The Michael Taylor Trade: Future Implications (2011 & Beyond)
by casualinquisition on Dec 17, 2009 7:14 PM PST
Email
PrintDepending on where you fall on the spectrum of belief in Brett Wallace’s ability to stick at third base, wide ranging opinions- from “I love this trade!” to “WTF Who is going to be our future 3B’man now?- are both acceptable and to be expected.
I was in the camp that believed Brett Wallace would be able to play passable- slightly below-average- defense for a 2-3 year stretch before having to move to 1B/DH. Still, I found great value in the prospect of Wallace being able to stick at 3B, theoretically, for that stretch because it would A) provide enough time to see if Daric Barton can reach his potential, and B) provide enough time to see if Carter can play in the outfield/anywhere but DH.
Despite my relatively pro Wallace can play third base stance, I am very excited about this Michael Taylor trade for multiple reasons:
1) By acquiring Michael Taylor, the Oakland Athletics now boast the best combo of power hitting prospects in the MLB.
2) This trade alleviates the potential problem of the A’s having to choose between Cardenas and Weeks- Weeks is now (again, theoretically) our future at 2B, and Cardenas is now our number 1 internal option to play 3B.
3) Defensively, any way you cut it, not having Brett Wallace at 3B is a huge potential bonus and will give our young pitchers a much better chance to succeed. (I think this reason heavily influenced Beane’s decision to end the Wallace 3B experiment- but I have no basis for that contention so I am open to hearing differing opinions).
4) This trade means that we will not see a Jake Fox 3B experiment. This is somewhat in concert with reasons 2 (Cardenas, not fox, 3B of the future) and 3 (Beane won’t accept mediocre defense at 3B). Some of you may feel that this increases the chances that we will see Jake Fox at 3B, at some point- but like I said, if Beane wanted to sacrifice defense for a potential power bat at third, Wallace is their guy.
Going back to reason 1, this is what excites me most about this trade- the pairing of Carter and Taylor. It is very reasonable to debate who is the better overall offensive duo (Carter/Wallace or Carter/Taylor). However, from a power standpoint, Carter/Taylor is a better offensive threat and, IMO, the best prospect combo in any organization- and is it even close? (in terms of power potential)
1) Carter/Taylor- both have massive frames and 30+ HR potential (Carter possibly 40 HR potential).
2) Mike Stanton/Logan Morrison- Stanton has 40 HR potential, but Morrison- despite being a top overall prospect- may not even become a perennial 20+ HR’s per year player.
3) Travis Snider/ Brett Wallace- With Kyle Blanks losing his prospect status last season, Decker/Blanks will be able to give the new tag-team duo of Snider/Wallace are the new uuuuuuundisputed husky-weightttttt cccccchampionssss of the worldddddd!!!!! (channeling Michael Buffer)…. As far as power potential, I think Carter/Taylor hold the advantage.
4) Jason Heyward/Freddie Freeman- Heyward has as much raw power as anyone else on this list; Freeman has the frame and is a very young developing prospect- but he has yet to show that he has 30 or, even, 25+ HR potential.
5) Matt Laporta/ Nick Weglarz- I may actually be underrating this duo, based on power potential.
I could make a case for Carter/Taylor being the best offensive prospect combination, overall- though it’s certainly debatable. However, I think it is not much of a debate when the strict criterion is power potential.
In order to understand, in abstract terms, the potential benefits from this trade; I think it is helpful to Juxtapose a potential, say, 2011-2012 batting lineup with Taylor and one with Wallace.
1. Jemile Weeks 2B 1. Weeks/ Cardenas- 2B
2. Adrian Cardenas 3B 2. Ryan Sweeney- CF
3. Michael Taylor 3. Brett Wallace- 3B
4. Chris Carter RF 4. Chris Carter- RF
5. Jake Fox- DH 5. Jake Fox- DH
6. Daric Barton- 1B 6. Daric Barton- 1B
7. Ryan Sweeney- CF 7. Sean Doolittle- LF
8. Kurt Suzuki- C 8. Kurt Suzuki- C
9. Grant Green- SS 9. Grant Green- SS
Now, I want to stress POTENTIAL LINEUP to avoid anyone getting too fixated on whether they feel Grant Desme will overtake Ryan Sweeney; whether Jake Fox will develop enough power/offense to be our DH of the future; whether Carter can play the outfield; etc.
With that out of the way, let’s try to look at what these lineups give us- and what they don’t. Certainly, in both lineups, you see a collection of potentially strong hitters across the board from slots 1 through 9. However, the lineup with Brett Wallace does two things that cause me to say, theoretically, this might be an inferior future lineup, offensively.
The first, and most apparent, is Brett Wallace in the third slot versus Michael Taylor in the 3rd slot. Brett Wallace, as we know, is a prospect who is potentially capable of hitting 25+ home runs. However, a worry of mine has been that he will not develop that kind of power (playing in the coliseum) and, subsequently, fall into the category of a Barton/Sweeney type- who we hope will develop enough pure hitting skills to make up for a lack of power. While this type of hitter still has significant value- Ideally, I think you want that type of offensive production sitting in the 6-9 slots, instead of the 3-5 slots.
With Taylor, He seems to stand a much better chance at reaching his power potential (30+ HR) while offering a similarly well-rounded offensive game that would allow him to develop into a middle-of-the-order bat. There is no individual offensive category in which you could say, definitively, that Wallace has the edge over Taylor. Conversely, you can say, definitively, that Taylor has better power potential and speed. In essence, I give Taylor a better shot at becoming a true 3-5 hitter than Wallace.
The second, less discernable, advantage to the potential lineup, with Taylor, is the prospect of Weeks and Cardenas batting 1 and 2. I think this duo at the top of the order could potentially be just as important as the Carter/Taylor duo- as ideal table-setters. Weeks (hopefully injuries don’t erode his SB potential) profiles as an ideal leadoff hitter who is capable of hitting for average, drawing tons of walks, avoiding strikeouts, stealing 25-30 bases (maybe more), and hitting for decent power. When healthy, he has proven to be a well-rounded hitter and someone who will help to maximize the opportunities Carter/Taylor will have to drive in runs.
