Taj's Thursday Thrade Thread: The Search for Power (part2)
As per Lew Wolff's Q & A session last Friday with the A's boosters:
Q: Will you bring in any big bats in the offseason?
A: The answer is yes.
So, first Billy indicates that the A's will be looking for more power for both the long-term and the short term and now Lew Wolff is guaranteeing that moves will be made. I think it's time for a new round of trade/free agent speculation. We covered 3rd base options a few weeks ago, so let's turn to DH/infield/outfield options today.
DH/1st Base:
The easiest way to add offense quickly, especial for this team, is at the 1st base and/or DH spots. The only problem is, there is a bit of logjam at those positions at present and that logjam might be compounded if Chavez is going to be limited to DH/1B duty for the duration of his contract. Cust is the only reliable power source currently on the roster, so he's all-but guaranteed to return to the club next season, but ideally he wouldn't play too often in the field. So it's likely he'll be the team's primary DH next season. That leaves the 1st base spot open, which doesn't account for Barton, who although he had an awful season, is still young and could bounce back with consistent playing time. Nevertheless, let's look at some options for immediate upgrades:
Jason Giambi - If it wasn't for the whole Chavez "positional uncertainty" thing, I would think that Giambi would be a solid addition to the A's on a short-term contract (2009 with option for 2010). The Yankees are most likely going to cut him loose this winter and not offer him arbitration, so he'll only cost money. He can still hit for power, get on-base, play a little 1st base and has emerged as a solid clubhouse vet.
The problem I have with Jason is that he's a much better hitter at Yankee Stadium than anywhere else (.939 OPS vs. .838 OPS) and is a liability with the glove. However, he can still handle righties and lefties equally, and would clearly represent an immediate upgrade over Barton. I think Beane should make a strong play for Jason.
Prince Fielder - Speculation out there (like at mlbtraderumors.com) indicates that the Brewers will make Fielder available this winter and that he'd be an "interesting match" for the A's. I disagree with this. Fielder is a monster with the bat and hasn't even reached his prime, however, he's insisted on going year-to-year in arbitration, which will massively inflate his salary every year, hasn't gotten along swimmingly with either his teammates or ownership, is a liability at 1st with the glove and has trouble hitting lefties. Why not just save the top prospects that would be needed to get Fielder and sign Giambi instead? They're basically the same player, except that Giambi hits lefties better, is more accomplished and at least seems like a better teammate.
Ryan Howard - See above.
Magglio Ordonez - The Tigers will be looking to dump salary this off-season and pick up a few young pitchers along the way. Ordonez is their most marketable, expendable trade chip towards accomplishing that goal. From a pure performance standpoint, Magglio would be the perfect compliment to the A's offense: he hits for both power and average, doesn't strike out much for a slugger and is right-handed. However, Mags is primarily a right-fielder (the A's already have a logjam out there as it is) and his contract is somewhat problematic ($18 million next season, $18 million vesting option for 2010 and $15 million for 2011). He's 34, so his performance is likely to plateau or decline over the course of that commitment. Despite the logjam in the outfield, adding Ordonez (along with Giambi) would make the A's 2009/2010 lineups downright dangerous. If the Tigers were willing to trade Mags for Street, H-Rod and maybe Smith, Beane has got to think about it, especially with, presumably, some payroll flexibility to work with. Mags could also be a good mentor to fellow Venezuelan Carlos Gonzalez as he develops over the next 2-3 seasons.
Aubrey Huff - We covered him briefly in the 3rd base thread. Sure, Huff has had a great 2008 season and only comes with a modest $8 million 2009 salary. However, he's defensively limited to 1st base or even purely DH and isn't known to be a very good character guy. Here again, I see no reason to surrender even one solid prospect for someone like Huff when the A's could get the same type of player in Giambi for money only.
Kevin Millar - Solid character guy with 20-homer pop and a right-handed bat. Would probably come very cheaply (will be a free agent). Not an ideal solution by any means, but an option nonetheless.
Mark Teixera - Not gonna happen. Wolff already ruled out $100+ million contracts.
Manny Ramirez - Ditto Teixera.
Adam Dunn - He will cost roughly 15 times more than Cust for the next several seasons to be the team's DH, but is he really 15 times the Jackster? I don't think so, but you can disagree if you like...plus, he doesn't even like playing baseball.
Pat Burrell - Intriguing bat, although on the wrong side of 30 and limited defensively. I have also heard he prefers staying on the East Coast, which usually indicates that West Coast teams will have to overpay for his services. I'd pass on him...
Milton Bradley - Ha!
Juan Rivera - Would help against lefties, but with a roster chock-full of corner outfielders already, would he really be worth that much?
Billy Bulter/Ryan Shealy- The Royals will be taking bids on pretty much everyone on their roster this winter and Butler and Shealy will likely be available. Both guys have had up-and-down, brief major league careers after being seen as top prospects. Both are limited to 1B/DH, with Shealy the better fielder of the two. I wouldn't think that it would take a whole heck of a lot to get either of these guys and either one could provide modest right-handed power for a cheap salary for a few seasons.
Ryan Garko - Another name floated by Nico in recent days. A straight Street-for-Garko swap would probably work for both teams, although Garko's coming off a down year and is defensively limited to only 1st base, which hurts his value to the team long-term. He is also more of a platoon player as he a very good hitter against lefties but more of an average hitter against righties, which limits his overall utility.
2B
The A's face an interesting situation with Mark Ellis this winter. Before getting injured and shut down for the season, Mark was set up to be a fairly valuable commodity on the free agent market as the 2nd best 2nd baseman available. His injury status has likely cost him at least a few million dollars. At this point, I think it would be prudent both for Mark and the A's to work something out for next season, as he can re-establish his value going into the 2009 free agent market and help the young A's with his quiet leadership and defense. That the A's immediate internal 2B options (Pennington and Patterson) haven't really impressed and look more like bench players going forward, while the team's top 2nd base prospects (Cardenas and Weeks) are at least a year away, should serve to reinforce this line of thinking. Nevertheless...
Dan Uggla - Dan's been the subject of trade threads all his own. He's a pretty poor defender at 2nd, but if he could play adequate defense at 1st or 3rd he could be an intriguing option. Strikes out a ton, but good power. Under club control for 3 more seasons. However, it might take a boatload of good prospects to get him.
Orlando Hudson - The best all-around 2nd baseman on the market. Switch-hitter, doesn't strike much, gets on-base. But will be looking for both big money and big years, both of which don't jive much with the current state of the A's...
SS
I don't know what Bobby Crosby is complaining about. He's accumulated the most at-bats of any Athletic this season and has played in the most games since his rookie year. It's his own fault that he's been abysmal offensively and has forced the A's to look into other options (Pennington) at this point in the season at the expense of his own playing time. It's clear at this point that even when fully healthy Crosby isn't very good. Unfortunately, the A's are on the hook for Crosby's $5 million+ salary for 2009. He's basically untradeable at this point, but if the A's are serious about contending in 2009, they will find a way to cut him loose. I would like to see the team give him the Kotsay treatment: offer to pay most, if not all, of his 2009 salary in a trade offer. Crosby's fairly horrible offensively, but he plays adequate defense and for a million bucks, I could see a desperate National League team pick him up. That could free up the shortstop position for a big time acquisition:
JJ Hardy - I'm a big fan of Hardy and with the emergence of stud shortstop prospect Alcides Escobar, he might be available for the right price. JJ is no great shakes with the glove, lacking range, but he makes all the routine plays and isn't a liability by any means. Most of his value comes from his bat, where he has consistently gotten better and better every year in the majors. He's having a career year this season, so his price might be inflated, and yet he's still only 26 years old and under club control for two more seasons, so it's highly likely that he either sustains his current level of production (.820+ OPS/25+ homers) or even slightly improves on it as he progresses through his prime years. Defensively adequate shortstops who can hit for power and average are gold mines, and this is why I think Beane will pursue him.
I could envision a deal with the Brewers would definitely begin with Street. They would also probably want a young, MLB-ready starter and at least a solid prospect. So, in all, I could see a deal look like Hardy for Street, Greg Smith (would be pretty good in the NL and is a good hitter for a pitcher) and H-Rod or Andrew Bailey. That's a good little haul for Milwaukee, but Hardy's a very valuable commodity and since the A's system is very weak on pure shortstop prospects, I could see Beane look to extend Hardy for several years after acquiring him.
(Of course, Milwaukee, on the verge of heading to the playoffs for the first time in decades, might want to keep it's current corps intact, refusing to deal Hardy. JJ is also long-time family pals with Robin Yount, which might present some difficulties for a potential trade deal. In that case, I'd go for a straight Street-for-Alcides Escobar trade. Alcides won't help next season, but he can start the year in AAA and take over shortstop in 2010 when Bobby leaves. He broke out with the bat this season in Double-A and has always been seen as a Gold Glove-caliber shortstop).
Rafael Furcal- Nico's been advocating for the A's to go after Furcal for some time now. I really have no major objections with him as a player. If fully healthy, he'd be an upgrade for virtually every team in major league baseball at the shortstop position. I'm a little concerned with his injury history, but he seems to be recovered from his early season back problems. He showed very surprising big-time power numbers earlier this season in a small sample size, but I think he's more of a slashing lead-off hitter in the Chone Figgins-mold, so he wouldn't exactly fill the role of "middle-of-the-order run producer" that we all can probably agree is the team's biggest need, however, like I said before, he's still a very worthy target. Other concerns include the fact that Furcal is already 30 (whereas Hardy, for example, is only 26) and will likely be looking only for a short-term, high-dollar deal in order to maximize his value and delve back into free agency next season. Also, many other teams will likely be vying for Furcal's service, as he is likely the best option on the free agent market at his position; so it's likely his price tag may exceed what Oakland is willing to offer.
Conclusion
I think it's reasonable to believe that the A's will seek to add two major bats this off-season to address both on-base issues and power issues - one via free agency and the other via trade. I think it's fairly obvious that my preferred free agent target is Jason Giambi, especially if there is any chance that Eric Chavez returns to play 3rd base next season. Giambi isn't much of a 1st baseman, is aging and has been somewhat buoyed-up by the short right-field porch at Yankee Stadium. However, even in neutral stadiums Jason has been a good hitter this season (.852 OPS, 16 homers) and isn't a liability against left-handed pitchers. He was always a pretty good clubhouse guy and would be good for the young hitters, including Barton. At this point in his career, he would probably take a fair value, 1 or 2 year deal and he has stated his preference to return to the West Coast to play out his career. As far as logjam issues, I envision Giambi getting most of his at-bats at 1st, with some starts at DH against tough lefties, but with Cust getting most of the at-bats and Giambi getting plenty of rest. (He hasn't yet surpassed 450 at-bats this season, and was still incredibly productive).
