What do the A's need to compete for the division?
I was wondering what everyone thinks we need to have a shot at the division next year. I was thinking a little more starting pitcing but I don't think there are any good starters left on the market. I think that our bullpen will be ok are offense should be good if they stay healthy and that is a big IF with Chavez who can never stay healthy recently. Adam Dunn would be a nice add to the team but I just cannot see that really happening. The starting roataion is weak at best with Gallagher, Dallas braden, Gio Gonzalez, and Eveland . I guess Gallagher and Eveland have decent arms so maybe they are serviceable I know Duke will be good but will he stay healthy?
0 recs |
98 comments
Comments
Well to be fair the title asked to compete not win
so the A’s would need to win only the same amount of games as three other teams
by A'sfaninNC on Jan 14, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I already think the A's will compete
I think the real question is what will put them over the top.
by thejd44 on Jan 14, 2009 12:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
by ChadGod on Jan 14, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we're there too, but I'm counting on some of the question marks to be solved
A few of Chavez, Barton, Buck, Cunningham, and pretty much the entire rotation have to develop. I think that our team will be pleasantly surprising, but who am I to think that. As for filling some holes I smell a trade much more than a significant free agent signing.
by T-Money on Jan 14, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who are you to think that?
You’re an A’s fan.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
by ChadGod on Jan 14, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To continue to be the best team in the division ...
Starting pitching is the area with the most realistic hope of improvement to provide a more helpful answer to your question, though …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 14, 2009 12:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Teams not to pitch low and away ever.
by A'sfaninNC on Jan 14, 2009 12:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Starter & Pen so I voted "All the Above"
I guess another big bat wouldn’t hurt. I’m thinking Crosby for Jose Reyes of the Mets. Well toss in Jack London Square, a dozen Raideretts and MC Hammer.
"You Went Full Retard, Man - Never Go Full Retard." --Kirk Lazarus
by Ovale Fan on Jan 14, 2009 1:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think MC Hammer is kind of like Crosby
You have to give more just to get the other side to take him.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 14, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
SP for sure
Replacing Crosby with anyone over the age of 4 who has one working arm would be an improvement.
by Trainman on Jan 14, 2009 1:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
does a floating hand work?

"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Jan 14, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sweet matching striped pants and shoes.
"I'm going to take a camera crew and march into Billy Beane's office and demand to know why instituting his newfangled cost-saving measures means that the run manufacturing plant had to get shut down." FJM
by Elvez on Jan 14, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Typing with my teeth
I’m missing the arm but I have one hell of a head first slide!
"You Went Full Retard, Man - Never Go Full Retard." --Kirk Lazarus
by Ovale Fan on Jan 14, 2009 1:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Since replacing Crosby wasn't an option...
I went with adding a Starting Pitcher
I think our bullpen is in pretty good shape if they’re able to replicate last year and perform close to those numbers.
by BillMoresi on Jan 14, 2009 1:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
BEN SHEETS
sign him
Stay calm. I'm a relatively respectable citizen -- a multiple felon, perhaps, but certainly not dangerous
by LosAltosA's on Jan 14, 2009 1:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Order of Need for the A's
Short Stop
Starting Pitcher
First Base
Third Base
The Bullpen is fine as is. We have enough good arms back there to have a solid pen, and enough pitching prospects in the minors to fill it as the year(s) go by.
Shortstop is a hole that we need to fill, and if we do not, we have to compensate somewhere else. A GOOD hitting 1B (as opposed to Barton) would go a long way to off set any hole at SS.
But outside of Short, the most glaring hole in the team is Starting Pitcher. We need 1 good pitcher on a short term contract that will put us over the top, but will not block our top prospects who are coming up. Then again, if we were to sign the man on the FA market that meets this criteria, Ben Sheets, to a 2 Year Deal, that would be fine too, since Duchscherer is leaving and it would give us a veteran ace while the pitching prospects adjust to their first or second year.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Jan 14, 2009 1:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Giambi doesn't qualify?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 14, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, absolutely he does Devo!
And don’t forget that if Chavvy comes back healthy this year he’s gonna do some damage. I don’t think it’s all that out of the question for Eric Chavez to resurrect himself and have a somewhat late, breakout in his career. Just putting it out there, not to play soothsayer or anything like that.
by mrod on Jan 14, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me ask
Should we address a longer term solution for Duke with some money or just do what we can next year?
"You Went Full Retard, Man - Never Go Full Retard." --Kirk Lazarus
by Ovale Fan on Jan 14, 2009 2:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We don't need Duke Long Term.
If we signed Sheets, we would only want him for 1 or two years.
