is a terrible 2b.
Jacobs is a terrible 1b.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Francoeur
In 3 full seasons Francoeur has managed an OBP under .300 twice. He can sting the ball but his career Slugging percentage is .434.
My question is this: How much more does he have to suck before people accept that he’s over-rated?
The monster at the end of this blog.
he reminds me of nomar (red sox era)
only he makes less contact
"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
Except Nomar could hit .330 and Franceour can't even
OBP anywhere near that.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Worse defense at a weaker position, too
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
that was the joke ;)
"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
Herb Washington reminds me of Ichiro, too ...
only without the contact …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
so is Jeff Francoeur
And without the injury history. But, you know, he sucks. That’s the problem with Francoeur.
by thejd44 on Sep 22, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Street is the last good trading chit
I highly, highly doubt Duke gets moved in the offseason. The offers for him at the ASB weren’t good enough to deal him apparently, and since then he’s gotten hurt and missed the rest of the year.
So, of all the soon-to-be-expiring contracts, there’s Crosby, who probably doesn’t represent enough of an upgrade for any contender to bother acquiring him…and then there’s Street.
I think Street’s last month and half should make him an attractive trade candidate again. Two cheap years of him looks a hell of a lot better than the alternatives for closer-needy teams (paying through the nose for K-Rod or Fuentes).
Whomever loses the Fuentes/KRod derby is probably in on a prospect deal for Street.
"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 22, 2008 2:10 PM PDT reply actions
It's a shame about the W/L record, because otherwise
I think Greg Smith might be a decent chip as well. Still could be, if teams like his ERA, BAA, and poise.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Matt Cain doesn't dazzle anyone with his W/L record
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
Eveland might be a decent chit.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure
But I’m assuming the team doesn’t want to trade guys who still have 4-5 years before they reach free agency.
Players in that category are likely to conribute to the next A’s playoff team; Crosby, Street and Duke probably will not, simply because they have 1-2 years left on their contracts before FA.
"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 22, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions
So you'd wait to trade him and Smith till Cahill, Mazzaro and Anderson came up?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2008 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
Wait until the “projected surplus” is a real, tangible surplus, with 6+ healthy and effective guys.
When Smith and Eveland are arbitration-eligible and start to get relatively expensive, that may be a reality.
Plus, by then, Ken Rosenthal could mention them in articles with cool adjectives like “proven innings-eater Dana Eveland, coming off his second-straight 200-inning season, could be a name the Reds look to acquire to fill a hole in the rotation.”
"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 23, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
So you're cool with Pennington, Crosby and Baisley till then?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 23, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
Might as well see if they (Pennington, Baisley et al) have some value and if they can stick as big leaguers. There really aren’t any good alternatives that can be had without sacrificing some piece of the future, and this team isn’t projected to make the ’09 playoffs anyway.
Crosby won’t be displaced until he’s either traded for prospects or until he has yielded a compensatory pick after his contract expires next year. In both scenarios, he’s somehow helping a future A’s playoff team, which again, I’m cool with.
"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 24, 2008 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Bobby Crosby would have to show substantial improvement over his current play
to have any chance of returning a compensation pick.
It’s pretty much Emil Brown all over again, right? There’s a small chance that he ends up in comp pick land, but that chance depends upon the team doing self-destructive things like batting him in the middle of the order to artificially boost his RBI totals.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I'd say Crosby has a good chance of being a Type B, Paul
Look at his current standings in the Elias rankings.
At 54 “points” (Whatever the Eff those are, Elias), Crosby less than four “mysterious fairy points” away from qualifying for Type B status right now.
And since Elias compiles rankings from the last two season’s worth of statistics, Crosby’s current ranking is penalized/weighted down by his ’07 performance, which was (amazingly) significantly worse than this year.
That means that his “comp status” after ‘09 will weigh his ’08 performance and next year, ignoring his dreadful ’07. Bottom line, if he performs in ’09 like he did this season – not a very high threshold, and even more likely given that it’s a contract (Growth Hormone) year, I’d say it’s a good bet that he’ll be a Type B.