As far as trade targets, I would love to get Hardy, both because he'd be an immediate major upgrade over Crosby and is young enough to be a building block for the next A's playoff run. However, it would take a lot to get him, and even though the A's and Brewers match up well on the surface and the Brewers have a very talented prospect just about ready to take over for Hardy, a potential playoff run could put JJ off-limits. I'd still make a strong offer for him.
If Hardy isn't available, my next favorite target would be Ordonez. Sure, he would only add to the outfield cluster f***, is old and is expensive, but he's a helluva proven hitter and is pretty much the antithesis of most of the current hitters on the A's, which is a good thing! He also seems like a decent veteran guy (albeit with some quirks) and would especially be good for Cargon. The A's can definitely afford his salary over the next few seasons, especially if they jettison Street and/or Duchscherer to acquire him and/or let Embree/Crosby/Ellis go.
All in all, the 2009 A's lineup might look like something this, with the different possibilities highlighted:
1. Sweeney/Buck - RF
2. Cunningham - LF/ Ellis - 2B
3. Cust - DH
4. Hardy - SS/Mags - LF
5. Giambi - 1B
6. Suzuki - C
7. Cargon - CF
8. Baisley - 3B/Barton - 3B
9. Crosby - SS/Pennington - 2B
Some speed and contact skills at the top of the lineup, followed by Cust who may be just a touch better making contact after his winter eye exercises and after being protected by a couple legit hitters. Then, either way between Mags/Hardy and Giambi backing them up, you have a legitimate middle of the lineup with power from sides of the plate.
Ellis, if healthy and amenable to a one-year deal, would be a nice addition to the lineup and would help cover some of Giambi's defensive deficiencies. Third base might still be a problem in this scenario, however, I think Baisley could be a .750/.760 OPS player with consistent playing time and I would honestly like to see Barton get more time at the hot corner occasionally to add utility to his game and allow him to work out his offensive issues. This scenario also leaves open the possibility that Chavez, after taking nearly an entire year off from baseball activity, could return to 3rd base for the A's in the middle of 2009 and provide the equivalent of a mid-season trade. Before you all say "there's no way Chavez plays 3rd ever again and you can't plan that way," just understand that I'm only suggesting something that may happen. The A's offense, in my scheme, would still be fine without Chavez, IMHO, but it still leaves open that possibility.
So what do you all think?
5 recs |
309 comments
Comments
I'm know some of these guys are just being listed for the sake of being listed
but really, I don’t see a point in including someone like Kevin Millar.
Millar will be a 37 year old, with OPS+ of 111, 106, 91 the previous 3 seasons. Millar is another Jay Payton / Shannon Stewart / Emil Brown.
And I really don’t see how you can see Shealy as interchangeable with Butler. Butler will be 23 next season. Shealy will be 29. There’s a world of difference between the 2. Shealy is really no different, and no better than a Dallas McPherson, a Nelson Cruz type.
If the likes of Shealy or Millar are viable targets, then McPherson, Cruz, Pascucci et al, should also be.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Sep 25, 2008 3:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Also,
I don’t see why how much Dunn is going to be paid relative to Cust matters at all. You don’t have to replace Cust with Dunn.
I’m assuming that not liking to play baseball crack is a joke.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Sep 25, 2008 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seeing as how Beane has signed/traded for the likes of Jay Payton/Shannon Stewart/emil Brown in the last
few seasons, I decided to throw Millar’s name into the hat. Not that I would ever want to see him on the A’s, but he’s right-handed, plays 1B and has hit 20 homers in a season.
As far as the Cust v. Dunn salary comparisons, I only pointed that out because Cust and Dunn are very similar players, play similar positions and will likely play the same role on future A’s teams. I would rather use the money that would likely go to signing Dunn to sign Giambi and/or taking on Magglio’s contract, when we already have Cust on the team.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably should have pointed that out in the post...
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two Custs are better than one!
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 25, 2008 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather have Mags AND Cust rather than two Custs.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't have a place for Dunn
because of Cust, but you want Giambi, a guy who might get injured just running the bases?
If you can’t fit Dunn into the team because of Cust, where the hell are you going to fit Giambi in?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Sep 25, 2008 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the A's,
anyone can get hurt running the bases.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 26, 2008 4:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh? First base?
Or seat 3c on the bus … both Jack Cust and Adam Dunn insist on window seats …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Sep 28, 2008 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait. Kevin Millar is black?
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 25, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're all originally from Africa
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 25, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Millar is realistic
The other guys on this list are not
McGwire belongs in the Hall so put him there
by streetisclosedin08 on Sep 25, 2008 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sign Giambi. Trade for Maggs. Move Barton to third. That is all.
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 25, 2008 3:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That statement would have saved me about 3 hours of work.
In the future, can I just e-mail you with ideas before I post them and have you review them so that I don’t waste time?
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just win, baby.
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 25, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like this a lot.
can we add 30M in payroll?
by ohmangoAs on Sep 25, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ideally, it'd be more like 25 million.
18 for Ordonez and about 10 for Giambi.
But take into account that the team will likely part with Street to get Ordonez, so that’s $3.3 million off the books. Ideally, Embree would not be invited back, so that’s another $3 million saved. Emil Brown comes off the books, that’s another $1.45 million. Foulke is gone = $700K. The obligations to Calero ($1 million) and Kotsay ($5 million) will also come off the books. That’s a total savings on the current team obligations of about $14.5 million. If you add in about $10 million (very liberal) for arby raises for Duke, Bowen and Cust and then Crosby’s 1.75 mil raise, then you’re looking at Wolff upping the total team payroll by about $25 million to get this all done. (not counting what the team intends to do with Ellis. Without him, that’s another $5 million off the books, with him, about $5 million on the tab.)
The team operating payroll would then likely be in the neighborhood of the low-mid 50’s. That’s considerably more than this season’s payroll, but still way low for a major league team.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be hoping that Crosby would be part of the Magglio package, too
As PT has pointed out, if Detroit decides that they’re going into full-rebuild mode, then they likely have no use for Street or Crosby (I know, I know, and it’s stretching credulity to imagine that anyone would have any use for Crosby under any circumstances).
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 25, 2008 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm..
I could think of a few things to use Crosby for..but he is a married man and his wife would probably get upset…that’s about it though!
by ilovegregsmith on Sep 25, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll leave him on the curb for you
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 25, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even without Magglio, the Tigers have a ton of high-dollar contracts that would...
indicate the team has every intent of competing for the near future. Leyland, Sheff, Guillen, Bonderman, Dontrelle, Inge, Polanco and Robertson are all signed for high-dollar contracts between 09-11, while Miggy Cabrera and Granderson are signed into next decade. It would take one hell of a fire-sale to completely rebuild that roster.
I find it MUCH more likely that with all that money already committed and Leyland on board for at least one more season, the Tigers would try for one last hurrah, target some useful pitchers than can plug holes in their staff (i.e. Street, Duke) while gradually shedding costs and transitioning into the next phase of Tiger baseball.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or
Sign Giambi, trade for Hardy, and see what’s left over……and then maybe, just maybe………trade for Ordonez. Great post Taj!
by mrod on Sep 25, 2008 3:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
THat would be insanity...
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously
If Beane can trade for Hardy and Ordonez and keep Anderson/Cahill and a few from the next tier (I don’t care which), I would be so happy. Maybe even think going after Rasmus/Zimmerman and I would die.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Sep 25, 2008 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And then sign Manny...
…Sabbathia and Sheets for the rotation wouldn’t hurt and of course K-Rod to end the games.
McGwire belongs in the Hall so put him there
by streetisclosedin08 on Sep 25, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of these guys are coming to Oakland
Get used to it now and you won’t be depressed come January/February
McGwire belongs in the Hall so put him there
by streetisclosedin08 on Sep 25, 2008 5:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So, when Wolff says that the team will be adding a big bat
you think the Count from Sesame Street?
Knee-jerk pessimism not only isn’t smarter than knee-jerk optimism, it’s also annoying.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lew forgot to add the caveat that any big at we add would have to pass an EIR first
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 25, 2008 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't characterize Fremont as a "big at"
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 useful lists...
compliments of MLB trade rumors.com
Free agent OBP leaders
BB’s favorite kind of player, from this list I’m intrigued by Eckstein as a 1yr 2B replacement if Ellis doesn’t resign, Casey Blake for 3B and I’m w/ Taj….Giambi baby.
2009 Free agents – initial list
filler types BB should consider…Garciaparra (1yr – 3B, Izturis (if BoCro is gone), Juan Rivera
Sad FA class…if Lew wants a big bat, BB will have to trade for one
"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane
by athleticsBB4life on Sep 25, 2008 5:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hardy as the cleanup hitter?
How does that make our lineup much better?
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Sep 25, 2008 5:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Uhhhh...
.834 OPS hitter with 24 homers, 73 RBIs that can hit for a respectable average. Wouldn’t that be an improvement over every spot in the lineup, save the one Cust is occupying?
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He won't hit for an .834 OPS in Oakland
More like high .700s, at best…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't matter, as so will everyone (hit for xxx OPS lower in Oakland).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is more pronounced for players coming from hitters' parks
and the NL. Or in Hardy’s case, both.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a lot depends on whether the A's believe
Hardy is getting better and better as a hitter, or is just having a nice season. Hardy reminds me a bit of Jhonny Peralta – a big SS who has some power and can hit, but started his career slowly before coming on, all the while proving that he shouldn’t really be playing at SS, but hey.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, theoreticaly, if we trade/evenually extend Hardy
his numbers (as well as all other Oakland players numbers) should get a nice bump if we ever make it into a new stadium… all speculation, but that’s the fun of it.
witty remark
by dtownmbrown on Sep 28, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sadly, that would still be an improvement over all but 2 or 3 spots in the lineup...
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're shooting for the moon,
I wonder what it would cost to get Aramis Ramirez – Beane and Hendry have a good relationship and after this season the Cubs may see fit to reload rather than stand pat (if Hendry is thinking in a Beane like way).