We have a LOT of Starting Pitching prospects right now, and about 6 of them are going to be in AAA knocking on the door to the Majors, so we don’t have to worry about pitching in the future, only the present.
Shortstop, on the other hand, we have 1 prospect who might be able to play SS at AA, and 3 SS prospects in Short Season/Rookie League, meaning they are about 3 or 4 years away.
If we were to acquire a long term solution for a position, it should be at either Short, First Base or Third Base.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Jan 14, 2009 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't include First Base.
With Barton only entering his sophomore year at 23 AND Doolittle and Carter in the pipeline, the position is probably taken care of for the next 6 years.
by mikev on Jan 14, 2009 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Health
If there is one thing that I think could guarantee that the A’s will be competitive it is better health. If they can avoid the revolving door DL problem they’ve had for the last couple of years I think there is enough talent in place to make a run at the Angels.
by DiegoAsFan on Jan 14, 2009 2:05 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Orlando Bloom Cabrera
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 14, 2009 4:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'll take
Kenny Rogers to pitch only in home games (25-4 lifetime!) on the cheap giving our young guys a little rest
A Dunn-Cust-Giambi carousel at DH-1B-RF with Buck/Barton as late inning defensive replacements (can you say Jimmy jack?)
AND
Bobby Crosby to realize he’s really a left handed hitter – those low and away pitches would be right in his wheelhouse!
Seriously though, let’s talk Rogers and Dunn.
"Baseball is like a church. Many attend, but few understand." - Wes Westrum
by oaklandfan40 on Jan 14, 2009 5:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I have to disagree with the notion that
“the starting pitching is weak at best.” At best, it could actually be very good. Trouble is, the odds of a “best case scenario” coming together are not 50/50. They’re also not 5/95, though.
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 Jan 14, 2009 5:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
and at worst
it could be very bad. duke/gallagher could be injured, eveland could regress, 2009 mlb gio could be 2008 mlb gio, josh outman is a rookie, dallas braden’s lack of stuff could catch up to him.
id say the rotation is one giant question mark, and it could be anywhere from very good to very bad
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
by travdog6 on Jan 14, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah ...
but you could lay out a similar scenario for the Angels too (or the Yankees or Red Sox … or any other team in the league) … the A’s, unlike virtually anyone else, though, go something like 8 or 9 deep in solid options, so they can afford to have more go wrong.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 14, 2009 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well sure but
most teams aren’t counting on a guy who made 22 starts as their number 1, a guy who era’d 5.88 in 11 starts with an injury as their number 2, a second year pitcher who was good during his rookie campaign bu was sent down at one point and is still, IMO, unproven as your number 3, and a combination of braden/outman/gio/others as your 4 and 5. id say the a’s have much more risk in their rotation than do other teams
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
by travdog6 on Jan 14, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well ...
I think MOST teams out there would love to trade their rotation for our, straight up, without taking into account age, contracts or long term effects (all of which favor our rotation in virtually every situation) …
When critiquing a rotation it is silly to compare it to some hypothetical perfect rotation, which does not exist. Most teams are counting on a guy with a 4.00+ era as their number one and would love to add a guy with a 3.00 era over 22 starts …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 14, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that might be true
but MOST teams don’t make the playoffs. and if we’re discussing a hypothetical A’s playoff birth, we can’t compare ourselves to the bottom of the barrell teams.
here is my point in a form that is actually consice and understandable as opposed to my previous comments: the a’s rotation has a lot of potential for failure IMO. i think the a’s have more question marks than any other team that supposedly is going to contend. out of the 7 or so guys that potentially could be in our starting rotation, there are a lot of “ifs” and basically nothing is proven
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
by travdog6 on Jan 14, 2009 6:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh ... much too much value is put on "proven" ...
Especially when it comes to pitchers.
Also, when talking about the A’s making the playoffs, we basically only need to compare them to the Angels. The Angels are more or less a .500 team. It won’t take much to beat the Angels.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 15, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gio, Braden, and Outman
are not adequate as 4th or 5th guys in the rotation at this point. If Duke or Gallagher get injured and these guys have to go 3, 4, and 5 in the rotation then it becomes downright frightening.
by jdub69 on Jan 15, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
good points
i guess i just see a lot of potential for failure, even in our lowly division.
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
by travdog6 on Jan 15, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure we're that deep in "solid options"
I see 6 pitchers with some chance of being in the rotation out of spring training (Duchscherer, Braden, Eveland, Gallagher, Outman, Gonzalez), and then four or five prospects who are very promising but generally considered not ready yet (Anderson, Cahill, Mazzaro, Simmons, and maybe Webb) plus a couple of guys with major league experience who I don’t think any of us wants to see starting (Jerome Williams and Jason Windsor).
