The case for Adrian Beltre
by PL78 on Dec 26, 2009 12:36 PM PST
Email
PrintTo me, Beltre looks like the best FA option we have seen for us in years (knock on wood!). In this post I am going to try and exhaust as many positives I can out of it while addressing some of the negatives.
Firstly, can we compare what Beltre did in Seattle with what we had? Im just going to use WAR because its quick and easy. Here's the year, Beltre's WAR, our 3B WAR:
2005 2.5 4.3
2006 4.6 3.6
2007 3.0 2.4
2008 4.1 1.4
2009 2.4 2.2
That's 16.6 from Beltre vs 13.9 made up of (a declining) Chavez, Hannahan and Kennedy. So if we had Beltre all along, we would have had better production than we did. He's available now, so lets go get him...
Depending on the years Beltre gets (its safe to assume he's not going to get 5 years from anyone, he would have gotten that offer already) whoever gets him is paying for his age 31-33 or 34 seasons, which isn't bad when the alternatives are Adam Kennedy and Joe Crede. Beltre is actually not showing any signs of declining and has remained an excellently consistent defender (despite randomly UZR not liking his 07 campaign - one of the reasons why I dislike that metric) that's the main headline when dealing with him, you're getting a top 5 defensive 3B in the game. Its his hitting that embattled him to the media, and frustrated him to his fans.
Offensively, Beltre clearly did not enjoy hitting at Safeco, his lifetime OPS of 713 there is evidence of that, but he still remained a somewhat productive hitter anyway thanks to his road splits. Sadly, if he cant hit in Seattle, we can't really expect him to set the world on fire in Oakland, but what can we expect? I assume hitting coaches will have to get involved to show him the ropes of how the best way to hit in Oakland is (by the way, anyone else infuriated that we let a guy who hit a career 926 OPS at the Net simply walk away? I reallllllly hope we bring Cust back to DH, guys who thrive in Oakland are hard to come by), but I honestly cannot answer that, its the risk we take in bringing him on. You can always check out this article about Beltre's bat away from Safeco, but honestly he's not being brought here for his hitting, and people simply have to recognize that his 2004 season was just "Brady Andersoned" out.
People seem to be concerned about what his agents are saying about what he wants, money wise, and how its not within Oakland's means to pay him. But this is all silly season (they call it "the hot stove") nonsense. I'm sure Beltre really would like a 5/75 MM contract, Im sure most players would. He's not going to get that though, but where do you draw the line? What's the maximum amount of money and years do you think is wise to pay him? Keep in mind a 34 year old Beltre will most likely outproduce a 33 year old Adam Kennedy (what we just endured) and that Chavez's and Ellis's contracts are off the table at the end of 2010. We will have money to spend, with not a ton of places to spend it on (thank you, excellent farm system). Really 3B and SS are the only non-pitching viable places we can spend money. We arent buying any OF, 2B, C or 1B anytime soon, so lets grab the best possible option we can while we can. Obviously, when buying any Free Agent, history shows that deals under 3 years are the least risky ones, so I'm sure we all can agree that if we read tomorrow "Beltre signs for 3 years with Oakland!" we are all doing our own little happy dances. 4 years still isnt too bad, just because like I mentioned, I'd put money on a 34 year old Beltre outproducing a 33 year old Adam Kennedy, but how much money to you want to put down on him? Obviously you want the least possible amount, which honestly should be about $8MM in this market. Fangraph's dollar value averaged him out at $13MM a year his entire Seattle deal, so fairly you would assume somewhere in between 8-12 per year, lets call it $10MM? Im thinking the talks start at 3/30 with maybe a club option? Are there any teams out there who are going to blow that out of the water? And how much more is Beane willing to go from there?
Beltre is simply the best option available out there for this year and even next (apologies to the Inge-amaniacs out there). If Beane is truly trying to play to his strength (supporting the young pitching by having excellent defense) then you can bet your bottom dollar that Adrian will have an offer sheet printed on green and gold stationary headed his way very soon. When it does, that feeling you will have in your stomach is called "relief".
588 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think starting talks at 3/30 is idiotic
I agree it could come to that, but if you start talks there you’re very easily going to be bidding against yourself (something Boras is very good at making teams do)…
"Did you know you can comment on Athletics Nation from your phone or PDA? SB Nation has launched mobile commenting. Check it out next time you’re at the game or bar and have something to say."
That's fair
Otherwise, good post.