Granted, what the Cubs would demand probably exceeds what the A’s would/should give up, but it’s interesting to speculate as Ramirez is under contract long-term and solves every A’s need – a 3Bman who can field, a legitimate power hitter, a right-handed hitter – beautifully.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 5:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
See, so does Ordonez...
and it’s likely that he’ll actually be shopped this winter. That’s why Mags makes the most sense, to me. The Tigers need a closer and/or dependable set-up men: Street, check. And they need reliable starters of any type: Duke/Smith/Eveland, check. Give or take another prospect or another contract to make things even, and you’re talking about a deal that’s not as far fetched as some may think…
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference just being that Ordonez plays OF
and A. Ramirez plays 3B. Yeah, I’d like either, thank you very much!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they also need a shortstop who can field
Crosby, check. (Yes, I know, the various defensive stats say his range has decreased this year; I’m an agnostic on D stats, and even if you’re not, CW hereabouts seems to be that it takes 3 years or so worth of a sample for a meaningful picture from them.)
Heck, I’d overpay for Maggs: Street + Crosby + Sweeney/CarGo/Cunningham/Buck + Duke/Smith/Eveland/Gio/Braden
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 25, 2008 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the type of deal I was invisioning.
However, the main reason Maggs might be on the block in the first place is for the Tigers to save money. Subtracting Maggs and his $18 million but adding Street and his $3.5 million+, Crosby and his $5.25 million and Duke and his $2 million+ wouldn’t really jive with that idea.
Would you be in favor of the “Kotsay Doctrine” put into effect here…instead of say, Duke, the A’s send Street, Crosby and Eveland + $5 million to the Tigers to give Detroit more salary relief?
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather keep Eveland than Duke
seeing as what Duke is leaving after next season and all…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would too.
But if the Tigers are really going to be mandated to cut payroll from $130 million to $110 million over the winter yet still make the pitching staff and defense better, then they will not be looking to add someone like Duke who, with his arbitration raise, will probably make somewhere in the $4 million range, along with Street who should be in the $5 million range AND crosby in the $5 million range? That deal would make no financial sense for a team looking to cut payroll.
That’s why I believe they’ll target the pre-arb A’s pitchers.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Factoring in their respective contracts...
Eveland alone is more valuable than Ordonez right now.
"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 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...This is me not agreeing with that statement.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think of it as "Eveland, and also Adam Dunn"
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, this is interesting
We’ve now come to the point where in 99% of the time, trading Pre-Arby players for stars is less lucrative than keeping the prospects and overpaying a star FA. I’ve seen that analysis applied several times here (especially re: Prince Fielder and Ryan Howard).
In a way, that suggests that market price for FA’s is right on as long as the pre-arby years are this cheap.
by ohmangoAs on Sep 25, 2008 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
Market price for free agents should probably, if anything, be higher given the current salary structure.
What should really be higher is the minimum salary, which is ridiculously low at this point.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It just interesting...
it’s easy to respond matter of factly…
but how often do we hear about the “out-of-control” FA market?
by ohmangoAs on Sep 25, 2008 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How often do we hear about "out of control" teachers' unions?
The press doesn’t check its typical rabidly anti-employee stance at the stadium gate.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention all those ripped, gleaming, roid-addled middle school instructors
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You called?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 26, 2008 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It may actually get out of control if Dunn is perceived to be
a lot more valuable than Magglio. Imagine if he really gets $23M/year or something.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 25, 2008 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather keep Eveland than Duke
I don’t agree with this statement or the idea…….at all!
by mrod on Sep 25, 2008 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you agree with the six-year free agency rule?
Actually, it’s pointless to ask that question. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it exists.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The six year free agency rule is not up to me
All I was doing was stating that I’d rather keep Duke than keep Eveland….and that is all.
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you're really saying, though
is that you’d rather keep 2 mediocre draft picks (if that) than Eveland.
There’s no way one season of Duke is worth more than five seasons of Eveland. Even if he’s just a mediocre innings-eater, having him means you can trade your other mediocre innings-eaters for something else.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me respond to Paul
- Right now, Duke is a better starting pitcher than anyone on the staff, albeit his health kinda took a detour later in the season.
- I don’t know that, for instance, if Beane decides to take a chance and reward Duke with a 3 year contract, fair but reasonable, instead of arby.
- If Duke plays the majority or all of that contract and more than lives up to it in performance, then the A’s win-win all the way. Duke wins, the A’s win, and if Duke is traded at that point in time the A’s get more value because he’s shown performance and health. If he walks, then the A’s probably get a better pick instead of the two medicore ones you mentioned.
Honestly, if you were gonna trade starting pitchers right now, Eveland would have more value because he is young, cheap, and left handed. And he seems to be a really healthy guy that does eat innings, yes.
Lastly, there is no one on this team that I want to see do well more than our very own Duke. Go A’s!
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Duke's contract status changes, my opinion on his trade value will probably change
I don’t see any way we can assume something other than what appears to be the case right now, which is that he’s a third-year arbitration player with no long-term contract.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Time will tell my good man.
Time will tell. Cheers!
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the cut of that jib
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way
Do I include any of our young OFers in a trade for Maggs, except maybe maybe maybe Sweeney. If Detroit says no way then oh well, move on. I don’t feel he’ll be worth that steep of a price, just my opinion.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 26, 2008 4:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'splain, please
1. Even if we don’t trade for Magglio, we don’t have spots/time for all of our ready-now OFs
2. None of our OFs project to have a ceiling anywhere near even a declining Magglio
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's pretty harsh
A “declining” Ordonez basically projects to about an .850 OPS with crappy defense in the Coliseum. I’m not sure how much better he is than Cust (which is not to say the A’s shouldn’t get him— they need more hitters of Cust’s skill level).
None of the A’s outfielders have any chance to be better than that?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'09-10?
No, I don’t think so.
But … as always, I’m not looking at any fancy projection systems (and am only peripherally aware of players’ minor-league stats). Buck has a lot to prove that (a) he’s healthy and (b) ‘07 wasn’t a fluke (and I still think he looks terrible on defense — bad reads, poor routes, Byrnesing everything not right at him). Sweeney has no power, and isn’t likely to develop it in the next 2 years. Likewise Patrol Craft, plus his lack of plate discipline and significant second-half decline. Cunningham can’t catch up to fastballs and looks like he’ll only ever develop sporadic power.
I like all 4 of these guys, but I just don’t think their immediate (or even really long-term) ceilings are all that. Sweeney seems like maybe the best physical bet, but I get a Crosby vibe off of him for no definable reason.
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where did this "Cunningham can't catch up to fastballs" canard come from?
I’ve seen it repeated about 15 times on the site. What I haven’t seen is either a. any justification for it, like, at all, or b. an explanation for how someone who “can’t catch up to fastballs” has somehow managed to consistently dominate at the plate at every level of the minor leagues.
It really bothers me when people start making really specific assumptions about minor leaguers based on miniscule sample sizes of MLB play. Last year Daric Barton looked like a world-beater for a month.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
from watching him bat
He. Can’t. Catch. Up. To. Fastballs.
He’s consistently late and off-center or missing entirely on decent fastballs — both speed-wise and movement-wise.
Now, sure, maybe that’s an aberration, or a collective error in judgment by a whole lot of AN’ers, or a misapprehension that can be corrected by close analysis of pitchfx, or something he can ultimately correct.
As to how he could succeed so far with that deficiency — well, he hasn’t faced 50th-percentile-plus MLB fastballs (again, speed-wise or movement-wise) at all, or only sporadically, in the minors.
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
People in AA and AAA for the most part throw just as hard as major league pitchers
Cunningham has dealt with it just fine.
by thejd44 on Sep 28, 2008 2:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but ...
in the minors, just like the majors, hitters accumulate most of their production against lesser pitchers …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Sep 28, 2008 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and to clarify ...
My “our outfielders” was sloppy shorthand for “our passel of young outfielders with as-yet-unrealized promise, none of whom are Jack Cust, who should absolutely 100% be retained for the next 2-3 years.”
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ugh: "none of whom *is*"
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because 2 of our OFers (possibly including Magglio)
Will go down in ST and now our depth would be compromised. Until we can start to turn around our horrid health you have to plan around injuries in this organization.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 28, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK so 2 outfielders go down
Let’s assume the worst (that it’s Ordonez and, eh, Cust). The A’s are left with “merely” Sweeney, Cunningham, Gonzalez, Davis, Murton, Denorfia, Buck, Herrera and Robnett on the 40-man roster. Even if that group has to fill four positions, it’s hardly a catastrophic situation.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 28, 2008 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine was in response to
wanting to trade one or more of our young OFers. So say we trade Sweeney and/or Buck then we’re left with even less.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 28, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, only eight options instead of nine?
That changes everything.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 28, 2008 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the quality smartass
Would you call Murton, Denorfia, Davis, Herrera, or Robnett quality MLB outfielders? I wouldn’t. We still don’t know what to expect from Gonzalez or Cunningham. They could have Barton-esque seasons.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 28, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, so
IF the A’s trade two outfielders for Ordonez and IF he then gets hurt and IF one of the other frontline outfielders gets hurt too, and IF they’re both out for the season or most of it, and IF the other guys suck enough to drag the team down… then the A’s might be screwed by making this deal.
This plot is more convoluted than your average Neal Stephenson novel.
There’s a reason why most teams’ sixth outfielder sucks. If you’re starting your sixth outfielder for a sizable part of the season, you’re almost certainly screwed no matter what you do. Right now, the A’s are in a better position to trade away an outfielder than almost anyone, because their decent outfielders (I wouldn’t call Robnett or Herrera decent) run EIGHT deep. They could deal two of them, not even get an outfielder back, and still have as much depth as the average team does.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 29, 2008 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These last two seasons
Have taught me that everyone’s going to be injured. Next year Buck will land on the DL, as will Sweeney. Gonzalez will probably have a bum hamstring for a month or so and Cunningham will probably pull an oblique. But for the record I’m all for going for Ordonez, I just wouldn’t give up one of our good, young outfielders for him especially since he’ll be gone after his contract and that young outfielder will be under team control for a long time.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 29, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not try for David Wright then?
I see absolutely little reason for the Cubs to trade Ramirez, unless Beane offers both Cahill and Anderson, AND some more prospects.
He’s consistently been one of their best position players during the Hendry years. And they have no 3b ready to take over: Vitters is 18 this year, in A ball.
And Ramirez’ contract isn’t some monstrosity that the Cubs should be desperate to get rid of: around $30M / 2 if he doesn’t exercise the player option, $45M / 3 if he does. At worst, the contract lasts until his age 33 season.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Sep 26, 2008 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
David Wright would be a wet dream!
Until you wake up and realize that you never actually got to close the deal……
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a Cubs fan...