IMO, Cardenas could be potentially lethal as an ideal number 2 hitter- with the speed threat of Weeks in front of him and the power threats of Carter/Taylor behind him. The one plus trait that Cardenas has displayed throughout his minor league career is his hit tool. In the event that Weeks got on in front of him- and the potential for a SB was in effect; that combined with the pitcher’s desire not to face Carter/Taylor with one man in scoring position and/or two men on would significantly increase the likelihood that Cardenas would see a heavy dose of fastball’s/pitches in the strikezone. Now, you can argue that tons of players would be able to prosper in said situation. But I feel that Cardenas- as someone who many feel projects as a perennial .300+ average hitter- is ideally suited for this situation. This is because he is more likely to capitalize on hittable pitches than a player who gets on base, overall, at the same clip- but does it through drawing a heavier dose of walks. In this situation, a single is more valuable than a walk due to the fact that a single creates a 1st and 3rd opportunity for Carter/Taylor- as opposed to the runners on 1st and 2nd opportunity, created by a walk.
Sweeney- known to AN as Swingles- could also potentially fill in nicely in that role. However, his propensity to sometimes consistently hit weak grounders to the right side of the infield creates more double play opportunities- which, subsequently, makes him a less ideal two-hole hitter than Cardenas.
As well, defensively, the lineup across the board seems to be superior as Cardenas should be a much more passable defender at third, than Wallace and Taylor versus Doolittle in LF is, at the very least, a wash and probably an advantage for Taylor (depending on how much his frame 6’6 250 limits his range as he gets older).
Lastly, I understand that having a right-handed trio of Taylor/Carter/Fox hitting in succession is not ideal. However, I think that Beane would find away to add a middle-of-the-order lefty bat via free agency or through trades and the potential trade chips of Desme/Doolittle/Stassi/Brown/Donaldson would give him more than enough ammunition to find a DH/Corner Outfielder/1B/3B who could fill that role.
In conclusion, I feel this trade minimizes risk- that if Wallace can’t play third, we have a glut of 1B/DH types; allows for a better potential lineup, defensively; and, most importantly, it creates more power potential at the heart of the order.
I would posit that this trade creates much more clarity about how things could potentially fall into place in the not-so-distant-future. The reality is prospects fail and things tend not to shake out how we foresee them (hence, my emphasis on preceding multiple statements with “potentially” or “theoretically”). With that said, I am sure Beane will have to make one or two future pickups in order to solidify the lineup across the board. However, with Weeks/Cardenas and Carter/Taylor and a slew of other solid young players/prospects in place; the foundation for a powerful and diversified offense should come to fruition.
So, AN, what should Beane focus on doing next to ensure that the A’s BECOME the offensive and Pitching force they project to be?
Is the next step, for Beane, to refocus on drafting high ceiling college pitching early in the draft?
Should the A’s now make a strong push at getting Aroldis Chapman?- now that we are hearing that his contract will likely be in the 20 million range instead of the initial 40 million we were hearing….
Should Beane determine which prospects/ young players will likely be spare parts and try to acquire a top-of-the-rotation ace or another 30+ HR threat?
Or would Beane be wise to resist his inner “itch” to wheel and deal and just focus on making small/low-risk acquisitions and trades?... Trading Hairston?
147 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good Analysis-- Except I see Carter at DH
The way I see this is we have quality talent at most a year or two away throughout the infield; depth at catcher with Donaldson; and a growing array of outifeld talent. While the Mariners may pass us in 2010, by 2011 this will be a dynamic young team with a real chance to contend at the highest levels of the AL.
I really dig your screen name.....
JC was one smooth cat and I never get tired of listening to his records.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
amen to that...
"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 18, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions
If you see Carter as a DH, you are in good company....
As that seems to be the prevailing view. However, it is noted that he is suprisingly athletic for a man of his size. I think the A’s will- and should- push hard to assure that A) he plays a fielding position in his youthful years, and B) they don’t have to make a decision between Barton and Carter- unless one fails to develop.
There is a legitimite argument to be made about the potential loss of confidence stemming from relegating a young player to a DH role too early. As young players, there is an urge to be involved in as much of the game as possible. A loss of focus, and confidence, could result from the lack of involvement except for the 4+ times up to bat and 1-2 times they get on base.
I can draw from personal experiences as a D1 Lacrosse player who started for 4 years. My freshman and sophmore years I started on Attack- I fully understand if these terms are foreign- a position which has you on the field the entire game as an offense, only, player. As a result, I responded by playing well enough to make the conference all-rookie team, my freshman year, and lead the team in points, my sophmore year. But my junior year, I agreed to move to starting midfield because we were weak at the position and I was the type of player who could make the easiest transition- from a skillset standpoint. Due to the fact that midfield was a position that functioned in shifts- and I was not on the field the whole time- I lost focus because I had a hard time staying involved in the flow of the game. Subsequently, I lost confidence and my junior and senior seasons did not go as smoothly, from a production standpoint- even though, as I’ll admit, my potential as a midfielder might have been even greater had I learned how to cope, mentally, with playing that role.
While this example involves a different- more team oriented- sport and therefore is not completely apt; I hope it helps to underscore the importance of creating an environment, for these young players, which best fosters focus and confidence. Baseball- probably more than any other team sport- is a sport predicated on focus and confidence. So, for a player like Carter; if they feel he will not reach his offensive potential in a DH role stemming from possible negative mental factors due to a lack of involvement, it would be in their best interest to find a position- in the field- for him.
by casualinquisition on Dec 17, 2009 11:11 PM PST up reply actions
No one really knows what environment best fosters focus and confidence
Perhaps “not repeatedly hurting the team by making blunders that major league players are expected not to make” will increase focus and confidence.
At the very least, the idea of DHing him shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Yes and No...
Does anyone really have the exact formula for creating the kind of environment that best fosters confidence and focus? No… But are there general truisms, across sports, that can be applied and that are known to, more times than not, help a player avoid some of the mental pitfalls? Yes.
It takes a special type of player, from a mental standpoint, to be able to obtain an optimal focus level when he is a DH. Just like it takes a special type of focus level for someone to be a 6th man off the bench in the NBA- but still be expected to put up production, on par, with the starters.