"Did you know you can comment on Athletics Nation from your phone or PDA? SB Nation has launched mobile commenting. Check it out next time you’re at the game or bar and have something to say."
by stranahanahan on Dec 26, 2009 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
That’s 16.6 from Beltre vs 13.9 made up of (a declining) Chavez, Hannahan and Kennedy.
wait, are we supposed to be impressed that he barely outperformed whatever garbage the a’s were throwing out there at 3b?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Dec 26, 2009 12:51 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
1) if trash can already get you to around ~2.4 WAR a year, how much is that extra ~1 WAR worth?
2) 31-34 year old beltre almost certainly will not be as good as 26-30 year old beltre, so why do you expect him to still be worth 3.3 WAR a year?
3) if they pay beltre $30 m, the a’s are far less likely to replace him if he stinks, which would not be the case with hannahan/kennedy/mcpherson/fox types.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Look at 2008. That’s more the difference that we are looking at, not 09.
31-34 isnt going to be that huge of a regression, 32 is hardly past a prime, in fact its in the middle of it. Its not like he’s 35 or 37 or anything, its perfectly fine to think that he will be at least a 3.3 WAR player over 3 years. In fact, the projections at fangraphs have him at 4.2 for next year. His ceiling from age 31-34 years is at least that, if not 5 or so.
32 is absolutely, categorically, NOT in the middle of a player's prime
It’s a good 4-5 years past the typical prime. This is something that there’s really no debating. A number of studies have looked at the entire history of baseball. Players are at their best at 27-28, not 32.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
You think a players prime is 2 years?
That’s insane.
25-35 is normally where I’d say 90% of players are in some kind of a prime.
You are just absolutely, categorically wrong here.
I'd say that 0 to150 is where 100% of players are in their prime.
See the problem?
Baseball primes tend to fall between 27 and 28 for most players. That’s not saying they’re not good before and after, but it’s pretty much a scientific fact that baseball players peak at 27-28.
Your day breaks, your mind aches.
You find that all her words of kindness linger on
when she no longer needs you.
by danmerqury on Dec 26, 2009 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, it's not insane. The vast majority of players have their best years then
You can call it 26-29 if that would make you feel better. Either way, 32 is well past a typical player’s prime, and it’s not a good idea to expect a player to be atypical.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions
This "prime" debate suffers from a lack of completeness
Batters typically “peak” at 27 (or 26, if they have several years of MLB experience). Power generally grows from age 24 to age 29, and can hold steady for a period after age 30. Speed and batting average generally drop when players reach 30, but (good) veteran hitters also tend to develop better batting eyes in their 30s.
There are a number of 3B’s who have played well into their 30s; exhibited good power, and plate patience well past their so-called prime (27-29).
My problem with Beltre is that he’s not a selective hitter, and THOSE types of hitters tend to decline quickly (i.e, the hitters with no patience and declining bat speed). I can’t see Beltre ever putting up 25-30 HRs again (like he did in 2007 and 2008), and if we’re only getting a 15-20 HR Beltre with a plummeting BA and worse than average on-base skills, why would we bother sinking $10 million a year into that?
I’d rather pay the stank we got to stank it up, than pay $10 million more for even more stank.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 27, 2009 10:07 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Okay
rec’d because thats the kind of answer I was looking for.
My reply would be: its his defense we are paying for, and he’s worth every penny for that. The massive upgrade he provides defensively makes up for his “slightly better hitter than Pedro Feliz!” bat.
Which 3Bs are you talking about, specifically?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Chipper Jones...
… would be an example.
He showed a great deal of power growth from age 24 to age 29; he arguably “peaked” from age 27 through age 29, but, he carried 25-30 HR power through his early 30’s, AND showed an amazing batting eye all during his 30’s (Chipper was 37 years old last year and has played 16 seasons; in those 16 seasons, he’s had a 400+ OBP ten times; six of those ten seasons came after he turned 30 years old).
If I can think of others, I shall do so…
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 28, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
okay, so a probable hall of famer is your first example...
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
What's your point?
If you’re arguing that there’s no chance Beltre can put up decent offensive numbers into his 30’s, then just say that. I’d probably agree with you.
If you’re arguing no 3B can put up decent offensive numbers into his 30’s, then say THAT. On that one, I’d probably disagree with you (see, Chipper Jones).