That’s great depth for the longer term, but if it’s May 2009 and Duchscherer is hurt and Outman and/or Gonzalez is sucking, it’s not at all clear which of those other options is a good idea. My preference in that hypothetical situation would probably be to give one of Cahill/Anderson a shot, but others might consider that to be too risky.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
by andeux on Jan 14, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just remember that Duke is gonna be indestructible this year
and save the world andeux!
by mrod on Jan 14, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's fair ...
I do think it would behoove the A’s to add someone like Ben Sheets …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 14, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he's healthy.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 6:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's probably as healthy as Duke
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 14, 2009 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you sign Duke for 2 years and $26million?
That’s the difference.
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 Jan 14, 2009 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Duke's health is one of the reasons the A's need more starting pitching
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd plan for 20 starts and hope for 25 ...
the A’s have the depth that to make him a particularly good fit …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 15, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Question
Plan for 20, hope for 25… pay for 35? Or are you expecting an injury discount?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 15, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes ... he's a better pitcher than Derek Lowe but is going to get paid significantly less ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 15, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
the A’s rotation will be slightly better than average this year.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 14, 2009 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not IMO
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it'll be slightly weaker than average, once you adjust for defense and park
but it ought to be within reasonable range of contention, given the weak division.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 14, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It will be
If we pick up a #2 caliber starter somewhere. Otherwise, below average.
by jdub69 on Jan 15, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why should I have any faith in Gallagher at this present day?
He obviously can improve throughout the course of the season, but going into the next year with him as the number two starter is quite risky.
by Pucking Insane on Jan 14, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd much prefer him as a #3, but he does have #2 ability
We saw the worst of Gallagher, because he was pitching with a tired arm having been rushed to the big leagues at 22, and then trying to impress a new team. He has terrific stuff and now has enough big league experience that 2009 could easily be his “breakout year” – as could 2010 instead.
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 Jan 14, 2009 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
which is why the A's should sign at least one FA starter for 1-2 years
of course my vote is Sheets. This off-season is one of the most fascinating in recent years, for sure. If the A’s can work something out with Sheets I will be a happy camper fo-sho!
by mrod on Jan 14, 2009 6:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not only is the rotation a weakness, it's arguably the worst in the AL. CHONE thinks it's worse than
the Orioles, Rangers and Tigers:
Tigers — Verlander, Bonderman, Robertson, Galarraga, Jackson — 100 PRAR
Rangers — Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy, Gabbard, Mendoza — 73
Orioles — Guthrie, Olson, Uehara, Hendrickson, Liz — 73
Athletics — Eveland, Braden, Gallagher, Duchscherer, Gonzalez — 70
Here are the good rotations:
Yankees — Sabathia, Burnett, Chamberlain, Wang, Hughes — 163 PRAR
Rays — Shields, Kazmir, Sonnanstine, Garza, Price — 147
Angels — Santana, Lackey, Weaver, Saunders, Adenhart — 144
Red Sox — Beckett, Matsuzaka, Lester, Buchholz, Wakefield — 141
Sure the A’s have surprise candidates like Cahill and Gio but so does everyone else, from the crappy rotations — Porcello, Holland, Tillman — to the good ones — Hughes, Price, Adenhart, Smoltz.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 7:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Look me in the internet eye and tell me that
Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy, Gabbard, and Mendoza are going to outperform Duchscherer, Gallagher, Eveland, Braden, and Gio/Outman – totally ignoring park effects too.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jan 14, 2009 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed, but
it is possible that our rotation could totally implode.
HOW DO WE NOT GET SHEETS?
2 year contract would allow us to maintain a “veteran ace” presence for this year and the next even if we let Duke walk/hobble away.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
by ChadGod on Jan 14, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The way we don't get Sheets is that
the A’s determine the medical risk to be too high. Remember, Duke and Chavy are tremendous players when they are healthy, but their lack of health has crippled the A’s at times. Signing Sheets to a $15mil/year contract could backfire big time if he made only a handful of starts. So it’s not a “no brainer” – and I’m a bit skeptical as to why he has garnered so little interest across the board.
He remains my #1 “wish list” target – but like Furcal, not signing him could turn out to be the “great move” a team makes.
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 Jan 14, 2009 7:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also he severely hurts the chances at keeping Holliday.