I find this possibility interesting. I know we have to do SOMETHING in the next couple years, but not sure what- at this point we’re looking great for the next year or two, but with Soriano signed forever once Ramirez/Lee’s contracts are up and/or they start aging (which DLee MAY have started the sharp downhill slide already…), things could be tricky. I’d like to trade Lee after this year, but that’s just not going to happen (at least not with much value, he’s pretty much worth his contract at this point). He’s a good dude, so it’s ok. If we had DeRosa signed for a couple more years (and he was a bit younger, at 33 he’s older than I remember), I’d be fine with moving him to 3B until Vitters is ready and then playing Fontenot at 2B. But next year is DeRosa’s last under contract, and I’m thinking he may actually be traded- especially if we could somehow get a legit SS from somewhere and then maybe platoon Fontenot/Theriot at 2B. This would be solid. So anyhow, I think Ramirez might be a decent trade option if we could slide DeRpsa over to 3B- especially with this year’s production! But the odds of DeRo doing that for many more seasons is pretty slim, and also he’s in line for a big raise if he does manage to have another season like this one.
So in summary: I’d like to say, yeah, A-Ram Blockbuster might happen. But I doubt it. But if you want JASON MARQUIS then we could talk….ha.
by Canseco's Roid Party on Sep 30, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hardy's defense is not good enough for me at SS. Maybe at 3B
I have no objection to Giambi, but don’t see the point of a one year stopgap either, when Chavez could do the same thing.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 25, 2008 5:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would think that Giambi would want either a 2-year deal or very-nearly sure to be exercided option for 2010.
He proved this year that he still has a lot left in the tank, so I think Beane would have to go at least 1 + option to get him in the fold, so it wouldn’t be just 1 year stopgap.
It’s probably foolhardy to think this way, and I point it out in the post, but ideally you’d leave open the option of Chavez returning to 3rd base at some point within the next 2 years. Don’t plan on it, but don’t automatically rule it out either, especially since it seems like the surgery was successful and the team might actually play it ultra-conservative with Eric to get him back on the field at 100-percent.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd give Giambi 2 years, figuring
one year at 1B, one year at DH, and that he will help the A’s to be “more competitive” each year – whether that means “above .500” or “in playoff contention” or “winning the division”.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The more I think about it
the more I think Carlos Guillen is the solution to all problems.
He plays every infield position at least to the point of not embarrassing himself, and he’ll probably be fairly good at a corner. He hits for decent power and average and takes walks. He has a great OBP for an infielder. He’s a switch hitter.
Detroit desperately needs both relievers and starters, and the A’s have a lot of pitching in the system. Combine that with a shortstop, which the Tigers also need, and it seems like there’s ground for a win-win deal here. Detroit probably would like to lower their payroll some, and the A’s have room to take it on.
If the A’s can get him without giving up one of the key pieces in the farm system, and I think they might, they should “kick the tires.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 6:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I love Guillen - the one thing I'd add is that
he plays every defensive position poorly enough that if he doesn’t embarrass himself he doesn’t make himself proud either. He may too bad to play SS, and I’d prefer to see more power at 1B – but 3B could work well enough (if Chavez can’t play there). He’s a great hitter. But if the A’s are talking to Detroit about a guy who won’t hit 25-30 HRs, why not inquire about Polanco?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the short answer is that Guillen is a plus hitter and Polanco isn't
If you’re going to attempt to get Polanco, there’s really no reason why you wouldn’t just re-sign Ellis (unless you think the shoulder problem is crippling long-term, I guess).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like we view Polanco differently
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has a career OPS+ of 99...
Guillen’s is 115… both have predominantly been better than that in recent years, but they’re old enough (and the same age, for that matter) that they may not sustain it…
What’s the question here?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not aware of any question
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Polanco is an A's-killer
I suspect you may be letting that significantly color your overall estimation of him.
I mean, I wouldn’t target Garret Anderson or Michael Cuddyer (or Alfredo Amezaga).
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. I figured someone would suggest that but
I’ve always thought he was an outstanding player and I still do.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 26, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem with Guillen: he has 10-5 no-trade rights...
or at least he will after this season. He looks like a decent option, but who knows how he feels about leaving Detroit for Oakland. He apparently has a great relationship with Miggy Cabrera and Leyland and so he may be disinclined to accept a trade for a place where he really has no ties.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have ties sometimes
Well, until extra innings anyway.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nico...your worst funny ever
"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane
by athleticsBB4life on Sep 25, 2008 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sowwy. :-(
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other problems with Guillen
He turns 33 next week.
He probably can’t play shortstop any more.
He’s missed the last month with a pinched nerve in his back.
He’s still owed a ton of money over the next three years.
There’s some chance the back problem will clear up, and he’ll bounce back to his 2006 levels of offense while handling 3B defensively (hm, that sounds familiar), and as such I think he’d be a reasonable gamble for a team that’s likely to compete for a playoff spot in 2009 and is willing to take on significant salary to add a bat. But I don’t think that describes the A’s at all.
Overqualified to be an A's fan.
by andeux on Sep 25, 2008 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's one way to ensure the A's won't ever be competitive
and that’s to refuse to ever make moves that make sense if they’re trying to be competitive…
The rest of this (well, not the no-trade clause— that’s obviously an issue) would lower what it would take to bring him to Oakland, assuming at least some element of rationality in the negotiations.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your position here seems inconsistent
which pretty much everything else you’ve said over the past year or so. You’ve been one of the most vocal advocates of blowing up the team and trading anyone who wouldn’t be around for more than a year or two (or sometimes even 3 or 4) in the service of building the so-far-mythical A’s juggernaut of 2010-2012. But now that the A’s have actually taken that route you think that signing an old player with a bad back in his decline years is a move that makes sense?
I’m all for finding players that help now as well as in the future – as a fan, I’d always rather watch good players than bad ones, even on a non-championship team, and that’s why I’ve been ambivalent about most of the trades over the past year – but at this point the emphasis of any such moves needs to be on the future part. Taking on a (relatively) expensive player who is neither young nor healthy is just not sensible right now.
Overqualified to be an A's fan.
by andeux on Sep 26, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every hitter who has been seriously suggested as more than a stopgap
is expected to be an integral part of the A’s offense during at least some part of 2010-2012.
Carlos Guillen is under contract until 2011. Even if you cross off his production next year as irrelevant, he’s still giving you two years of play afterward. Same with the free agents (Dunn, Burrell, etc).
It’s completely consistent to advocate trading guys who will be around for a short period of time for guys who are around for a longer period of time. Their actual physical ages are relevant, but… I don’t think those guys are going to collapse into irrelevance real soon, sorry. It’s precisely the fact that these guys are around under long-term contracts that makes acquiring them logical here.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point
is that Guillen is under contract for three more years, but by the end of those three years that contract is more likely to be a liability than an asset. He’s actually a player I’ve liked a lot in the past, but at this point, given his age and his back problems, he has to be one of the bigger collapse candidates out there. Clearly you think otherwise, but you haven’t really explained why.
Overqualified to be an A's fan.
by andeux on Sep 26, 2008 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're also talking about adding $36 million in salary with Guillen over the next 3 seasons...
so it’s not like he’d be a huge money-saver over Mags.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I looked it up, and Mags is $48million over three years,
if two club options are exercised (automatic if Mags plays in enough games) – it’s $18mil next year, then two option years of $15mil each.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, both of them have similar commitments.
I just happen to think that Mags is the better overall hitter and if you’re gonna pay 36 million over three years for an .800 OPS guy, why not pick up the extra 12 million and get an .891 OPS and an extra 10+ homers and 20+ RBIs instead.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry, did you just use RBIs as a serious stat?
Guillen is, like, the #6 hitter in Detroit. That’s why people thought their offense would be freaking incredible this year.
Anyway, he plays the infield. You know, the sucking black hole of offensive suck that made this year’s offense suck in a tremendously sucky fashion.
You find a better hitting 3B that’s actually available on the market and I’ll listen, but right now the best available option is Casey Blake, who basically has “mediocre” stamped on his forehead.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, Taj Adib
And I get that when you said “extra 10+ HRs and 20+ RBIs” you meant “if they batted in the same spot in the order for the same lineup.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was looking at career-average RBI and OPS stats, not just this year.
But I agree the RBI stat is incredibly dependent on opportunity. My point was, Ordonez, as a more powerful hitter who is just as patient and disciplined as Carlos, will produce more runs than Guillen in a similar spot in the lineup. We both agree that the black holes in the A’s offense are the infield corners. Fair enough.
Guillen is not really a solid defender at 3rd, he might be fringe-average at 1st, but so is Giambi, and if you sign him, you HAVE to play Guillen at 3rd. Sure, we have a shit-ton of outfielders on the roster, but only one (Cust) is basically a sure thing to crack the .800 OPS next season and he’s more of a DH anyway. Cunningham cannot catch up with good fastballs yet, Buck is a major question mark and Sweeney hasn’t shown he can even slug .400 against major league pitching. Ordonez will would be a welcome addition to the team, in my opinion, and there would be plenty of room for him on the roster.
I also explained in the post that the reason I’m not wedded to the idea of acquiring a guy who can only play 3rd is that the team may have an idea to keep 3rd base somewhat open if Chavez makes a sufficient recovery sometime in the next 2 years.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guillen was "fringe-average" at shortstop
Seriously, look it up.
I’m guessing he’s going to be a little better than that at a much easier position. If not, well, play him at shortstop. It’s not like that isn’t a black hole too.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree all the way 'round
Basically, it’s much easier and cheaper to find a + hitter at OF/1B/DH, and, as you say, we really only have one guy who even comes close to that designation at those positions. Instead of paying through the nose for an elite SS/3B, it makes more sense to pay a modest price for a better hitting OF/1B/DH.
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is, I think, the better way to look at it
Maggs vs. Guillen is not really the right question. It’s Maggs/whoever would play third/short/second (whichever position Guillen would be playing) vs. Guillen/whoever the starting RF will be next year.
I happen to think you’ll get more overall production from Guillen/Buck (or Cunningham/Sweeney, whatever the combination) then Maggs/Patterson (or Pennington or whoever).
by thejd44 on Sep 25, 2008 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
offense on the corners, defense up the middle
Personally, I’d be satisfied with some combination of Crosby/Petit/Pennington at SS/2B next year if we sacrifice a bit of (OK, a fair amount of) D at 1B/3B/RF/LF.
Patterson shouldn’t even be part of the equation.
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rosterbation anyone?
Trade for Dan Uggla, JJ Hardy and sign Giambi.