All I meant with my post is that it’s become all too typical for people to simply say, “he’s past his prime because he’s 31.” Players develop differently; hitters with good batting eyes don’t drop off as quickly as hackers; power tends to hold better than batting average over time. If you want to debate any of those particular points, I’m open to debating them. If you want to find other 3B’s who have (or have not) continued to produce into their 30’s, you are free to peruse Baseball-Reference.com to your heart’s content.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 28, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not the one who made that claim, you are.
I’m just trying to figure out the point you’re making. Beltre has only had two bad years with the bat since his ungodly 2004, and those seasons were 2005 (which I think is what’s caused him to be labeled as a bust for his Seattle contract) and last year when he was hurt.
Whether or not he can still be a productive player into his age 34 season doesn’t really have anything to do with the fact that Chipper Jones is ridiculously awesome. Jones is an exception to the rule, not a normal player.
Still, none of this has anything to do with the fact that it’s been proven that players are pretty much at their peak at age 27-28. How long they maintain that, and how quickly they decline, that can probably be debated, and there are always the freakish outliers, but it’s usually safe to assume that a guy on the wrong side of 30 is probably not going to get a hell of a lot better in the coming years. He might not get worse, either, though.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Fair enough
Now, if you go back to my original message, you’ll see the point I was trying to make had nothing to do with whether Beltre (or any particular 3B) would find sustained offensive success in his 30’s. The point of my message was that the “prime” debate needs to be more complete than the simple statement: “Players are pretty much at their peak age at age 27-28.”
Different offensive skills peak at different ages, and some skills (power, batting eye) withstand the test of time better than others (batting average, speed). So, simply saying “Player X is past his ‘prime’ because he’s 30 years old,” while generally true, in fact, tells us very little.
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with anything that’s been said, I just wanted to provide a little more information for the “when players reach their peak” debate…
"It is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness which the nature of the particular subject admits." - The Not Big Aristotle
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 28, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
I peaked as a bseball player when I was 6
does that make me a freakish outlier?
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury
Actually, there is some debate about pushing that 27-28 back to 29-30...
Either way, Beltre is past both benchmarks.
And it’s not like you’re arguing that a 32 year old player can’t be productive, just that he’s no longer in his prime.
The monster at the end of this blog.
In any event, if he promises to stay 32 for several years
I’m more interested than I thought I was.
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 Dec 26, 2009 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That "debate" was started by JC Bradbury
He’s the guy who thinks Jeff Franceour was worth $11 million just because he’s a living, breathing baseball player.
His methods for determining player prime was done by, I think, looking at players who were really good players at 35 and backtracking to see when they were best or something ridiculous. He basically excluded a whole bunch of players, players who should absolutely be part of the sample.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 8:25 PM PST up reply actions
that is some top notch science right there
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Yeah, though I did simplify it because I didn't care to look it up again
But he basically proved that guys who were pretty good at 35 were really awesome at 29.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions
So then all we need to do is to
find some players who are 35 and pretty good, and then sign them when they’re 29!
It was Cindi’s idea.
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
Hey, this is what Kenny Williams tried to do this year
And won’t we all feel stupid when January 1 comes and it’s somehow 2000 again.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 11:57 PM PST up reply actions
Damn Y2K bug!
"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 27, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
Whoa, wait just a minute.
There was actually a very interesting debate, between Bradbury and Phil Birnbaum, which went into quite a bit of excellent detail about the methodology of trying to measure peak age for a hitter. I gather you side with Birnbaum on the question, as indeed so do I, and so does most of the sabermetric community. Bradbury’s is a minority opinion but he’s a serious sabermetrician working in good faith and not just a stupid hack like you make him out to be.
It would be a lot easier for me to respect your arguments if you say you side with the mainstream on the question of peak age, possibly with a brief explanation, rather than just slamming the door on any discussion by claiming, “This is something that there’s really no debating,” when it’s patently false, given that there is a lively debate on that very question.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
fringe science??
"I am happy because I do not have unrealistic expectations"- Karma Ura...or an A's fan.
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 27, 2009 7:58 AM PST up reply actions
so he wont have a good year when he's 32?
I cant and wont believe that to be true for every player, theres so many examples like Barry Bonds was at his best in his late 30s etc
You mean more examples that involve steroids?
I’m all for signing Beltre if taking undetectable steroids is a condition of his contract.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
The Barry Bonds example is clearly the exception to the rule
Pretty much nobody does what he did at the end of his career.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Even in the last couple of years, injuries and all
Bonds still put up some pretty damned good numbers. I still can’t believe his OBP, OBPS, BB, and SLG %. I can only imagine how he might have faired as a DH for the A’s or some other AL club.