The fact of the matter is that, ideally, every player should be judged and approached on a case by case basis and that just simply isn’t plausible given unexpected injuries and team needs at the major league level… But to say teams aren’t aware of what generally creates the best environment for a young player, from a mental development standpoint, is not true…
Cust, for example, was a player who- correct me if I’m wrong- hit better when he was playing in the OF than when he was simply DHing… Carter may have the right mindset to still hit at his optimal level regardless of whether or not he plays in the field. But don’t overlook the fact that the ability for someone to succeed in a specialized manner is a skill within itself- and is largely determined by their ability to maintain focus and confidence despite a reduced level of involvement in the game.
by casualinquisition on Dec 18, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
for the record
Cust career OPS splits:
*as LF = .802 (416 PA)
*as RF = .898 (433 PA)
*as DH = .821 (991 PA)
So he’s better as a RF, but worse as a LF. Not that it makes much difference for your point.
at first
I thought the difference would be that he played mostly DH/RF for Oakland and all his LF at-bats came with other clubs. But it turns out that most of his LF starts were 2007-08 with the A’s. So maybe the difference in OPS by position is significant.
Does anyone know a rule of thumb for how quickly OPS stabilizes as a function of number of PA?
Very slowly
It’s statistically significant at around 650, I think. But “stabilizes”? Most projections use at least 3 years’ worth of at-bats.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Not calculating here ----
but I have a very hard time believing that Cust’s differential between OF and DH is statistically significant. The OPS’s are too close to overcome the lack of PAs to support it.
The other problem is that being willing to play Cust in the OF probably lends some credence to the idea that the A’s really love the offensive matchup, so I’d guess you’d somewhat expect his stats to be a tad better there, anyway.
i'm not sure that's right...
i think it says more about getting another DH into the game than Cust. Since Cust typically plays everyday whether he’s a DH or OF, the odds seem to favor getting a right handed DH in there or to give someone else a day off. cust isn’t the wild card.
just my thought.
Thanks for the well thought out post
There’s little talk of McPherson lately, but wouldn’t he be ahead of Fox on the current “3B depth chart” due to his superior defensive ability?
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
Assuming he's healthy I think it would still be close
McPherson has put up much better defensive numbers at third than Fox but both have been subject to very small sample sizes so it’s hard to get an accurate gauge on how far apart they are. Add in the fact that McPherson has had such serious back problems, even if he’s healthy we don’t know how much his defensive ability has deteriorated.
On offense I think I would lean towards Fox mainly because he doesn’t strike out nearly as much as McPherson does. K’s aren’t everything but when you have two guys who don’t walk all that much but hit with power I’d bet on the guy who makes substantially more contact.
So even if McPherson shows up nice and healthy to spring training and manages to stay that way I think it would still be a battle for position on the depth chart.
The thing about McPherson is that
even while not putting up very good major league numbers overall he has slugged well (.458), and my recollection is that he was considered a solid defensive 3Bman — at least pre-many-surgeries.
Health is a big question mark for him, but if he were to be deemed healthy I would think McPherson had more to offer 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
He definitely has some serious power working for him
But Fox can put up some decent power numbers as well and my feeling is that even if he is slightly behind McPherson in raw power and about equal in walks he will likely put up better OBP and slugging because of his better contact rates. So I would give the offensive edge to Fox.
McPherson’s seemed to be able to put up a UZR/150 +10 or better but that was in small sample sizes a few vertebrae ago. If you believe McPherson is still able to be +5 or better on defense then I could see him being clearly above Fox, otherwise I think it could come down to who looks better this spring.
Admittedly, I intentionally disregarded McPherson for the purposes of this post...
I really liked the signing as a low-risk move that could yield a power bat who can play above-average defense- barring injury.
However, I am resigned to treating McPherson like Chavez when it comes to projecting future (2011-12) lineups. if he happens to be there- and has gotten over the injury bug- that’s great- but I’m not counting on it and, therefore, find it worthwhile to look into future options as if he doesn’t exist. kind of how we approach the abstract concept of Eric Chavez ever playing third base again. Too harsh…. Yes, but I just think it’s because I would rather be pleasantly suprised than crushed by the hands of false hope.
In regards to Fox, as I stated above, I think that trading away Wallace was, in part, an indication that the A’s did not want to sacrifice infield defense in order to fit a potential plus bat in the lineup. If that is the case, then I believe Beane will, subsequently, not consider Fox to be a possibility at 3B.
However, there is a flip side that I am very open to exploring. Again this is theoretical to which I have no basis- but is it possible that BB believes in Fox’s bat so much that he felt he could become, offensively, what he projected Wallace to become- while offering similarly mediocre defense at third?… If that were true- and I am not saying it is true or even rational- then Beane may have seen the Taylor trade as an opportunity to gain a potential plus bat in the OF.
I still believe it was that he wants competent defense across the diamond- but I wouldn’t discount the possibility that BB really believes in Fox’s bat.
by casualinquisition on Dec 17, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions
Arguelles has already signed, so that one won't fly...
I actually think it would (ideally) be time to stop drafting players for the current “wave” of prospects and instead start taking players for the next wave (we might call it the “Ynoa wave”). Subject, of course, to the caveat that if an older player is clearly better, then you take him and don’t worry about it.
But the A’s have enough prospects (hitting and pitching) in the upper minors and majors that the current team should be able to stand or fall on their success. If they fail, then a few additional picks won’t really change that. It’s time to work on rebuilding the low-minors rosters, which means spending those 2nd through 6th round picks mostly on HS picks (drafting high schoolers very rarely makes sense in the first round, so those picks can continue to be “best available player”). Those are the guys you expect to emerge around 2014, when guys like Sweeney and Suzuki have likely moved on.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
wow Noel to the Royals for 7 million/over 5 years....
I’ve been so busy with work the past couple of days so my only available time has been committed to soaking up every bit of information in regards to Taylor…
I completely agree with you, PT, in regards to shifting their focus to strengthening that “next wave” that should include Ynoa, Stassi, and hopeful other players like Dixon, Krol and Leyland.
My only question is that, given the fact that the A’s are picking- I believe 9th- in next years draft, do you think that a top rated college pitching prospect like, say, Drew Pomeranz from Ole Miss could come up through the minor leagues quick enough to become a significant contributor to “this” wave?
Past that, though, drafting to fortify the next wave of players is certainly the most logical strategic direction… and the one I am sure Beane will take.
by casualinquisition on Dec 17, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't take a low ceiling guy just because he'll get to the majors quickly. I didn't like
the Mike Minor pick for example.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 6:29 AM PST up reply actions
Wasn't much of a fan of it either, I have to admit
Is he actually better than Justin Marks? If so, why? And is the difference really two rounds’ worth of difference?
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
I agree with this.