"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 24, 2008 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd agree that there is a decent chance he'll qualify ...
but then you run into the very real possibility that he would accept arbitration if it is offered …
Can you imagine what would happen on AN if BoCro accepted arbitration?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Ha, good point :)
But the only other free-agent shortstops in his free agent class are Tejada, Edgar Renteria, and Khalil Greene.
Greene can’t hit, and the other two older guys may be at a point defensively by then that teams might be gun-shy about throwing money at them to play shortstop.
In the 2009 off-season, 29-year-old Bobby Crosby is gonna get a multi-year offer from someone. And he’s gonna get paid. When you look at that positional scarcity, and factoring in inflation from the continued health of the game, assuming Croz stays healthy in ‘09, I wouldn’t be shocked to see him get a 3 year, 25 million deal.
Some NL team will throw money at him to be a .700 OPS NL shortstop.
"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 24, 2008 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Greene's career OPS+ is 95
Crosby’s is 83.
And the fielding difference is similar.
Greene had a horrific season this year, no question, but it’s going to take 2 or 3 more like it before he drops down to Crosby’s level of play.
Crosby hasn’t been better than replacement level in three years. I’m not sure why anyone wouldn’t just get, you know, a replacement.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Crazier things have happened
Luis Castillo got a $25 million deal from the Mets last winter.
29 teams could be rational, but it only takes one desperate/foolish one.
"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 25, 2008 1:20 AM PDT up reply actions
True, but you could say that about Khalil too...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Arbitration isn't necessary anymore for Type Bs
Thank god. They really should just eliminate it for free agents entirely; it doesn’t serve any significant purpose.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Oh, really? I missed that part ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Yeah, it is still necessary for Type B
Rosenthal mis-reported that. I asked Keith Law and he confirmed.
"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 24, 2008 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
OK, I actually took the time to look this up in the CBA
and it does not have any kind of sunset provision for Type B free agents. So as far as I can tell, the requirement that all players be offered arbitration to return a compensatory pick is still in effect.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Yep
It can’t be changed privately; it’s an issue that would need to be collectively bargained. That was Keith’s response when I asked him about it.
I also asked Jeff from Cot’s Contracts, and he’s an excellent source too, and he confirmed the same.
"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 24, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
AN would not exist
For I would destroy it and the world in a fit of rage.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Just wondering
Why is it that Street has to be traded anyway? I kinda like having a really good pitcher in the bullpen.
by thejd44 on Sep 23, 2008 9:57 PM PDT reply actions
I dunno that he *has* to be traded
But, I think he’s probably the best trade chip in the bullpen, which happens to be a position of strength on the team.
Deal from strength
The A’s have relievers falling out their hind end, while they’re short in other areas.
Might as well move some talent around on the depth chart.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Just curious. Would you rather have Sizemore over Granderson?
Sizemore is 25 and putting up similar numbers ot Granderson. The package you constructed is quite steep. Would one have to pay more for Sizemore? Would Rasmus command a similar package?
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
The package for Sizemore is likely to be even steeper
than the package for Granderson. Probably something along the lines of Cahill AND Anderson, AND some other others. Also, if you compare PT’s package for Granderson, with the various trades in recent times for top players, it really isn’t steep at all. He’s giving up just one elite prospect, and a bunch of what is basically filler.
You want great players paid cheap contracts? Be prepared to fork over the elite prospects.
Rasmus isn’t in the same class as Sizemore / Granderson.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Sticker Shock
I know Rasmus isn’t proven like Granderson or Sizemore, but his ceiling is Sizemore and he is absolutely cost controlled and very young. It will be hard for one to convince me that any player is worth both Cahill and Anderson, but this might be a result of me overvaluing our prospects. I hope the prospects turn out, but turning down an opportunity to aquire an elite player and having the prospects bust would be horrible. (Yankees and Santana) If Cahill and Anderson end up being Hughes and Kennedy I will vomit. I have not compared the Minor league numbers, but it is likely that Kennedy’s don’t compare to either Cahill or Anderson.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
"The Yankees and Santana" regret
Time will tell if they made the wrong move there. I think it’s too early to judge Cashman’s decision as a mistake.