2006 SF 130 367 74 99 23 0 26 77
11551 3 0 .270 .454 .545 .999
2007 SF 126 340 75 94 14 0 28 66
13254 5 0 .276 .480 .565 1.045
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
No, because that's absolutely NOT what it means and you know it
People who use straw men should be punched in the throat.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 27, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
And nobody said Beltre wouldn't have a good year at 32
Combined with this and your complaint at the end of the post, I have to question what you’re really reading and thinking people are saying here.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Looks like I got stuck in the middle of some argument..
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
Therefore, I blame you.
Burn the witch!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
This is the real point
However you want to define prime, there are lots, and lots, and lots of productive 32 and 33-year-olds populating baseball.
we in the losin baseball binness. and cousin, binness is a boomin.
by walk off bunt on Dec 27, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
I certainly hope we are not saying a person past their prime can no longer be productive.
Collective “we”, I mean.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
I actually don't think anyone's saying that, to be fair
But lost in all the debate over “prime” is the fact that I haven’t really been convinced by anyone that Beltre is likely to fall of some cliff in his age 31-33 seasons. Last year is just so wildly off from his career norms, and he’s still reasonably young, that it’s hard for me to look at as an indication he’s rapidly lost it.
we in the losin baseball binness. and cousin, binness is a boomin.
by walk off bunt on Dec 28, 2009 2:31 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, you should throw out Chavez' full seasons
in comparing the two
Beltre isn’t an improvement over a healthy Chavez. That is fact.
It’s just that there’s a 0.01% chance that there will be a healthy Chavez, and a very huge chance that Beltre is supplanting a replacement level 3B (e.g. Adam Kennedy, Jake Fox, etc.)
Looking at any year before 2007 is asinine, since Chavez played in almost all of games at 3B in every season prior to ’07.
And Beltre is NOT an improvement over Chavez, neither is he intended to be an improvement over a healthy Chavez. Healthy Chavez is a top 10 3B in the game.
"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West
A healthy Chavez doesn't exist anymore...
…and finding a 3B as good… anywhere… ain’t bloody likely, so it’s a moot point.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
Exactly.
Beltre’s an improvement over what we’ve got.
Which doesn’t include Chavez.
"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West
Come on, Chavez's chances of coming back to play third
are much closer to five percent than to zero percent, right?
"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 26, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
Depends on how you define it, I suppose.
If you mean “coming back to play third” as in a few token games before he crashes and burns again, then I guess you could increase the probability.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
I'm always more optimistic than the average bear...
"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 26, 2009 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
Again, according to the very numbers posted
Beltre was practically indistinguishable from what we had at 3B last year.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
we're talking about the same dude who has already had two steep declines in the last few years, right?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
YOU'RE the one who compared them from 05-09
now we’re supposed to accept that without beltre the a’s will get the same productivity out of 3b over the next four years as they got in 2008 when hannahan put up a .647 OPS over 143 games?
isn’t that a rather pessimistic assessment?
meanwhile beltre is just entering his prime…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Im sorry I just dont have faith in some mash of Chavez, McPherson and Fox.
I dont think any of those will be relevant contributors for the A’s in 09. And the difference between Beltre and that group is a massive one. So much so that we need to get him.
One thing I don't understand about your hatred of UZR
You said, “despite randomly UZR not liking his 07 campaign – one of the reasons why I dislike that metric.”
Why is this random? Maybe Beltre was bad on defense in 2007. Why do people assume that defense is static (with regression for aging or whatever)? Why can’t a person have a bad/unlucky year with defense just like offense?
The metric isn’t (necessarily) broken because of one out of whack year. The problem could very well just be with the player.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 1:15 PM PST reply actions
how can your defense just get magically bad for one year?
Its not like he was playing with one hand tied behind his back or “had something in his eye” all year.
UZR does that crap all the time, its a really flawed metric because the way its calculated is never 100% airtight. With offensive metrics, it is like that: a hit is a hit, an out is an out and so on. But because of one bad hop here and there Beltre all of a sudden sucks on D? I dont buy it. Its too difficult to come up with a good way to accurately measure defense from player to player. You would have to have 2 players have the identical defensive situation come to pass like 100 times to categorically say “Player A got to the ball 6 more times than Player B, therefore he is better”
Ive said it before: I want defensive metrics to be airtight, I would love for them to be. UZR is not, yet many take its word to be completely true and they shouldnt.