Whether that makes a difference or not, I’ve no idea. I’m really confused right now.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying they will or won't outperform the Ranger rotation. The very fact that they're in the
same ballpark in actual ability and made to look better by park effects is a very bad sign. The A’s Five are probably more talented, but they’re also probably a lot less durable.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I just see it a bit differently
I think the risk of total tanking is there, but just because the “standard deviation” of possible outcomes is pretty high doesn’t mean the odds of their being “good” isn’t better than their odds of being “poor”. It’s a long season and by the time so and so is hurt or so and so is imploding, you will have Mazzaro, Simmons, Cahill, Anderson to choose from. They don’t have to be ready in April to be factors.
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 Jan 14, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True, there is a scenario where the A's rotation could be good enough.
April, May, June, July — Duke, Gallagher healthy; Eveland good; Braden and Outman decent
August, September — Gallagher, Eveland decent; Gio and Cahill go Zito 2000 and Hudson 1999, Braden or Anderson or Mazzaro or Simmons eat innings.
Pitching basically middling, but made to look better by park and defense…and luck.
It seems like a pretty unlikely scenario though.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know why those numbers are so low?
Because CHONE has them starting 108 games.
I’ll guarantee you this— any team which has backups start 54 games in a season is not making the playoffs.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 14, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that a real problem though? Not having established high annual innings is a real weakness,
not a statistical quirk.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It is a stasticial quirk, though,
because CHONE is not making a team-wide projection, based on who is likely to pitch innings for the A’s. Not having established high innings guys is indeed a problem, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with why the innings projections of those 5 are lower than other groups of 5 on other teams.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Jan 15, 2009 12:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that really true? I thought CHONE's IP projections were based on past IP totals.
Let’s look at the previous IP levels for our five guys, 2008, 2007, 2006, CHONE:
Eveland — 189, 37, 132; CHONE 122
Braden — 125, 148, 37; CHONE 103
Gallagher — 144, 116, 164; CHONE 130
Duchscherer — 144, 17, 57; CHONE 91
Gonzalez — 157, 150, 155; CHONE 100
From this I’d say CHONE is being conservative but not unreasonable, and that whether the projected innings should be higher or lower, durability is a real issue with this bunch. The one exception is Gio, who should pitch more IP if he actually has a 4.68 ERA like CHONE projects.
Let’s look at Texas:
Millwood — 172, 177, 215; CHONE 159
Padilla — 171, 132, 200; CHONE 150
McCarthy — 27, 105, 85; CHONE 78
Gabbard — 60, 156, 151; CHONE 98
Mendoza — 65, 164, 149; CHONE 124
I don’t see any great difference in how CHONE treated the Ranger staff durability than it did the A’s, with the exception of Gio.
In any case the point is not whether the A’s are better or worse than the Rangers. It’s that they’re more similar to the Rangers than they are to the Yankees, Rays, Angels or Red Sox. It’s not close. It is a problem.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 1:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those IP totals WILL go up because someone has to pitch those innings.
Issues of durability and health become more of an issue with pitchers who see their IP total drastically increase but that shouldn’t be factored in, unscientifically. It’s silly to post projections without either equalizing the IP … or, probably better, GS or else converting them into a rate (RAA/9) …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 15, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The obvious difference
is that it has all five of the A’s pitchers throwing fewer innings than last year, but three of the Rangers pitchers throwing more. Obviously it’s using multi-year averages, and that’s probably the right thing to do, but the variance on playing time is so high that any prediction of it is basically throwing darts.
But in any case, Mike’s point (I think) is that if you’re using projections for runs above replacement to compare different pitching staffs, and you’re going to take the playing time projections as gospel, the fair comparison isn’t to use the top five pitchers for each team, but to use enough pitchers to make the total starts or IP roughly balance out.
I do agree with your overall point that this is nowhere near an elite rotation.
Incidentally, where are you getting your Chone projections? This isn’t really significant, but the version at http://baseballprojection.com has 75 RAR for the Rangers, and 73 for the A’s.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
by andeux on Jan 15, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When you read the projected rotations...
ours looks pretty sad. Good post, Waddell.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 14, 2009 11:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about... the Angels continuing to stand pat.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 14, 2009 8:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
They're already significantly better. They can afford to stand pat.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 9:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't agree - their lineup really does not impress me
I’m shocked they haven’t signed at least a “solid/good” hitter.
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 Jan 14, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So them not getting any better helps the A's chances
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jan 15, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They're a .500 team ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 15, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They haven't played any games yet
… so you don’t know that. They did win a hundred games last year and their starting staff is, for the most part, the same.
by jdub69 on Jan 15, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Their pitching staff is fine ...
among the top five in baseball … their offense, though, might be among the bottom five …
And they got lucky last year — they were an 88 win team, based on runs allowed/scored — and, while I’m open to the idea that the Angels do something a lot bit more efficiently than most teams, it’s certainly not on the order (in a sustainable manner) of more than a win or two.