Although drafting a lower ceiling pitcher can work sometimes as we saw with Blanton. He wasn’t supposed to be a frontline starter, but he was polished. The negative of such a pick is found in Simmons: another arm that could be “rushed”, but he doesn’t have the stuff to succeed in the upper pros. In the first round you have to go sure thing, but when you are in the later first round, you have to start thinking about higher ceiling guys.
I think when he was drafted
Blanton wasn’t that polished. IIRC, he was considered a power pitcher when he was drafted, hitting ~95 at times, his college stats aren’t that mind-blowing. Then around 2003 or 2004 he stared loosing velocity. I don’t know if it was expected that he’d become the epitome of an innings-eater type guy.
If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.
For a guy in the draft, Blanton was fairly polished.
In his final year at Kentucky, his K/9 jumped from 8.4 the previous year to 12, while his walk rate dropped to 3.3 from 5.7. Also, he had a pretty quick trip through the minors. After just a few starts in 2002, the year he was drafted, he skipped rookie ball and spent 2003 in Kane County, skipped Modesto (I think it was still Modesto, then) and Midland and spent 2004 in Sacto, had a cup off coffee with Oakland in September and was up in the bigs from then on.
I am, by no means, advocating selecting a lower ceiling pitcher...
Just because he has a chance to progress through the minors quickly. Minor is a great example of the flaw in that approach. Isn’t James Simmons another perfect example given his setbacks despite the fact that he was expected to progress quickly and fit into the back end of our rotation.
What I am trying to say, is at the 9th slot we might still have a chance to select a high ceiling- potential 1 or 2- college pitcher who could still contribute to the B. Anderson/ Cahill/ Braden staff… Hell if we drafted a college pitcher, they would probably be the same age as Cahill and Anderson. Given that next years draft class is expected to be pitcher heavy, I wanted to get a feel, from you guys, if you think it’s justified to hope for a high-ceiling college pitcher to be there at number 9 who could contribute in 2-3 years after being drafted…
by casualinquisition on Dec 18, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
We have a no. 10 pick, not no. 9
It’s too early to predict what will be available at no. 10 in June. A year ago, Grant Green was supposed to be a top 5 pick and he fell all the way to 13. It figures to be another pitcher-heavy draft, but my hunch is that they are not calling third base solved just because Cardenas will move there for time being. I think the organization would like to groom another third base prospect behind him, and someone like Zack Cox from Arkansas could be an option.
Again, I agree...
Personally, I feel that by the time Cox would come up, Cardenas will have already secured the 3B spot- if they didn’t already sign someone like Beltre…. But that’s just my thoughts and if you think that the A’s have an opportunity to land a high-ceiling college 3B- has Cox had back problems if I remember correctly?- and Cardenas is not the answer- I certainly can’t say you are wrong.
My main contention is that we should be focusing on that 2010 1st round pick, ideally, as the last prospect acquired via the draft who could help us contend within the time frame that the bulk of our top prospects are expected to be at the major league level… Whether that is a pitcher or a 3B or even a true CF- like Tyler Holt from FSU…
by casualinquisition on Dec 18, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
You do remember correctly
Cox hurt his back in a batting cage last winter, but I think he played through it. Some scouting reports I read make him sound like Wallace without weight/range issues, so he seems like a guy who could be a fast mover through the minors.
Our 3B prospect depth is now Cardenas and then nothing. And if, let’s say just for the sake of discussion, Weeks bombs and Cardenas has to move to 2B again, we are back at the drawing board. Sure, we could use another pitcher with high-ceiling potential who could join our rotation in time to pitch next to Anderson and Cahill, but unless organization absolutely feels that guy like that is available by the time we have our pick, I expect them to take a strong look at third base options first.
Again, it’s still very early, though. Guy like Cox could play his way both in top 5 and out of the first round altogether next spring.
Donaldson is probably the next 3B prospect after Cardenas
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
If Weeks bombs, they don't need to move Cardenas
They can just solve 2B instead of needing to solve 3B (by moving Cardenas).
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
Yeah, I was going to mention that about Weeks
I’d love for him to end up as the A’s 2B, but he’s nowhere near that level now. We don’t even know how well he’ll hold up to a full season at AA. An objective observer would probably say that the percentages are against him ending up as a good major-league starter.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
That's more or less true of any prospect
(It’s also why I keep clamoring for the A’s to sign a free agent like Beltre long-term for the infield. The odds of enough of the prospects working out, so that the team will actually have a good infield, without a free agent signing are surprisingly poor.)
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Right, though performance, age, and level help to form whether it's "more" or "less" in a particular case
I don’t think Weeks has put himself on a fast track to the majors the way Cardenas has so far, for instance. I think it’s reasonable to say that the A’s see Cardenas as the 3B of the future, even though there’s a very good chance he never plays well enough to hold the job. But I don’t think the A’s could be saying the same thing about Weeks — he just hasn’t proven nearly enough so far.
I’m feeling more positive about the notion of signing Beltre. When we still had Wallace, I thought it would create too many logjams. Now, I think Beltre on a 3-year deal would be a very good move. I’m worried about the Phillies (who are clearly going for it all in the next couple years) and the Red Sox, though.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
He's going to get at least four from somebody.
And good for them.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
in regards to Weeks...
The fact that he hasn’t been put on the fast track has largely been the result of loss of time due to injuries. When he has played he has displayed an all-around offensive game that, imo, suggests that he has an offensive ceiling higher than Cardenas.
But the injuries problem- while none taken individually are cause for concern- are a cause for concern in a collective sense. If he can avoid missing games next season due to injury and, subsequently, has a full season to put up numbers; I think you could see Weeks really break out and possibly be ready to step into a full time role by the early-to-mid 2011 season.
by casualinquisition on Dec 19, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not that worried about 2B for whatever reason, just because
there always seem to be reasonable 2B hanging around cheaply like Orlando Hudson and Felipe Lopez.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:26 PM PST up reply actions
Good post casualinquisition
I always appreciate the work some of you guys put into your posts.
I’ve read enough in the last couple of days to be excited by the Wallace for Taylor trade and I have high hopes for Taylor.
Of course many of these prospects will either be traded or never make it to the show so it’s hard to know what the future will hold but at least it sounds like there is some real talent in the A’s system.
I can tell you put a lot of time into this post
For that, I thank you.
However, I think you’re seriously underestimating Wallace’s offensive potential and while Cardenas’ hitting ability has been his strong suit in the minors you seem to place too much faith in his ability to hit 2nd in the line-up vs. someone like Sweeney. Keep in mind… I’m not a big fan of Sweeney when he’s in the batter’s box. But he doesn’t turn 25 until February so he’s still (conceivably) on the upward swing of the development path.