The same way your offense can be "magically bad" for one year
Or, more accurately, the same way offense can be “magically bad” for two months.
If Albert Pujols hits .200 during April and May, are you going to call batting average broken (because, of course, Pujols is far too good to really be a .200 hitter)? Because that’s basically the exact same thing you said about UZR.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
UZR just requires a bigger sample than most offensive metrics.
A good rule of thumb is that 3 years of UZR has the same statistical significance as 1 year of OPS. In other words, Beltre’s last three years has the same reliability as one year of OPS.
Your day breaks, your mind aches.
You find that all her words of kindness linger on
when she no longer needs you.
I'm not entirely convinced of this 3 year business. Fielding chances aren't nearly as
hard to predict as hitting chances.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:41 AM PST up reply actions
If you don't like UZR
Then you probably shouldn’t be using WAR to make a case for Beltre since a significant amount of his value comes from defense which is calculated by UZR.
If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.
Mele KalikiKenMacha everyone!
Now, what I want for Christmas is for the A’s to NOT sign Beltre!
"Tonto think Billy Beane need to make team full of squirrels and bears."
***UPDATE***
According to ESPN, we are the only serious bidder for Beltre at the moment, which probably means he’s getting what he wants, a 10-15MM per year offer, I’d guess 3/33 or something like that. If its not the case of putting down an offer and trying to sell him on a deal that pays under 10 a year, Buster Olney says the Giants, Cardinals, and Tigers might get in the mix for him. You’d have to think the Twins would too.
If the A's are the only serious bidder, hopefully they're not giving him what he wants
Because they should be able to give him a lot less, whether it’s money or years. Personally (because it’s not my money), I’d feel better about them giving him more money and fewer years.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
+1
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Dec 26, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
+2
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
by UncleLeo on Dec 26, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
+3
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."
by DMOAS on Dec 26, 2009 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
+ infinity
"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West
by Blicks on Dec 26, 2009 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If the Athletics are the only serious bidder...
…how long will it be before someone suggests that there’s collusion?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 7:09 AM PST up reply actions
Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
Vomit
If the A’s sign Beltre for anything close to what you guys are projecting, I really will throw up all over my keyboard.
I’m sorry, guys, but his defense is not THAT good. You act like putting him in the infield will reduce all our pitchers ERA by a full run.
Beltre’s OBP last year was JUST over .300. A hair better than Tommy Everidge, and not even close to Cliff Pennington. You will probably say thats an outlier…but then you also say Beltre “has shown no signs of decline”. Well, either Beltre is declining, or he just sucks.
There is NOTHING wrong with having $10 mil and not spending it, if you are saving it for the future. I am going to cringe in a few years when we can’t resign Brett Anderson or Ryan Sweeney, you know, players who are actually good…because the A’s panicked over a 3b hole and overpaid a guy who isn’t very good.
He's probably the best defensive 3B in baseball, and at the very least he's up there with Zimmerman/Longoria
His defense IS that good.
Paying Beltre for 3 years will not affect their ability to keep Anderson in 5 years, or Sweeney in 4 years (3 years? Either way, won’t play a part).
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
But Beltre's defense isn't that much better than Hannahan's was
If all you’re shopping for at 3B is defensive excellence then why trade away a guy almost as good and would cost about 1/10 the price?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Exactly. Not sure why the A's traded someone cheap,
who excelled in one key aspect of the game (defense) at a position of black hole-itude within the organization, just so they could get — ZOMG — another pretty talented minor league right-handed RP.
So they could turn around and pay 10x-20x more for a guy who gets on base less but hits with more power — except the most recent season when he didn’t even do that?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 26, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Beltre took enough abuse last year
I think his bat will bounce back to his previously established level of meh next year and I’d be interested if he was looking for a 1 year deal to “re-establish” himself for the 2011 market.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Same. I'd be more excited about a 1/10 deal
than I would be about a 3/24 deal.
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
...because Beltre is a 3 win version of that player archetype and Hannahan is a 1 win version of that archetype?
I agree that they’re similar, but they’re similar in the way that two similar triangles are similar when one of them has twice the side length of the other one.
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?
How do you figure?
Fangraphs has Hannahan at better than 1 WAR each of the past 3 years despite averaging just 324 PA per year. He’s averaged 2.3 WAR per 600 PA over the past 3 years.