For Uggla: Mazzaro, H-Rod, Patterson, Murton
For Hardy: Street, Smith, Carnigan
For Giambi: $$$
That gives us a lineup of;
RF Travis Buck
CF Ryan Sweeney
3B Dan Uggla
1B Jason Giambi
DH Jack Cust
SS JJ Hardy
LF Aaron Cunningham
C1 Kurt Suzuki
2B Cliff Pennington
BN Rob Bowen
BN Rajai Davis
BN Daric Barton
BN Gregorio Petitt
SP Justin Duchscherer
SP Sean Gallagher
SP Dana Eveland
SP Dallas Braden
SP Josh Outman
RP Joey Devine
RP Brad Ziegler
RP Santiago Casilla
RP Andrew Brown
RP Jerry Blevins
RP Ryan Wing
RP Jared Lansford
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Sep 25, 2008 7:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is like the Jessica Alba of rosterbation
Exquisite, but let’s face it— it ain’t gonna happen. That’s way too little value for Uggla.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But yay...He just learned how to play 3B!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really doubt that BB would want to give up Carnigan. Remember he is playing for the long haul not just next year.
I would also rather we go Zimmerman for 3B and Hardy for SS with a 1 or 2 year Giambi added for good measure.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Sep 25, 2008 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bad SS can wear out his welcome in a hurry -
especially behind a team as defense dependent as Oakland. I’d love Hardy’s, or Hanley’s, or J. Peralta’s bat, but…not sure if SS is where those guys belong.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to compromise at some point.
We’re not going to get A-Rod to play short so if we want to improve the offense then we’re going to have to take the hit on defense some where.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 26, 2008 4:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cust isn't enough for you?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 26, 2008 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not when you're saying
That the only way you’d take a player of Hanley Ramirez’s talent is if he converted to 3B, which we have no idea is possible.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Sep 28, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
are you saying he would button up his Carnigan?
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zonis
where the hell is C-Gon in this lineup/scenario??
by mrod on Sep 25, 2008 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AAA, one presumes
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess.......
but I was surprised to see C-Gon’s name missing from his roster.
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be surprised if he started at AAA
I don’t think he’s ready.
Actually, I’m not a real big fan of his offensive game. I just don’t like the guys who act as if their entire family is being held hostage and if they draw a walk, somebody dies. I wouldn’t be opposed to moving Gonzalez just because of how deep the outfield is. I’d rather they move him than Buck or Sweeney.
by thejd44 on Sep 26, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Carlos Gonzalez is 22 years old and plays a very important position pretty well (CF) He still a stud prospect. Buck and Sweeney are corner OF’s. Sweeney is a slap hitter and Buck is injury prone, and they are both older than CarGon. You might want to re-evaluate that one.
by Colorado Fan on Sep 26, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t be opposed to moving Gonzalez just because of how deep the outfield is. I’d rather they move him than Buck or Sweeney
I’m really surprised to hear that coming from you jd. I have no idea what you’re thinking but I sure hope you are just having a bad day.
Jaguar Paw stays and rules the forest yo!
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to not like guys who have OBPs under .300
And while I expect Gonzalez to be better than his .273 OBP with the A’s this year, I’m not convinced that with his plate discipline issues he won’t be more than a .310 OBP, .450 SLG type of player. I’m pretty sure that Cunningham, Buck, and Sweeney will all be better than that (though Sweeney might not slug that high).
I haven’t given up on the guy, but I think his projected ceiling is significantly higher than he’ll ever reach and the A’s could get a lot more for him than the other three.
by thejd44 on Sep 26, 2008 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carlos Gonzalez has a chance to be a star
The stats of 22 year olds can be misleading. No, he’ll probably never walk “enough” but if he approximates the offensive production of Garret Anderson with the defense of a plus CFer? He has a chance to be that.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 26, 2008 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he's pretty damned fast on the bases.
I don’t know why anyone would want to trade Gonzalez right now. I don’t care if the guy doesn’t take enough walks yet.
just give the kid a chance for Pete’s sake.
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes the inability to comprehend makes me want to pull my hair out
I never siad I WANTED to trade him. Why is the concept of “sell high” so difficult? All I’ve said, and repeated, is that I don’t believe he’ll reach his ceiling and I think he could bring a lot in a trade. A lot more than any of the other OFs. I really don’t understand why people feel the need to take somebody’s words, twist them until they mean the most extreme opinion possible, and then argue against that as if it’s what was originally said.
by thejd44 on Sep 28, 2008 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no problem with comprehension jd
And I certainly have not twisted any of your words. I was quoting something you said and responded accordingly.
And, just for shits and giggles, I’ll say right now that ’there is no way in hell that Billy Beane is gonna trade Carlos Gonzalez in the off-season!". Period.
Maybe your idea of “selling high” and my idea of “getting high” might be similar…….but that is where that comparison would end. Please don’t take this personally, for this is a sports blog and is meant to be entertaining and fun. I would just like to get my point across in that……. Carlos Gonzalez was a centerpiece in the Dan Haren trade, is 22, loaded with potential, has great presence even for his young age, and is absolutely not going anywhere!
If you feel your words have been twisted in any way, shape, or form, well then I sincerely apologize……
I, however, stand by my own words and thoughts, for better or for worse.
Peace, comrade…….-MRod
by mrod on Sep 28, 2008 2:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough, but how on earth is trading him this offseason selling high?
He had a decent AAA campaign and a very mediocre MLB campaign (defense aside, but MLB teams don’t always evaluate defense right).
That’s “high”?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 28, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could be ...
thejd is advocating trading him because he doesn’t think he will fulfill his potential so we should consider moving him while he still has the trade value that comes with that potential.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Sep 28, 2008 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that is what he was saying as well
And I responded with, “I don’t think that ’s happeneing” , however you may see the situation.
by mrod on Sep 29, 2008 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basically, yes. Thought I'm still not saying move him at all costs
I just think it’s entirely possible that right now his value is the highest it’ll ever be. While he didn’t light up the majors, he showed flashes and 22-year-old flashes of brilliance are something teams like. I’m not even proposing a specific deal here, but I firmly believe that no player should ever be untouchable.
I’m pretty certain of this: If Gonzalez is traded, it’s going to be in a deal that’s going to address some major A’s problems. Would anybody be upset if Gonzalez brought some legitimate, youngish 3B/SS who can hit and field?
by thejd44 on Oct 1, 2008 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like who? Elvis Andrus? Alcides Escobar?
You’re basically trading Gonzalez’s offensive upside for the greater importance of SS defense vs CF.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 2, 2008 4:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're seriously underrating the defensive difference between Gonzalez and Buck/Sweeney
and it’s kinda ludicrous to suggest that he can’t improve his offensive skills, particularly since his walk rate has gone up in the past when he’s repeated a level. I think he’s someone whose default setting is to swing a lot when he’s overmatched, but that’s not the same thing as saying that he’s an idiot who hates drawing walks. He’s a smart guy; you can tell that from listening to him talk about the game. He’s not Jeff Francoeur.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on man, when did I ever suggest that?
In fact, I actually say I expect him to improve. I also never called him an idiot. He’s impatient, and some great, Hall-of-Fame players can get away with it (Vlad, for instance). But more often than not, it’s a limiting factor. I can’t even believe you’re equating intelligence with the ability to his a baseball. There might, at times, be some correlation, but are you saying every hitter who doesn’t have great plate discipline is a mental midget? That’s the implication. And I made absolutely no such remark anywhere.
My only point is this: I don’t think Gonzalez reaches his tools ceiling because very few guys actually do. While there’s plenty to like about him, I think there’s a perfectly good “sell high” argument to be made on a guy who may or may not ever walk enough or hit for a high enough average to have even a league-average OBP.
As for his defense, he was a pleasant surprise to, I think, everybody this year. In the past the main critique of his defensive game was that he appeared to be lazy in the outfield. I worry about him slipping into old habits with that. I haven’t been sold that his defense is something he’ll be interested in sustaining, especially if he starts hitting a little.
Again, I’m not saying to DFA the guy. I am just more confident in the abilities of Cunningham and Sweeney. I agree that his ceiling is higher than both, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least bit if in 5 years Gonzalez ends up being the worst of the 3.
by thejd44 on Sep 28, 2008 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow!
Again, I’m really surprised….actually shocked, that you see C-Gon as the worst of the three OF’s you mentioned in your post.
The only thing I see Aaron Cunningham having any kind of edge in is the fact that out him, Buck, Sweeney, and Gonzalez is that he’s a right handed hitter. His defense has not impressed me one bit and I want to see more of this guy before I give him an edge above the other three.
Gonzalez and Sweeney are probably the best two out of that bunch with the glove and also have superior arm strength & accuracy………..plus both are younger than Cunningham, if I’m not mistaken.
Look at it this way, jd: At least the A’s have a good problem in that they have a surplus of good, young outfielders to choose from and compete for jobs. I’ll bet there are plenty of GM’s out there that wish they had the same problem, right??
by mrod on Sep 28, 2008 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So I'm not misquoting you here:
“but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least bit if in 5 years Gonzalez ends up being the worst of the 3.”
That is essentially what I was responding to………Go A’s!
by mrod on Sep 28, 2008 2:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that
Because I think the others are more likely to reach their ceiling. I think they’re safer bets to be quality majors leaguers. Gonzalez could be Carlos Beltran – and I hope he is – or he could flame out. I don’t see as much of a middle ground with him. I suppose it’s possible he just reaches some of his potential and turns into an ok, but not spectacular player. And if he does, he might not be worse than the others. But I’m pretty confident in the other guys maxing out, and I don’t know yet about Gonzalez.
by thejd44 on Oct 1, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Cameron is an example of an elite defender and flawed hitter.
Vernon Wells is another good but not great hitter who’s a very good defensive CF. Neither is Beltran but I’d be thrilled if Gonzalez became as valuable as they are.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 2, 2008 4:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're mistaken
Carlos Gonzalez is six months older than Cunningham; Ryan Sweeney is more than a year older.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 28, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
really?
I thought Cunningham was already 24? my bad……thanks for setiing the record straight.
by mrod on Sep 29, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prolly thinking of Buck
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 29, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I know Buck's 24 already
I just had it in mind that Cunningham was already 24 for some reason. Again, thanks for the clarification.
by mrod on Sep 29, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't Cunningham like 14?
We’re going by looks, right?
by mikev on Sep 30, 2008 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're thinking of Crosby,
and we’re going by IQ.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 30, 2008 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most MLB players are, generically speaking, idiots
Of the few who are not, it seems to me that most of them have good plate discipline. No doubt you can find exceptions to these guesses, and we will never have any data to back it up, so there’s little point in trying to disprove this— it’s just a gut feeling.