Heaven help me, I just defended Ryan Sweeney’s bat.
I’m unclear on one thing you brought up. You seem to think that the A’s traded Wallace because they weren’t willing to accept less-than-average defense at the hot corner. OK, I can see that. But if that’s your position, and Jake Fox isn’t an option at 3B, then who’s playing 3B for the A’s in 2010? We have no reason to assume that Cardenas will be ready by Opening Day and Eric Chavez is a ghost.
So who’s on 3rd?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I forgot the name of the Centerfielder...
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King
I love that skit.. those two are great
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Hu's on third?
Nothing like another unfounded rumor before going to sleep
by OaklandSi on Dec 17, 2009 10:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I like Hu's defense. They could do worse.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 6:28 AM PST up reply actions
Beltre
Unless Sabean signs him to a 5 year deal ( entirely possible because well, it’s Brian Sabean! ), the A’s now have one less team to worry about because the Red Sox dropped out of the bidding. Interesting…
I could see Beane making a serious play for Beltre on a 3 year deal for about 24-27 million, especially with Chavez coming of the books next year. But like I said in another thread, I also want to see Beane pick up another vet starter, at this point my vote is for Joel Pinero~
On the Chris Carter thing, I’m thinking he starts off his early years in LF and shifting to DH later on down the line. Man, if Grant Desme ever puts it all together, can fucking imagine that outfield?
Carter LF
Desme CF
Taylor RF
A’s fans…..drool………
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
"Can you imagine"....
See, I started getting all excited just by the thought of that outfield!
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
and in regards to Beltre....
well I am on the fence about whether this is in the best long term interest for the A’s, I do think that the Wallace trade clears the way for a Beltre signing.
by casualinquisition on Dec 17, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
Do you think...
BB is just waiting, one more time out of shear loyalty only, to see if Chavy can make it and if he can’t, only then will he shoot for another 3B. BB already said publicly that he will be the starting third baseman. So, I could see BB not going after Beltre, or any other big name no doubt 3B, just so he won’t be saying to Chavy he doesn’t think he can man third this year. Ya know, trying to be nice to his good friend and all. I know the fans don’t want to see that, but could that or something like it be happening?
Ooo! Piece of candy!
by ChickenStanley on Dec 18, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions
No, I don't think that.
Beane loves Chavvy, but he’s not making room for him any more.
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
Good
Then bring on the third baseman
Ooo! Piece of candy!
by ChickenStanley on Dec 18, 2009 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
When did the Red Sox drop out of the Beltre bidding?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 6:30 AM PST up reply actions
That outfield had better hit like 100 home runs a season
because it would be easily the worst defensive outfield in the major leagues… unless the Mets put Jason Bay in center field or something.
If we’re going to Jessica Alba-level extremes of rosterbation, I’d have Brown in center, Desme in left and Taylor in right, with Carter at DH. The odds of all four of those guys working out are less than the odds of me working out at the gym at 4 am on a Saturday, of course.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Jessica Alba and rosterbation in the same sentence....
You da’ man!
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
Sort of like Ben Grieve, Terrence Long, and Matt Stairs.
Of course, that outfield made the playoffs and gave the Yankees everything they could have wanted in a five game series.
It’s awfully presumptive and hyperbolic to assume that three very good athletes would “easily be the worst defensive outfield in the major leagues.” They all have good wheels, and at least two of them have good arms.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Meh
Who’s worse? The Royals? Maybe Colorado, on account of the fact that Brad Hawpe is just THAT bad?
I’m really bearish on Carter’s defensive ability. He has never displayed even the slightest scrap of talent at it anywhere, at any position, in his career.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
The current White Sox outfield isn't anything special
I guess it’s Pierre, Rios, and Quentin, but Rios being bad (not out of the realm of possibility) means it’s Pierre, Kotsay, Quentin or Jones, Pierre, Quentin. None of those are particularly inspiring.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 19, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions
As long as we don't trade them for younger and cheaper prospects in 2-3 years, sure.
Yes, I’m cynical.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
at grover....
I would agree with you that my post might have painted Wallace as the inferior hitting prospect when really it is incorrect to say- based on their respective minor league stats- that one prospect is superior, offensively, to the other.
For some reason- and honestly I don’t know why I keep saying this to myself when I really do like Wallace’s potential offensively- I had this expectation that Wallace (like Barton and Sweeney) might fail to produce 15-20 HR type power due to playing in the Coliseum. Again, I am not saying this expectation is warranted and Wallace has certainly proven to put up better HR totals in the minors than Barton or Sweeney- but it’s just an expectation (rationally or irrationally) I can’t shake… Taylor could come up and have the same type of power struggle in the coli, as Wallace could have potentially had- but there is just something about 6’6 250+ that gives you a little more assurance that he will fulfill his power potential- even in a ballpark that is not conducive to reaching one’s power potential.
- Fully agree Sweeney is still on the upward swing, offensively. But, we have the potential to build a very strong offensive team in which case a potentially strong, all-around, hitter like sweeney might get bumped to the 6-9 hole- especially if he doesn’t develop at least 15+ HR power.
- Admittedly, the intented purpose of my post was not to address the 2010 season specifically. Through inference/ deductive reasoning/ what-have-you I guess you can assume I feel the A’s should get a one-year stopgap player (which I do)- if McPherson is not that player already- who can play solid defense and, if possible, offer some positive production offensively. But the main purpose of my post was to address how things might shake out a season from now (2011 and beyond)- which could be around the time Cardenas is ready. I should have been more clear in the title about this….
by casualinquisition on Dec 17, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Do not know why that first line got crossed out....
But don’t disregard it…
by casualinquisition on Dec 17, 2009 11:52 PM PST up reply actions
I think one of the biggest reasons why they may have made the trade
is simple; trading a Lefty for a Righty. As we all know, the A’s have tendency to be extremely lefty heavy, as that is the type of guy they draft, and even if you look down below, you will see a slew of lefty hitters. We needed more righty hitters, and we got one.
Don't believe in yourself.
Believe in Me who believes in You.
This trend hasn't started with this trade
If you read Beane’s interviews, he’s been talking about getting more right-handed hitters, specifically more right-handed hitters that project power for quite some time. For example, he insisted on Chris Carter when Arizona was offering Emilio Bonifacio as the last man in the Haren trade because of that, even though Carter at the time was a 21-year old stuck in Single-A ball without an obvious position to play (by the way, happy 23rd birthday Chris).