CHONE projects Beltre to be 11 runs better than Hannahan with the bat, and ZIPS has very similar projections. By any measure, Hannahan is at least Beltre’s equal with the glove.
The gap between Hannahan and Beltre is much closer to 1 win than 2 wins.
Hannahan doesn't have a large enough UZR sample size to convince me that he's actually that good defensively
Good, yes. Unworldly amazing? Not sold. He’s made plenty of poor plays in the games that I’ve seen.
His UZR is only about a year and a half of play— not enough to reach a definitive conclusion.
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?
What do you project his defense to be in 2010?
And Beltre’s?
He’s made plenty of poor plays in the games that I’ve seen.
Heh.
His minor league scouting reports, minor league stats, and major league stats all suggest he’s a Gold Glove level defensive 3B. Again, he’s likely not +17 good, but he’s pretty close to average overall even at the +8 CHONE gives him.
I investigated him reasonably thoroughly when he was first traded here
and did not get the impression from the reports I read that he was considered a brilliant defensive player. It was a long time ago, but I’d hope that I would have at least noted that facet of his game if it featured prominently in scouting reports.
+8 plus or minus 5 runs seems reasonable enough. I’d guess Beltre is better than that, more like +10.
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?
Here are some Baseball Prospectus commentaries
BP kindly provides old book comments on their PECOTA cards…
Prospectus 2005:
Hannahan’s defense is Rolenesque, according to both scouting reports and our translated numbers, and he’d have an excellent shot at winning the AL Gold Glove if promoted to the big leagues this year.
Prospectus 2006:
Hannahan`s bat is weak, but his defense profiles so well that he still rates a mention. Scouts and stats agree that if promoted, Hannahan would be an instant Gold Glove contender.
Prospectus 2007:
Jack Hannahan`s principal asset is that he`s one of the better defensive third basemen in professional baseball, so the fact that the Tigers gave him nearly half his plate appearances as a second baseman last year gives tells you something about what they think of his future.
Well, at least I know why I didn't see them, as I wasn't a subscriber to BP
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?
Because Jack Hannahan was a 1.2 WAR player last year
He’s just that bad a hitter. Even in a serious down year, Beltre was still at 2.4.
we in the losin baseball binness. and cousin, binness is a boomin.
by walk off bunt on Dec 27, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
Playing time
Hannahan had just 301 PA last year. Give him Beltre’s playing time, and he’s up to 1.9 WAR.
Here are Hannahan and Beltre’s WAR per 600 PA over the past 3 years (Fangraphs data):
Year Jack Beltre
2007 4.3 2.8
2008 1.6 4.0
2009 2.4 3.0
Total 2.3 3.3
Over the past 3 years, Beltre has been about 1 WAR per 600 PA better than Hannahan.
Hannahan’s 2007 rate is based on a small number of MLB plate appearances, but his 2007 MLE before the A’s traded for him is very much in line with his performance with the A’s. If you give him credit for his 2007 MLE, and assume his fielding in AAA was at the same level of his fielding in the majors, his WAR/600 edges up a bit closer to Beltre’s.
Of course, Hannahan’s fielding will have to be regressed further toward the mean than Beltre’s because he’s played 1500 fewer innings at 3B over the past 3 years. Still, Hannahan should likely have the better defensive projection going forward. Of the 25 players who have logged 1500 innings at 3B over the past 3 years, Hannahan comes in 2nd in UZR/150 at +16.8. Beltre is 8th at +9.7.
For 2010, CHONE projects Beltre at 2.3 WAR and Hannahan at 1.6 WAR. ZIPS has similar results.
This isn’t to say that signing Beltre would be a good or bad idea (depends on the price). Rather, the A’s would have been better off holding onto their cheap league average 3B last year and spending their money elsewhere this offseason.
For Hannahan CHONE has
2007: 1.8/600
2008: 1.1
2009: 0.4
Difference is defense. UZR is a better system, sure (although bUZR is the only system that liked him in 2007), but Hannahan’s true talent is not +16.8/150, especially going forward. Not even close. He’s really not league average going forward. He’s probably a better option at 3B than Fox, but not by much if at all.
I agree with your assessment relative to Beltre, though. Fielding is probably about equal, Beltre is probably 1-1.5 better on offense.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
I'm sure he's not +16.8
But he does appear to be an excellent fielder, probably better than Beltre. Dewan’s plus/minus actually likes Hannahan’s D even more than UZR, crediting him with saving 30 runs over the past 2 years (and neutral in 2007). Plus/Minus also like Beltre more than UZR does.