Your “critique” of his defense is little better than libel. You admit he’s good now, but he might get “lazy”? Every player can get “lazy.” I don’t mean to play the race card here, but the fact that he’s a minority might have as much to do with him getting called “lazy” in the past as any objective evaluation does. Carlos Beltran has been tagged with that canard for years, and he’s one of the best center fielders in baseball.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 28, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me test your headline...
Bobby Crosby: check.
Granted, sample size of one, but I’m sold.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 28, 2008 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
P.S. to PT: If you're going to be a lawyer,
you need to enhance your grasp of libel: “In the past the main critique of his defensive game was that he appeared to be lazy in the outfield.” fails to come close to coming close to qualifying for so many reasons, among which is that “lazy” is strictly a subjective concept, and “appeared to be” even more abstract yet.
Perhaps (and I think in fact) Carlos is so graceful that when he glides he “appears not to be putting much effort into it”…which is a compliment that could be misunderstood as a criticism – but isn’t even in the same ballpark as a libelous comment no matter how it’s put or heard.
There’s a difference between “He sells drugs to Kindergarteners” and “In the past, some performance evaluations suggested he appeared to be disinterested” – and it’s not small!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 28, 2008 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I know what the legal definition of libel is...
I didn’t say it WAS libel or that Gonzalez should sue thejd (even in the unlikely scenario that he actually was able to identify him— one more reason why I hate the use of made up internet screennames in areas devoted to serious discussion, but I digress).
There are many reasons not to pursue claims, and the two biggest ones are “can’t prove the claim to a jury” and “damages aren’t worth the effort to recover,” both of which would apply in spades here… seeing as how proving malice is impossible and the damages would probably be like ten cents.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 28, 2008 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said his critique of Gonzalez' defense
was “little better than libel,” but I think that stating an opinion, or referring to a subjective assessment, is waaaaaay better than libel – in that it can’t be libelous any more than it can embezzlement.
Now back to my fictional account of a girl who has her wig ripped off of her head. It’s titled “The Tortious And The Hair”.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 28, 2008 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
63% of anything that PT writes is hyperbole ...
you know that. It’s how he communicates. What’s the big deal?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Sep 28, 2008 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WELL IF THIS IS THE WAY I COMMUNICATE,
WITH “ALL CAPS” AND AN EGREGIOUS LEVEL OF EXTREME AND DISASTROUS HYPERBOLE, AND WITH RANDOM VEGETABLES THROWN (CARROTS) IN FOR (TURNIP) NO REASON (SHALLOTS), DOES THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF, MAKE IT OK?
Maybe it does. (Kale)
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 28, 2008 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then once I had enough experience with you to know that is how you write ...
I would just learn to ignore you …
Of course, a little bit of hyperbole here AND there isn’t nearly that annoying.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Sep 28, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But then I'd be practicing what I preach,
and we can’t have that.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 28, 2008 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
47 percent, at best.
AT BEST!
(I think I acquired that meme from McCovey Chronicles. Well, regardless…)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 28, 2008 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
47% of what you write is hyperbole?
That’s nothing: 1,200% of what I write is hyperbole!!!!!!!!111
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 28, 2008 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're understating it ...
but I can’t argue with the number 47 …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Sep 28, 2008 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yay 47!
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 28, 2008 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a great number
Underrated, I’ve always 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
by Nico on Sep 28, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we all agree
that hyperbole is a repeatable skill?
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 29, 2008 6:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Repeatable, yes ...
Skill …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Sep 29, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's a gamer
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 29, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I post on baseball "the right way"
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Sep 29, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Terrible post - of course I haven't read it...
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 29, 2008 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on now. I didn't even say he was lazy.
I said that scouting reports said it. I even said he was pretty fantastic defensively and he certainly passed my eye test, but should a half-season discount everything the scouts have said before? All I said was that I had concern that a previous bad habit could return. I don’t think that’s so outrageous and it certainly isn’t racist.
by thejd44 on Oct 1, 2008 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Paul was indicting the scounting reports in general
not necessarily your opinion. It’s funny, because I think Paul’s argument might have a ton of merit to it.
Latino players might be seen as lazy or sullen if they have weaker English skills which make them talk less and seem less proactive. On top of that, there are a ton of cultural stereotypes regarding latinos and laziness, and there’s no reason to think they don’t extend into baseball and scouting. Finally, I have no evidence for this assertion at all, but for some reason, I feel like scouts aren’t necessarily the most diverse group (if I’m wrong about this one, feel free to call it out).
It’s funny, because your response illustrated the subtlety of Paul’s point- it’s not our (the public’s) conclusions alone that might cause the laziness problem, its also a result of systematic biases.
Finally, to say this is a question of racism requires us to be precise. The word racism usually evokes images of overt racism, when in fact the racism is often (and insidiously) in the form of unexamined assumptions we all hold.
by ohmangoAs on Oct 1, 2008 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't have said it better
and I’d reemphasize that I think the racialist assumptions are being inserted here at the level of the scouting reports, not by thejd.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 1, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think scouts aren't a diverse group?
I’m told there are lots of Latin American as well as North American scouts.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 2, 2008 5:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haaannleeeyyyyyyy
I also would love Alex Gordon, who’s kind of like Butler and Shealy in that they haven’t had a really long tenure (Gordon being aroudn for a little longer), with a lot of potential, with a lot of ups and downs. Might not take that much. I’m assuming you didn’t mention it because you didn’t add third basemen to the list.
by NateHST on Sep 25, 2008 7:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I covered 3rd base options about two weeks ago.
And Gordon’s name was included in the possibilities.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alex Gordon is a third baseman?
I know he sometimes stands around near third base with a glove on, but that’s not the same thing.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing about Butler is that he absolutely
DESTROYS left-handed pitching (career .957 OPS), but then is quite lame against righties (career .594 OPS). If it were the opposite, I’d covet him, but sadly 3/4 of the pitchers don’t have the good sense to throw left-handed. :-(
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't all RHB have an 8% platoon advantage?
I thought it was a commandment or something.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 25, 2008 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shealy will be 29 next season
He has had a long tenure. A long tenure of mediocrity. He’s definitely not a Butler type. Nor a Gordon type. There’s not much potential there. The “potential” in his minor league numbers come from playing many of his games in Colorado Springs.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Sep 26, 2008 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giambi is absolutely my vote.
It combines everything: very realistic, cost-effective, costs the team nothing for the future, and even potentially gains something for the future, since a 1- or even 2-year deal for Giambi could eventually yield a Type A or Type B draft pick in a year or two.
And it ensures that Barton will likely be in AAA in April of ‘09, which I’d argue is where he belongs until he can hit like a first baseman.
However, I think this should be considered: Jason Giambi is arguably a bigger defensive liability at first base than Jack Cust is in left field. It’s possible that Cust gets the majority of the time in left, Chavez/Baisley play first, and Giambi’s the full-time DH. Baisley can also rotate at third with Hannahan.
I’m 100% certain that Chavez/Baisley at first represents a massive defensive upgrade over Giambi. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Chavez play Pujols-quality defense at first. If he can do that and put up an .800 OPS, he’s a very good first baseman.
Bottom line, I wouldn’t be worried that signing Giambi creates a logjam of 1b/DH types, even if Frank came back on a dirt-cheap one-year deal too. Cunningham still can’t hit a fastball and should start ‘09 in AAA. Playing Cust in left field allows the team to get another bat in the lineup. And between Frank, Giambi, and Chavez, there’s two starting spots available, and I highly doubt all three of them are ever 100% healthy at the exact same time.
If the A’s have Frank, Cust, Giambi, and Chavez all signed next year, they can pretty much guarantee there’s always 2-3, 100 OPS+ or better hitters in the lineup at all times. There would actually be some semblance of a “heart of the order” again. That’s more than we could say in ’08, and the team can still do that cheaply by bringing back Frank and signing Giambi.
What will Giambi’s price tag be? One year, 9 million with a 2010 option that vests at 400 plate appearances?
Still keeps the payroll sensibly below $50 million, even factoring in Street and Duke’s arby raises (assuming neither is dealt). I don’t think there’s any way payroll goes up drastically beyond that when the team is finishing the year second to last in attendance.
"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 7:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
To be honest, I don't see Frank Thomas being an option in 2009
And I agree that Chavez could likely transition into quickly becoming a plus 1Bman defensively. With Cust in LF and Chavez at 1B you could still have a very good defense overall.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You waited till NOW to be honest?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 25, 2008 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All sounds about right...except Frank.
I agree with Nico, the guy really effed-up his quad this summer and just seemed like a totally different hitter. He could be reasonably healthy next season, but he ain’t getting any younger and you can’t count on him for any more than about 130 games per season. Factor that in with the statements from Wolff saying that he is “basically done with injury-prone vets” and I think you can effectively count Frank out for 2009.
I think we all agree on Giambi, although I think we might be underestimating the market for him. If the Yankees do indeed decline to offer him arbitration, then he’d be a very attractive free agent for pretty much every mid-small market AL team. You gotta factor that in, and that’s why I think it might take either 2 guaranteed years or more up-front salary to get him.
I’m still bullish on Chavez. You gotta think that with almost an entire year of rest and rehab they team will at least ATTEMPT to see if he can go back to 3rd base…
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 25, 2008 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree - in 2009 Chavy will be a year removed from the back recovery,
and the second shoulder surgery will either:
1. be just too much wear, tear, and repair on one shoulder, or
2. finally put together the shoulder to where he can rehab and function pain-free
Chavez could be anything from done as a fielder and hitter to a version of his early 2000s self at the plate and at third base. I predict something in between, of course, but my prediction has him hitting well again, and…not so sure about 3B, but who knows?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When it comes to Chavez
At this point the A’s would be complete idiots to write him in as their 3B. Maybe his shoulder makes a near miraculous recovery but that kind of luck would probably require… a, Hell with it. It’s not fun taking shots at the A’s medical staff anymore.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 25, 2008 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not a write-in, he's a write-off!

It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wolff saying that he is "basically done with injury-prone vets"
good, so hopefully the a’s won’t sign giambi, or trade for ordonez or guillen.
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 26, 2008 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we're also done with Duchscherer and Chavez?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 26, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and Ellis and Crosby and Street?
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 27, 2008 2:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah but those are all players who are already on the team
the a’s traded harden when he was healthy enough that they could, they attempted to trade street but he went through a really rough patch at the time, and they would probably trade chavez and crosby if they could.
they probably were not getting offered enough back for ellis considering he’ll get them some draft picks when he leaves, and the cost-benefit analysis with duke will be similar next year.