Also, right-handed hitting players have been popping out in other trades and in draft – so I wouldn’t say our prospect depth chart is dominated by left-handers anymore. You have Carter, Taylor, Cunningham, Desme, Donaldson, 2009 draftees Green and Stassi, all RHH.
Good point
Perhaps RH power hitters are the new market inefficiency?
I think the new market inefficiency is people saying things are the new market inefficiency!
"[Sabean] said Kevin Pucetas maintains some value on the trade market, which they take as a positive sign that he’d be a productive option."
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 19, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
Nice job casualinquisition!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
Send it to Baseball america
I am tired of reading how they rate the A’s minor leagues near the bottom of the team minor league ratings. I see more potential then year before with the A’s minor leaguers. BA does not rate Chris Carter as high as they should but don’t give me that knock he is a DH when the yanks catching prospect will be ranked higher and he can’t play anywhere on the field. Thats my rant for the day.
Hmmm....Montero is supposed to have fewer holes in his swing, but Carter certainly has his
upside. I’d trade Carter for Montero.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:28 PM PST up reply actions
"wide ranging opinions"
It’s taken me a long time to get caught up on the zillions of posts since this trade was first rumored, but one thing that has struck me is that throughout all of them, no one is against this trade. The opinions on AN have ranged from “I was surprised, but on reflection I think I like this” to “OMG this is so awesome!” Among the thousands of comments, I didn’t see a single one saying “I think this is a bad trade.”
That’s really unusual. Typically, even with a great trade there’s always someone who is against it. What’s going on here? Is this trade really so amazingly awesome that no one could possible oppose it? In what I’ve seen from the non A’s-centric analysts out there, they aren’t nearly as enthusiastic as AN is. They do seem to mostly like the trade, but only mildly, and I haven’t heard them saying Beane totally swindled Toronto.
I knew absolutely nothing about Michael Taylor before this week. I don’t doubt that he’s good, but I wonder if right now AN is going a little overboard about him.
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
SNTS?
There’s some of that going on, no doubt.
And no, Beane didn’t swindle Toronto but where is it written that the only good trades are the one that makes the other GM look like a chump? The A’s gave up talent to get talent, with the hope being that Taylor’s strong all around game will compensate for the potential plus bat they’re giving up in Wallace.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I haven't seen general analysts say
it was awesome for both sides either. They seem to be mildly positive but not very excited about it.
And I think that’s probably about right. It’s just strange because a lot of trades are mildly good for us but still draw a whole lot of complaints from a minority on AN.
What surprises me about the reaction on AN is not the enthusiasm (which is not extraordinary) but the unanimity of it (which is).
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
It's almost Christmas
I find it refreshing that so many can agree and get along… if only for a short time.
The monster at the end of this blog.
So now BB will trade Hairston, Patterson and Simmons to the NATs for Zimmerman?
I am dreaming of a wonderful Christmas!
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Wow...talk about a swindle...
"To tell the truth, I'm not excited to go to Cleveland, but we have to. If I ever saw myself saying I'm excited going to Cleveland, I'd punch myself in the face, because I'm lying" - Ichiro
by Philip Christy on Dec 18, 2009 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
Allow me a moment of bitterness
The chance to trade for Zimmerman existed… if it ever did… about 16 months ago.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Sorry to bring up painful memories
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Too bad the Nats didn't agree to the grover proposal
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:29 PM PST up reply actions
To Hell with the Nats...
AN thought I was nuts for liking the guy enough to pursue him heavily!
The monster at the end of this blog.
Really? Why don't I better remember this?
Because I’m all for a Zimmerman acquisition, even 16 months ago.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 19, 2009 9:16 AM PST up reply actions
Paul's comment below breaks down the unanimity pretty accurately
As far as the trade itself goes, I’ve read in a couple places that once the pieces started coming together on the Halladay-Lee deals, Toronto proposed the Taylor-Wallace swap to Oakland – but Beane didn’t actually agree to the deal for a couple weeks.
Now there are a few reasons why this could have happened (e.g., Oakland needed time to figure out what their long-term 3B plan would be without Wallace, they wanted to do a bigger, more complicated deal with Toronto involving other players, Taylor made fun of UC San Diego within Beane’s earshot). The bottom line is, though, that it wasn’t this slam-dunk deal that Beane said yes to before Anthopoulos finished speaking. Wallace is a real talent, and I think the odds are only 65-35 that the A’s have made the right choice. Good odds, but not unquestionable.
I think there is a "OK, I like that" attitude
Where people are necessarily saying “This is the BEST trade of all time!” because that would minimize the package we gave up, but I do believe most, if not all, are in favor of this trade because Taylor has the same capabilities, if not more than Wallace and he fits a position that is somewhat needed in the future. I think the OMG this is awesome comes from the prospect of having the Twin Towers in the middle of our lineup!
You think Islamic fundamentalist terrorists will crash into the middle of the A's lineup?
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
That's what its going to take
to stop our Green Machine!
No, a little French guy is going to tightrope walk between our 3 adn 4 hitters
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
More likely it will be an inside job which includes the planting of bombs by Lew Wolff
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Dec 18, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
Larry Davis & Clarence Cockrell. One right after the other kamakaze style
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
Number of factors:
1. It doesn’t involve a major leaguer on either side, so it implicates neither the “I hate rentals” crew nor the “rebuilding is just short of onanism on the scale of sinning” types.
2. The A’s traded away the more stereotypically “Moneyball-ish” player, so it doesn’t implicate the “OMGZ TOOLZ R EVERYTHING BEAN HAZ NO CLU!!!1” types.
3. It’s one for one, so it can’t be called a trade for quantity over quality or a trade that destroys depth.
It’s basically the easiest kind of trade to evaluate. All that you need to know is the respective skill-sets and track records of the players— it’s not mixed in with any considerations about service time, salary levels, linear vs. exponential conceptions of the value of WAR, or any of that.
Incidentally, the reason that this kind of trade almost never happens is that GMs are (reasonably) afraid of this kind of transparency in their moves. It’s a lot easier to judge than most deals.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
by PaulThomas on Dec 18, 2009 8:59 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
That's a really good analysis.
Especially #1. Thanks.