Their bullpen should be, while still solid, a fair amount worse, losing K-Rod, having Shields continue to show his age and having Darren Oliver remember that he has a career 4.84 era.
I’d expect the rotation to be fairly comparable to last year’s, overall (Saunders should be a fair amount worse, others should make up for it).
The offense lost its best player to free agency (and its fourth best player to acquire its best player), was quite poor to begin with and its best player is aging and in decline — it’s a bad offense.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Jan 15, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still think the A's should explore signing Sheets for at least 1-2 years
It makes sense if they can get him for a reasonable contract, something in the neighborhood of 9-12 million per year with some incentives thrown in. I don’t know what his medical records look like but if he checks out then Billy Beane absolutely needs to at least consider the idea of inking this guy to a deal.
Sheets, if healthy, puts another #1-#2 guy into the rotation, gives the younger guys someone else besides Duke to lean on for guidance, and can put the fear of BeJesus into the opposing team, more so now now with the addition of Holliday and Giambi in the A’s lineup. Call me crazy, call me naive’, but you can’t fault me for looking to try and improve the starting rotation for the next 1-2 years friends. “Love me or leave me!” M-Rod
by mrod on Jan 14, 2009 11:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think plenty of people on here...
want Sheets on the team. The naysayers are mostly worried about health and the money spent. But…I agree with you …Sheets is worth a risk because the A’s roation is a weakness for us this year. Improvements in the offense should help out the pitchers but if Duke goes down the A’s are going to need a whole lot more than an improved offense to win games.
by IM4Oakgal on Jan 14, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear what you're screaming girl.
So why not continue to stockpile the starting pitching depth? This is my main concern at this point. The offense has inserted a signifigant upgrade with the additions of Holliday and Giambi, and if Billy Beane decides to add another bat, well then, great.
However, if the starting rotation were to get a Sheets type added, then it stands to reason that the A’s would be in better shape than not. Of course, that would be with a healthy Sheets.
by mrod on Jan 14, 2009 11:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The question sort of answers itself
The A’s haven’t got the money, or Wolff won’t spend the money.
Signing Sheets would take the team payroll to over $70 million this season. Prior to the economic implosion, that might have been reasonable, even expected (on the other hand, Sheets would probably have cost even more). Now, not so much. Even if it’s purely a tactical ploy by team ownership, it’s an effective one…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 15, 2009 12:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But how de we know the A's don't really have the money, PT?
We are not really privvy to that info my good man. I would love to have access to the A’s payroll, as would most, and until that day comes I am not convinced that they don’t.
by mrod on Jan 15, 2009 12:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well we know their payroll. We don't know their revenues.
Of course they’re largely responsible for their revenues.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 15, 2009 1:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas Rangers fan here...
I think the A’s are real close and that if you would have scored Furcal, you’d be there. Not sure how you’re going to make Giambi, Cust work defensively but I think the A’s win 85+ games in 2009.
Your team is significantly ahead of the Texas Rangers (currently constructed, 72 wins) at this point.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Jan 15, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like your screen name their, JW.
I’m a huge Clint Eastwood fan. Any news on the Rangers and if they are still looking at Sheets?
by mrod on Jan 15, 2009 11:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
mrod,
Pythagorean Theorem had the Rangers winning 76 games last year, they’ve lost Milton Bradley and done nothing to repair a pitching staff that gave up 967 runs. They’re talking about bringing up 20 year old SS Elvis Andrus (who is not ready) and moving Young over to 3B.
Nobody else is ready to come up and the owner Hicks is keeping the team on a KC Royals payroll. There are some nice prospects coming up in a few years but having a lot of talent in the organization has never been a problem.
Morale in Texas is very low.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Jan 15, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for the update JW
sorry things are not going well in Texas.
by mrod on Jan 15, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you know what would be an *awesome* username?
(Not that JW’s isn’t awesome itself.)
The In-Law Josey Wales
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 15, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a Phish song
from one of their later, lesser albums.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
by andeux on Jan 15, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I did not know that

To restore my jam-band cred, I guess this would be the time to mention I saw Phish play naked a couple times in Plainfield in the mid-eighties. Of course, I don’t remember a thing about it …
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 15, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Phish remembers either.
:)
by mrod on Jan 15, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If every game was beerfest day
They would be in first place in my book.. and alot of other peoples too
by skalordes on Jan 15, 2009 11:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 




