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 28, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ordonez had one major, freak injury
When Willie Harris basically slid feet first into his shin in 2004. That killed his 2004 and 2005 seasons. One injury. He’s been very healthy since, and was very healthy before that. I don’t think calling him injury-prone is at all fair.
by thejd44 on Sep 28, 2008 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every MLB team could float a $60 million payroll if it closed the gates and played to an empty house
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's are working on it -
They’re tarping off the first deck next year, right?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 25, 2008 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they should just tarp off the left side of the infield -- problem solved!
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gentlemen
I would like nothing more than to be able to contribute to these conversations next year…or during the off-season…or tonight. Truth is, time just does not allow me to watch enough baseball anymore. It’s not that I am completely lame; I know most of the players listed above. I just don’t know enough to make educated comments. So where to start without watching every game, and reading every comment on AN? I need the Baseball for Dummies version to catch me up on today’s ways of rating a ballplayer, totally need to brush up on players in the minors, and completely need to understand the rules (player options, etc.) Any help is greatly appreciated. I also want to see the game differently, how a batter or pitcher has “looked” lately, and that sort of thing. Otherwise I am relegated to historical pieces and smart-ass game thread comments, and to be honest, I am running out of both. I never get tired of reading these posts or the comments that follow, but tired of window shopping.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 25, 2008 7:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Easiest thing to do...
agree with everything I say.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 25, 2008 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the beauty of the suck-up-to grover program!!!
Absolutely, positively no membership fees!
(Donations are accepted.)
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 25, 2008 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may not have to pay taxes!
After donating to the grover foundation, and then tithing to the Church of grover… plus various tax write-offs centered around green-friendly purchases (gifted to grover’s International Relief agency) you’ll find yourself entitled to a massive refund check from the governement.
Which you can then convert to cash and give to me.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 25, 2008 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FYI
No kool-aid!!!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In reference to the "green freindly purchases".
Does that include or not limited to things that I can enhale or add to my “baked” goods cart?
(Man, I’ve managed to scrape the bottom of my device once again………cough, cough!)
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may not be eligible for my program afterall
What’s more important to you, magically baking or saving the environment?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Magically baking would indeed help save the environment
at least that’s what they say on the television……..pass the brownies bro.
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So grover
let me ask you, sir. What is your ultimate offs-eason series of moves her. I know you have stated in different threads, including your own, what could happen. But, if it came down to two moves in the off-season, what do “you” pul the trigger on.
What gets your first vote in this scenario?
Cheers mate! I’d buy ya a beer if we were in person, sir. Go A’s!
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Off-season of moves here"
Sorry about that..
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For a second I thought you were talking a virgin sacrifice
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My computer is working really slow here
However, I do have Aztec blood in my family………..
by mrod on Sep 26, 2008 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First and foremost, the A's need offense
I don’t think Ordonez is going to get shopped as cheaply as Taj suggests and I can’t think of any other sluggers that are going to be on the trading block at a reasonable price. That pretty much leaves free agency and my opinion is if the A’s are serious about spending the dough to improve the offense then they’ll be looking at Teixeira, Manny or Dunn.
Adam Dunn is probably the more realistic choice.
Going after a 1 year rental ala Huff is a waste of time and resources. Signing an aging Giambi to a 2 year deal is a smaller waste of resources.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
You’re right, that WAS easy.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 26, 2008 6:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
QOTM,
for this, and for Grover’s reply above.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Sep 26, 2008 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So this is a QOTM for me by proxy?
When did things get so complicated around here?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the new Round Robin QOTM
It just keeps going and going. Probably will be for 10 comments by tomorrow. It also saves on space.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Sep 26, 2008 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got the feeling from BB and Wolfe that trading for a slugger was one of the options they were planning on doing.
Now, I have no idea if that means they have someone targeted and may already be talking to a team that needs alot like Washington for Zimmerman or if they just have list and are going to see who they can get for a good price from the list.
As far as FA, I think a short term add on for 1B might be inline as we have a couple good 1B prospects coming up in Doolittle and Carter (Or OF or 3B or DH) and they don’t want to block them.
Now, as I responded to you in another blog, I like Zimmerman and if they decide to pay for Teixera that would work too.
I think it will be exciting this offseason to watch what BB and Forst do.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Sep 26, 2008 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's also that 22 year old kid, was the #1 prospect in the system till this year, plays some 1B
Dale something or other?
by mikev on Sep 26, 2008 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought we were agreed that we were going to start calling Barton a third-base prospect
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, as soon as you get your tail clipped
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and I thought you were going to make a FaNpOsT about it.
by mikev on Sep 26, 2008 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, I was, but ...
A. Taj did such a complete job here, I don’t feel compelled to or capable of mustering a comprehensive argument
B. New resps @ work + imminent baby = minimal effort here
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A's will scour the scrap heap
juan rivera, mark teahen, etc…i just cant see them commiting 10-15mill to another player…i hope they prove us wrong, but they would have to change their financial philosophy which they have followed for the past 10+ yrs
by Asfan4ever723 on Sep 25, 2008 9:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't like so many 1b/dh types
Hearing about having Giambi, Thomas and Cust, with Giambi playing a not so good 1B and Cust playing a not so good LF? Wow that is scary.. didn’t we go through that this year.
How about getting a young good 3B like Taj and Grover both talked about in previous posts. Maybe even a good 1B for a year or two, if they exist and with that I want above average defense and the offense we are all looking for. Also maybe a plus SS or 2B. Let’s fill in the holes we have without taking out our promising young guys.
This would allow all 4 of our young outfielders to play more often and have really good defense in the infield and outfield.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Sep 25, 2008 9:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Would you like room service with that, too?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is "room service" a euphemism?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 25, 2008 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I'm aware of,
just snark.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 25, 2008 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Magglio Ordonez
Taj, you know I tolerate you like you were family, but I think you’re spinning the idea of a Detroit fire sale a little too rigorously. You’ve linked a couple articles that suggest the Tigers could go into a fire sale mode, I’ve seen a similiar number of write-ups that say the Tigers could maintain their current payroll through 2009. It all depends on owner Michael Ilitch and how persuasive/convinced Dombrowski is that 2009 could be a bounce back year for the Tigers.
That decision determines if the Tigers are shopping Ordonez the salary dump or Ordonez the All-Star. The correct label will determine the price tag.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 25, 2008 10:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or Dombrowski could go all Beane and trade everyone before their value is completely gone.
It depends a lot on how optimistic Dombrowski is, which may hinge on the health of Zumaya, Bonderman and Rodney, as well as his take on the future of Verlander, Galarraga and Robertson.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 25, 2008 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as he sucks
Bobby Crosby would probably get at least $5 million a season on the open market. I think he’s anything but tradeable. Hell, Julio Lugo is making $9 million a year and I’m not sure what he does that Crosby can’t.
by thejd44 on Sep 26, 2008 10:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Crosby?
Crosby has been belly aching? I hadn’t read that… any links?
by jeffro on Sep 26, 2008 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Boom shaka-lacka!
Crosby told his playing time will dip.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
by Taj Adib on Sep 26, 2008 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That article on Crosby pissed me off.
(In response to reduced playing time): “I want to be playing every day, but there’s nothing I can do about it.”
Sure there is, Bobby. See, there IS something you could do about it! You could hit less shittily. Why do crappy players feel entitled to play every day? What does the team owe this guy, other than a guaranteed contract that he hasn’t performed up to?
I hate the entitled attitude of a seemingly growing percentage of veteran players leaguewide. If you’re crappy, people don’t owe you shit. You make several million dollars a year. Be a professional and don’t complain about it in the media if you lose some playing time. In the real world, you’d be fired by now.
Part of why I love the A’s, even as they’re presently constructed, is I like watching young players grind it out for their first million bucks. I feel like they still have some connection to the real world at that point. They’re less likely to criticize management, criticize the front office, act like jerks to the press, etc. They’re like new employees on their best behavior.
By the time they’ve made 10 million, they have a complete disconnect with reality and the real world. Crosby’s quote reflects that. So does Emil’s grumbling earlier this year.
"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 26, 2008 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
another reason not to trade for expensive injury prone complain-y veterans
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 26, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what do A's have against petit?
he was brought up when crosby got injured, they still played murphy ahead of him.
he got in a couple games, then filled in late innings
they’ve given pennington/patterson extended looks at several positions
they cleared 40 man roster space and opted to call up murphy after hannahan got injured.
hannahan/murphy/pennington/patterson/baisley etc have all got more opportunities to play than petit
he’s also on the 40 man yet was not called up for sept. i’d dump hannahan/murphy before petit.
by Asfan4ever723 on Sep 26, 2008 12:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Makes zero sense to me either
They basically blew an entire season of development time for him by all the time they had him sitting on the bench and not playing regularly.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've wondered about that too
Maybe they changed their opinion of him mid-year? Like, they had one planned path for him, and then his performance (or Pennington’s) somehow caused them to jerk him around a little?
"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 26, 2008 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did have a pretty crappy year at the plate in AAA
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 26, 2008 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was doing pretty good until they called him up and gave him about 10 at-bats in a period of a month...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 27, 2008 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crazy thought?
I’m not sure if this would fly, but it might: Why not try to make a Street for Swisher deal in the offseason? Despite giving ridiculous dumb contracts to Linebrink and Dotel in the offseason, the White Sox need bullpen help. They also seem to have no use for Swisher, since he’s lost playing time to Dewayne freaking Wise. Seems the organization has soured on him to the point where they’ll move him in the offseason, and Street (and perhaps a mid-level prospect) would probably get the deal done.
This would be a much cheaper move than signing Giambi, and I don’t want them to offer Giambi anything anyway. Barton could still, possibly, move to third. Swisher could then play first. I guess this would all be contingent on Barton being able to handle third, but if he could, I’d certainly love to have Swisher back on the A’s and I think his offense – this season notwithstanding – would be welcomed.
by thejd44 on Sep 26, 2008 12:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
then sign bradley/big hurt/giambi
chavez back healthy..offense fixed
by Asfan4ever723 on Sep 26, 2008 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've thought about this this too
I’d be in favor of getting Swisher back—for Street and a C/C+ prospect is fine, if there isn’t a team who wants Street just as much and has that 3B we covet.
by jakarta on Sep 26, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
we can do without another .221 hitter in Swisher.