As for the final comment, maybe the way it was tied into the “four-way” trade will help hide it, at least from Toronto’s side. They might hear a little bit of “why didn’t we just keep Taylor?”, but since he was never really in the system it’s easier to just see Wallace as part of the whole Halladay trade from their side.
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
Paul, I completely agree with you on your analysis...
especially on the transparency aspect as to why this one-for-one deal rarely happens…
I would also contend that Minor League Analysts are cautious about favoring this trade for one side or the other. In the one-for-one format Analysts can’t hide behind safety net comments like well I liked the secondary pieces more even though the best player went to the other team. In this situation, Both GM’s- AA and BB- have simply said I like your guy better than mine and you like my guy better than your’s- so lets make a deal.
Minor league analysts, like Keith Law, who are usually overly opinionated about trades were relatively on the fence about who won the trade because they (again, just speculating) don’t want to risk giving high praise to one side of the deal- only to see the other side get the better player. As paul mentioned the concept of transparency in regards to GM’s and trades. Analysts may not like sticking their next out as to gut-reactions on who won this trade because it will be judged by us, solely, as them saying they like one player over the other- and not because one offers a cheaper option or has more years of service time, etc. etc.
by casualinquisition on Dec 18, 2009 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
I could be that
Taylor is a type of player this team hasn’t seen in many years. A player that won’t just hit well (which still would be great), but really be exciting to watch. Who doesn’t love that?
Ooo! Piece of candy!
by ChickenStanley on Dec 18, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
You don't think Brett Anderson is really exciting to watch?
If you can get past the ‘looking like a guppy’ aspect
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.
Brett Anderson is more conceptually exciting than exciting in execution
I’d actually posit that Gio Gonzalez is the most “exciting” A’s pitching prospect, because he has the plus-plus curve and high whiff rate. He also has the whole could-get-Steve-Blass-Disease-anytime air of danger about him…
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
When Gio is on, he is fantastic and maybe the 4 top (in my book) pitchers of Anderson, Cahill, Mazzaro and Gio
combined with the Power of Taylor and Carter can fill the seats again. That , to me, is an exciting vision.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
I think excitement is a pretty subjective thing
But yes, Gio is also fun to watch
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.
It could be easy to get excited about him
if he had like 4 pitches in his arsenal.
Especially as a starter.
Hopefully his change improves to go along with the curve and the fastball as it seems the fastball is very hittable when the curve is not on.
Anyway, we have quite a few exciting young players to look forward to next season.
Bring it on!!!!!
I find Henry really exciting, but he's not always effective.
And he can be cringeworthy.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions
I'm on board with this.
Gio is definitely my favorite pitcher to “watch” (more often “listen”), and yes, the fact that he could get lit up at any time is part of the fun.
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
Dont Forget the excitement of
looking for his “crazy eyes” and strait-jacket worthy nervous behavior on the mound, usually right before a hit-fest rally for the opposing team.
Good analysis.
I think this trade will have a ripple effect for the coming several seasons. For 2010:
-I think Chavez will most likely get the majority of the at-bats at DH for the A’s in 2010 and won’t be pushed to man 3rd base for any considerable length of time, especially if he shows up to ST and starts hurting even a little bit. Jettisoning Cust indicated that this might be the plan all along. Why pay $4 million for Cust AND $12 million for Chavez, when Chavvy could theoretically offer similar production and is a sunk cost?
- I actually do think Jake Fox will get some reps at 3rd base this season, especially against left-handers. Maybe we’ll see a McPherson/Fox platoon at 3rd?
- I think that Hairston, Buck and Cunningham (if they aren’t traded beforehand) will all get one shot early next season to make an impression with the team and audition for other teams, and if they fail, they will be banished, likely forever and replaced by Taylor.
- I think 2010 will be critical for Sean Doolittle. His injury last year was really unfortunate, but if he doesn’t came out swinging next year and stay healthy and/or prove he can be an above-average corner outfielder with power, then I see him getting squeezed out of the equation, with Sweeney being the preferred choice at RF for the medium-term due to defense and Barton/Carter at 1st, depending on who has a better year, offense and defense included.
For 2011:
- I think the A’s will try to give Carter some exposure to playing in the field in late 2010 and 2011, likely in LF and/or 1B. However, I agree with PT that the team shouldn’t be concerned that making him a full-time DH early in his career would be an absolute non-starter as an idea. In any case, there is no way I would even “pencil” him into a long-term spot in the corner outfield.
- I hope Corey Brown can stay healthy and cut-it as a center-fielder and arrive by 2011. I’m not thrilled with the idea of Sweeney manning center for the seasons where this team is supposed to be really competitive, and Desme profiles best in a corner spot. If Rajai builds off his second-half of ’09 and puts together a solid offensive 2010 along with his typical strong defense, do you think the team would entertain the idea of keeping him all year and into 2011, or is he just perfect trade fodder in that circumstance?
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
RE: Rajai Davis
I think it depends on the development of guys like Brown-Desme. I have no problem with Sweeney being the CF for a short period of time, if need be, while one of the other kids is being groomed for the big leagues. There are worse guys that you could put out in CF than Sweeney, even though he’s much better in RF.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
First time some GM makes a serious offer for Rajai
He’s gone. That’s my impression at least.
Chavez is projected by CHONE to be about 3 runs below average in a full season of at-bats
At DH, that’s replacement level. He’s as likely to actively hurt the team as help it. That makes him a complete nullity at the position. Sunk costs don’t apply— that’s just throwing good money (or in this case good plate appearances) after bad.
I’m frankly just hoping that the poor market leads Cust to return to Oakland.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
James has Chavez at .249/.332/.448
I realize that James is often wildly optimistic on his projections, but I think Chavez is plenty capable of putting up a line like that, especially if it’s true that he feels no pain while batting and is kept off the field and facing mostly righties (with Fox/Hairston caddying against lefties, perhaps?)
I do mostly agree about Cust…I mean, if the market forces him to accept even the $2.8 million he made last season, you’d have to think he’s worthy of a roster spot.
I'm never gonna do it without the fez on!
You said that about Cust
And it makes total sense to me now that he’s not going to re-sign with us. With Fox and McPherson handling 3B and maybe one of Petit/Pennington learning 3rd to play there in a pinch, there’s no room for Cust as a DH if you say Chavez is going to be it.