Santana’s been mortal this year, with a not-insignificant jump in WHIP despite the favorable AL-to-NL jump. Pitching in the AL East, with that terrible defense behind him? His WHIP might’ve been 1.25-1.30 for the Yankees this year. Is that declining trend a harbinger of things to come in the final six years of that contract? If so, even at only a slight decline each year, the final 2-3 years of that contract could be ugly.
Phil Hughes could still be a dominant pitcher at a bargain price for six years.
I think their “off-season regret” should be taking a pass on a pretty damn good FA center field market (led by Torii Hunter and Rowand) and trotting out the dreadful Melky Cabrera most of the year. If they had signed Hunter and included Melky and Ian Kennedy in a deal for some additional pitching, they would’ve been a few wins better in ’08 and still had Hughes. And all it would cost is money, which they have wads of anyway.
"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 24, 2008 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Kennedy's minor league numbers are actually pretty insanely good
I think you’re overreacting kind of hysterically to a poor rookie (ish) season from both him and Hughes. I think that within a couple of seasons, they will settle into pretty solid careers as mid-rotation starters. It took Kevin Slowey a season to tap his potential in MLB too.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Kennedy
What’s up with his velo? Has that been a habitual problem? When I watched him on ESPN2 in the Bricktown Showdown against Sacramento, his fastball was seriously at 85-86. And I don’t think it was a slow gun, because Gissell was hitting 90-91.
"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 24, 2008 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, all bets are off if he's seriously injured
I was under the impression that he was high-80s to low-90s. So if he’s throwing 85, that’s a sign that something is probably not right in there.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That was basically what I was reffering too about Kennedy.
Highly touted, but looked absolutely overmatched against Sacramento. Lacked velocity and location. I don’t think I reacted hysterically at all. In addition Hughes has had two injury plagued seasons so far.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
I'm not saying that Rasmus is crap
You’ve actually made my point for me. If his ceiling is Sizemore, Sizemore has already reached that ceiling.
Take a look at the recent trades for Cabrera, Bedard, Sabathia. In all these cases the acquiring teams all gave up one elite prospect. In some cases, that elite prospect was even more highly regarded than Cahill / Anderson.
Then, consider that Sizemore has advantages that none of Cabrera, Bedard or Sabathia do. Sabathia is rental for a few months. Bedard, even at the time of the trade, was a pitcher with injury and durability concerns Cabrera, fat, and awful defensively at his position, very quickly necessitating a position switch.
Sizemore is none of these. He will still only be 26 next season, a pretty good case as the best player in MLB at his position, and one of the best players in MLB. Including the club option in 2012, he is under the Indians’ control for $26.2M / 4. Truly, a BARGAIN. One of the best players in MLB, under team control from ages 26-30, for about $6M a year.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
I'd go so far as to say Sizemore may be "unacquirable".
He puts butts in the seats, he’s their most marketable player, the fans love him…even for the one team with prospect package to get him (Oakland), it’s probably politically impossible for Cleveland to even consider trading him.
"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 24, 2008 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Compare the proposed trade to the Haren deal
Anderson is the same player as before, except further along and looks a lot better. So Anderson 2008>Anderson 2007.
Simmons and Demel have to be more valuable than Eveland and Smith. Eveland had a wretched MLB track record and injury history that Simmons doesn’t have. Smith was most definitely “filler” which Demel, who is a legit closer prospect, is not.
Brown is at least in the ballpark with Gonzalez. Petit is definitely a stopgap, but he’s a stopgap for whoever they like best out of 3 pretty legit SS prospects. Overall the three position players are not on the same level as Carter/Cunningham/Gonzalez, but it’s not a blowout. The pitching in this deal is substantially better than the pitching from the Haren deal.
I deliberately constructed the package to be similar in value to the Haren group while matching up more directly to Detroit’s needs. If anything, what it’s LACKING is filler— I could see adding in one of the supernumerary A’s outfielders, Buck or Sweeney or something, as a player who is relatively likely to be decent (like Petit) but lacking the big upside of the low-minors guy.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I kept the Haren trade in mind
I also had in mind the Cabrera, Sabathia, Bedard trades.
I’m not saying that your trade proposal is crap. Simply that in the current marketplace, there’s no way a Granderson or a Sizemore is getting traded without a prospect like Cahill or Anderson in the package.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