I want someone who lays the bat on the ball and doesn’t K 130 plus times a year. I am not knocking Cust at all. I will accept him the way he is but we don’t need 2 hitters who strike out 350 times between them. So I really do not want to see Adam Dunn and Cust in the same lineup. One of them, Yes, two NO
Swisher has no place to play anyway with his shitty average.
Meet Jack Hannahan, He has a broken clock and like all broken clocks, it's right twice a day
by Trainman on Sep 26, 2008 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's rather convincing evidence that Swisher was the single unluckiest player in baseball this season
His projected OPS is .879; given his line drive rate we’d have expected him to hit about .280.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 27, 2008 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Rocco Baldelli has Swish beat for that distinction
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 27, 2008 2:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luckiest player in baseball:
Would have to be that Dodgers minor leaguer who discovered a billion dollars in rare minerals under his ranch.
What is this, 1849?
"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 27, 2008 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True Story?
Link?
Procrastinators unite....tomorrow
by muffinpryde on Sep 27, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And he was benched for a while for Dewayne Wise
I mean, that’s pretty bad. I wonder if Swish just cries himself to sleep at night.
by thejd44 on Sep 28, 2008 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the team has no desire to bring Frank Thomas back...
Do you guys think they’ll still offer him arbitration? He’s a type B, and could potentially yield a nice draft pick.
On the other hand…who else would sign him? I can’t find a good fit anywhere else. So if they offer arby, there’s the risk that Frank accepts.
I think there’s at least a chance they still want him back, or that they’re considering offering him arbitration, or they wouldn’t have bothered to 60-day DL 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 26, 2008 2:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not a problem
If the A’s offer Frank Arby it’s based (I think) on the salary they paid him in 2008. Which was less than $390K. Absolute worst case scenario, assuming he accepts the A’s offer and they really don’t want him, they turn around and cut him in ST if he isn’t hitting .600 with 15 HR. The cost shouldn’t be that high, I can’t see it being much more then $1 million… which is $5 million less then the dead money the A’s are paying in 2008 for Kotsay and Calero.
Unless I’m totally misunderstanding the arbitration process in this instance.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Except for the last part.
No chance Frank hangs them up? Well, of course there’s a chance. How much of a chance?
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Sep 26, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much of a chance depends on how much Thomas needs the money
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that's the part I'm unclear on to
Is the arby case based upon the salary the A’s paid him…or based upon the salary Frank earned overall in ’08?
The Blue Jays paid him some pretty big bucks. If there’s a risk that Frank, despite not being very good anymore, garners a 9 million arby award, then yikes. Might have to avoid the offer.
"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 26, 2008 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The arbitration process is based on the salary of other similar players
It is not based, in any way, on how much he was paid last season. For pre-free agent players, there’s a limit to how much you can CUT their salary in the offseason, but that rule doesn’t apply at all to free agents.
It’s hard to say how much he’d get in arb, but I think the worst case scenario for Oakland is that they’re out a million or so (1/6 of $6 million, which is about the highest award I could see him getting).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't his A's salary be a benchmark for how low the A's could bid?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just so we're prefectly clear
The fact that the Blue Jays paid Thomas $8 million in 2008 in no way impacts how low an arbitration figure the A’s could offer Thomas in 2009.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well it might affect what the arbitrator awarded him.
Eg. A’s offer $1M. Frank asks for $4M, saying that’s already a 50% cut from last year due to his injury plagued season. But when healthy he put up decent numbers. He shows comps for how much other guys with .850 OPS make.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 26, 2008 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We turn around and say he was injured for the majority of the season...
by OldhamA on Sep 27, 2008 6:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You voted for Thatcher, didn't you
As incomparably silly as it is to refer to a sports team as “we” in general, it’s that much sillier to refer to the ownership in conflict with the players of that same team as “we.”
If you want to fantasize about being a vindictive zillionaire, go right ahead… but include me out of it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 27, 2008 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need to pick our battles more carefully, don't we?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Sep 27, 2008 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rovers win again!
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 27, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on this
I never understood the “we” thing.
Also, I would love to be a vindictive zillionaire, and you are never in any of my fantasies.
by thejd44 on Sep 28, 2008 2:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait
I thought I read in another thread that the team no longer needs to offer arbitration on type B’s. Is that correct?
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
by 5Aces on Sep 26, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought according to that Tigers blogger who found out the Elias Ranking system
that Thomas was not a Type B.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Sep 26, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frank Thomas B 63.333
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 26, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Has anyone talked about a possibility of the A's trading for Robinson Cano?
He’d probably take too much to acquire, and I don’t know how his defense is at 2b, but the Yanks are going to be looking to change things up this winter (as usual, but more so since they didn’t make the playoffs, heaven forbid). Just wondering…
"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 26, 2008 4:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nope, because Cano sucks
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He sucks in the first half of the season.
by OldhamA on Sep 26, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good thing the first half of the season only counts for 10% as much as the second half
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 26, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait, why does Cano suck?
He has probably been slightly unlucky with a lower BABIP (.277 this year vs. .321 career) than he’s used to, which would help cover the difference in his OBP this year vs. his career major/minor league OBP. Also, his contact rate has actually been higher than normal this year, as well as the fact that his LD% is back to normal (last year was actually lower). The previous three years, he’s had an OPS+ of 106,126,120, which this year being 84. He’s still young (he’s in his prime) and I think if anything, his off year would bring down the price for a player that otherwise is better offensively than the average 2b. However, I really don’t know about how good/shoddy his defense is, which would be a factor to consider.
"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 26, 2008 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
are you responding to grover?
i’m just saying the first and second halves of each baseball season both count the same, in fact if we’re going by the all star break the first half is usually over 50% of the regular season.
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 26, 2008 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yaya sorry, i meant in response to grover
"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 26, 2008 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and i agree with you about both parts of the season being equal
but Cano hitting better lately isn’t the reason why I would want to trade for him, its the fact that he’s been hitting above average for his position since he got to the Bigs, which a dropoff earlier this season before rebounding.
"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 26, 2008 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few things
Cano has played a lousy 2B this year and hasn’t been great shakes with the glove except for last year, he’s dogged it in 2008, his offense is mostly tied to him hitting .300 as he doesn’t draw many walks and isn’t a huge power hitter and his supposed greatness is more a product of the NY hype machine than anything else.
Matter o’ fact, according to certain metrics Cano was the worst 2B in the AL, being 21 runs below average.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've had similar thoughts about Rickie Weeks
This is based on the idea that 2009 is still going to be a rebuilding/reloading/reaquiringtalent/FavoriteEuphamismForNotBeingGood year and that the Brewers really are dissatisfied with Weeks’ lack of progress thus making him available; if either of those things turn out to be wrong then forget about it.
BUT, if Ellis goes elsewhere and Weeks can be acquired without giving up much of anything of consequence, then 2009 could be used to see if the proverbial change of scenery might help him take the next step forward in his development. He’s still young enough to expect improvement, and he certainly still has the same physical talent that made him a top prospect. I don’t see him being a worse option than what the A’s already have, and his upside is considerably higher – he’s your basic low risk/high reward proposition.
I’m not sure what “anything of consequence” translates to in terms of trade options, but Street seems to be the trading chip du jour, so I’ll toss out Street for Weeks as one proposal.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Sep 26, 2008 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forget that!
Street is a valuable trade chip and is worth a lot more then a broke-wrist Weeks.
“Nothing of consequence” means giving up someone who is expected to do absolutely nothing to help the A’s win baseball games. Is that an accurate description of Huston Street?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 26, 2008 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I only picked Street because he was getting mentioned everywhere else
I just wanted to get in on the fun! I would consider “nothing of consequence” = “someone the A’s can afford to trade without compromising the team elsewhere” and if there’s one thing the A’s have plenty of, it’s bullpen candidates.
I don’t disagree that Street might be too much to give up, but I assume the Brewers will want pitching of some kind. I think any of our possible starters would be too much (unless someone hits them on the head and they take Saarloos) which leaves relievers. If Street is too much, then I would think Devine is off the table, as is Ziggy. Maybe Brown (I realize he’s hurt) and/or Casilla? Hardly seems like enough, but I guess it depends on just how frustrated they are with Weeks.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Sep 26, 2008 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
50% of AN appears to believe that the answer to your question is "yes"
Fortunately, Beane doesn’t, so it’s a moot point.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 27, 2008 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are the chances
of me convincing that 50% of Streets’ value without earning 3 strikes and getting banned?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 27, 2008 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i say give the young guys a shot next year
maybe trade for a veteran in the middle of the year based on what the team needs, and/or sign a free agent after 2009.
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 26, 2008 4:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
of what? B-12?
It's just something we do. It's not something we like. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 26, 2008 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or Barry Bonds...
"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 26, 2008 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn and Teixeira are available now. Who would you want in the Post 2009 bunch?
Holliday
Crawford
Beltre
I don’t really want Bay (or Burrell) and Chipper and Vlad are likely to stay where they are. I don’t see any scenario whereby one of Dunn, Teixeira or Holliday wouldn’t be an asset if they’re healthy. If you try for all three you may get one. If you just punt Dunn and Teixeira, you put all your eggs in the Holliday basket.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 26, 2008 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no possible chance that the A's sign Teixeira or Holliday
Beane is not going to deal with Boras. His players are routinely among the worst values to be found anywhere in baseball.
I would literally fall out of my chair if the A’s were to sign any player represented by Boras at any level, from the draft to MLB free agency.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 27, 2008 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alex Rodriguez wasn't a bad value, either time.
Not that either Holliday or Teixeira are in his class.
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 27, 2008 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're kidding, right?
I haven’t seen a single analysis yet that suggests that A-Rod was worth the money in any but the most dominant of his post-free-agent seasons.
Not to say that signing him was a bad move, as the Yankees couldn’t care less about return on investments, but he is not a good value.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 27, 2008 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Define what "return on investments" means...
They paid the most for the best player in MLB history. That doesn’t sound bad to me. He takes up less of a percentage of his team’s payroll than Chavez does ours.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Sep 27, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly what it normally means...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Sep 27, 2008 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Earnings divided by Shareholder Equity?
[Crosby] "Guy that has driven in some big runs for the A's over the years" - Vince Cotroneo
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 27, 2008 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It means he doesn't bring the number of wins he should for the cost
It’s a fairly simple formula.
by thejd44 on Sep 28, 2008 2:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm inclined to agree with PT
I just don’t see Billy Beane dealing with any client that is represented by Boras. Then again….
Maybe, Barry Zito would not have sold his soul to the devil, either, had he known where it would lead him…
^ ^
# #
O
*
by mrod on Sep 27, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