Of course, we have to assume injuries pile on, so something will change. But there have never been a shortage of guys who can DH.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Dec 18, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
If James is always wildly optimistic on his projections,
wouldn’t you think a stat-loving, accuracy-seeking guy like Bill James would adjust his projections if they consistently fell short on the same side of the ledger?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You would
However, after doing a bit of research, you would then find out that those projections are no more “by” Bill James than the jar of cookies on my kitchen counter is baked “by” Sara Lee.
It’s some kind of licensing dealio.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
I'd take Cust back only if they failed to sign Beltre and Chapman
OK I’d take him back even if they signed Beltre and Chapman, but I’d excuse his absence if they claimed to use his money to sign those guys.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:33 PM PST up reply actions
Mariners just acquired Milton Bradley for Carlos Silva
So with him and Griffey, there’s another team that’s most likely not looking for DHs anymore. Cust’s comeback became a bit more likely.
On a side note, Jack Zduriencik is on a serious King Midas streak. I don’t care how crazy Bradley is, he will be more productive than Silva.
It's incredible
They don’t have a single bad contract there anymore. Not even one. He’s gotten rid of the entire Bavasi legacy in 12 months. It’s like Hercules cleaning the Augean stables.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
one could argue the Bradley contract isn't that great
but it’s quite a bit better than the SIlva contract is.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
He's actually a useful player though
He probably won’t be worth quite the dollar value of what he’s getting paid, but at least he’s likely to provide wins for the team.
Especially since he’ll now be playing 38 games a year against teams that he formerly played for… wait, he also played for Cleveland, so more like 47 games… he always seems to hit his best when he’s pissed off at something…
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
There's also the fact that Bradley often does well his first year with a new team
He wears out his welcome eventually, but I wouldn’t be stunned if he had a solid 2010 season for Seattle.
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
But then he'll decide he's found a home and want a long term deal to play 92 games per year
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:34 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah it's a real downer
The AL West is going to be one hell of a competitive division in the next 5 or so years.
we in the losin baseball binness. and cousin, binness is a boomin.
by walk off bunt on Dec 18, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
Longer than that. Anaheim and Seattle have excellent ownership.
Texas has an excellent farm. Oakland is awesome in its own way.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:36 PM PST up reply actions
To be fair, he did have to take on Bradley's entire contract AND he's paying $9 million of Silva's deal
I actually think he gave the Cubs too much. Had he held out a month longer, I think he gets Bradley for Silva straight up. I don’t think Tampa or Texas were going to change their offers.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 18, 2009 4:51 PM PST up reply actions
I think getting rid of Silva before anyone changes their minds is always a good idea
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:36 PM PST up reply actions
Silva's contract was $3m more than Bradley's.
So essentially he just cut Silva and signed Bradley to a 2yr/$6m deal. Which half of that does anyone disagree with?
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
While I'm not big on team chemistry
Bradley is one guy who really just might not be worth the headache. When Jim Hendry announced to the Cubs that he had suspended Bradley, there was a spontaneous standing ovation.
Getting rid of Silva is obviously a good move, but I do think the M’s could’ve made this deal without kicking in the money. The Cubs were so, so desperate – they could NOT bring Bradley with them to Spring Training – that I think another week or two and the deal is made straight up.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 19, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
I don't think the Cubs would do it straight up
I think they would rather just release Bradley and eat the contract than take on an additional $6M for Carlos Silva. The Cubs appear to have very little payroll flexibility and if the choice is pay all of Bradley salary for him not to be there or pay all of his salary plus $6M more for him not to be there and have Carlos Silva in middle relief they would choose option A.
Z has officially deposed BB as king of the fucking-A trade.
Not only that, but he’s even taken over as the best-looking GM in baseball.
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
I know he used to be good-looking but
what has he done for you lately?
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
Is he giving us the De Niro "are you talkin' to me" look?
Is that what he’s going to give Bradley when he blows up in the clubhouse?
What about Vlad Guerrero?
I think he could be a good right handed bad, and we can get him on the cheap. I see him signing late, much like Bobby Abreu. He could split time with Fox and Powell at the DH spot. Would also be a great pinch hitter off of the bench, as he always puts the ball in play.
You want 2 RH DH's plus Powell?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 18, 2009 8:37 PM PST up reply actions
I'd rather just see what Fox is capable of, to be honest
There’s not much to be gained by signing ancient, almost-out-of-gas players when there are younger (and similarly good) alternatives available.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Sounds kind of like why the A's non-tendered Jack Cust.
Odds are very good that Jake Fox will put up a .705 OPS next year, with significantly better defensive value, to boot.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Or Cunningham, Barton...take your pick of people that aren't named Cust.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Cust is neither ancient nor almost out of gas
and there are no similar alternatives available.
How are these situations similar again?
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Cust does have old player skills
Richie Sexson collapsed at around the age Cust is now. Looking through Cust’s similar batters on BBRef one sees quite a few players who collapsed.
Although I do tend to agree that Cust is way more likely to be the best hitter on the A’s than any other current player in the projected lineup.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
All I'm saying is that Fox (or Cunningham, or whomever)
are younger, and likely to put up a .705 OPS.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Sorry, don't know why I keep getting the number wrong.
105 OPS+. Need more coffee.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
CHONE projects Cust as 16 runs better than Fox and 24 runs better than Cunningham
The notion that they represent similar alternatives is outrageous.
BTW, Guerrero is projected at 10 runs worse than Cust.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Actually 9
Cust’s projection seems to have changed slightly now that he’s got a generic projection rather than one specifically for Oakland.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
I really don't see Cunningham being 8 runs worse than Fox given a full year of at bats
But I agree with the rest of it. Cust is a better hitter than all of these guys.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 19, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions
Depends on how much you trust the predictive stats.
Since they are very frequently wrong, it’s not outrageous to make a judgment call about what you think Cust will do next year. I don’t think he will be much different than he was last year, and what he did last year with the bat wasn’t a lot better than what Fox did (96 v 105 OPS+). Since Fox is three years younger and can actually play the outfield, I don’t see how they lose too much.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Dec 19, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What makes you say Fox can actually play the outfield?
He’s been a minus defender basically every position he’s ever played.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Based on the pickup softball games I've seen,
pretty much anyone can play the OF. And the 2Bman has a ginormous beer belly. And the catcher is borderline drunk.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
So you've seen me play?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Yeah, you were supposed to block the plate, not the sun.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
He's been a slightly below average fielder.
Not an incomprehensible disaster. He has to do practically nothing to be more valuable than Cust detensively.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