If he’s -11 runs/150 with the bat, as CHONE projects, he doesn’t have to be +17 with the glove to be close to league average.
The -11 runs is in 395 at-bats.
A full season at that pace is like -16.
You can’t prorate his defense and not his offense.
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'm sorry, this cannot possibly be correct
A .656 OPS (even a somewhat OBP-heavy one) is 11 runs below average over a full season? Maybe at Petco Park. Not at a normal baseball stadium.
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?
Only if you know how to put the numbers into the mysterious
black box that is the WAR/R-150 calculator!
The monster at the end of this blog.
He hit .230/.311/.346 (tiny bit worse .656 ops) in Seattle last year
which statcorner gives as -4.6RAA, which is -16.5/600, which seems much more reasonable. A lot of the r/150 for the A’s also seem fishily high.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
I can't say I knew Hannahan's defense rated out THAT well
I guess what I’d say is regardless of how you’d value Hannahan, he’s gone and he ain’t coming back, so Beltre at a reasonable price is almost assuredly better than whatever in-house alternative exists.
But, to your main point, it probably would have, as you say, made more sense to hold on to Hannahan rather than flip him for yet another interestingish swingmanny type.
we in the losin baseball binness. and cousin, binness is a boomin.
by walk off bunt on Dec 28, 2009 2:28 AM PST up reply actions
ugh
He is EONS better than Adam Kennedy, Dallas McPherson or whatever options we have. Playing a lesser player to play there hurts everyone. He’s absolutely a fine defender, some (non-a’s fans) even said he was better than Chavez defensively. He is awesomely awesome at playing 3B. If he hits a league average clip, we have basically another Ryan Sweeney. Is that a good thing? Well unless we can trade for Longoria or Zimmerman its the very best we can with what we have.
No doubt
But Matt Holliday is eons better than Scott Hairston, Jose Valverde is eons better than Joey Devine, and Arlodis Chapman is eons better than Anthony Capra.
The question is where we should spend this supposed $10m a year – and I just don’t believe that the answer is to spend it on a player who can’t hit. If we are trying to prevent runs, lets spend the money on a pitcher.
by SeanR on Dec 26, 2009 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Valverde isnt that much better than Devine
pre-surgery anyway.
But I get your point. My point is we are stacked everywhere except 3B and SS, we have all the other spots more than covered at this point. Lets go and buy the best 3B and SS we can until the system can produce one, Green is about 3 years away and isnt a sure bet to be an everyday player yet.
Hell, if we can somehow get Jose Reyes from the Mets without touching any of our top 5 prospects (well, give them Green so they can have a SS) Id do it. Our team would be steal roughly 11 trillion bases if that happened, lol
Valverde is like the A's 3rd best reliever
looking at last year’s numbers, of course.
"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West
So what are his numbers over eons?
So if the A’s paid him $10 million over eons.. when will that be a bad deal?
I can see Beltre declining in .03 eons or to use solid numbers between 2 and 3,765,435,405,983 years
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Ditto here.
It makes it sound like those guys are really really slow.
I wonder if this is somehow related to “light years” being used in a similar way, combined with people not realizing that a light year is a unit of length not time.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Isn't the typical phrase "x is light years ahead of y"?
That’s coherent enough.
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 A's are EXTREMELY flexible financially down the road
The A’s have only 4MM on the books for 2011, and zero beyond that. Not factoring in arb cases, but there you pretty much pay for production.
There is ZERO way that a Beltre contract will be anywhere close to enough to prevent the team from retaining its good young players at reasonable cost if they so desire to.
Rest assured, Beltre will not stop them from making any major moves down the road. Even if the Beltre contract is a disaster, it won’t be nearly big enough to seriously hurt the team. When a team is crippled by bad contracts, one of two things is true: 1)the contract is Wells/Zito/Hampton/Soriano bad or 2)the team has multiple bad contracts
The A’s don’t fit into either of those categories.
"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West
Let me clarify...
I suppose I need to be careful exaggerating, because people will get caught up in the weeds. That’s my fault.
If there is one thing that I know about business, its that spending money ALWAYS limits your flexibility down the road. Now, in some cases, you get over it…aka, yes, spending $500 on a computer limits my financial flexibility, but I need it to work…
In the case of Beltre, I just don’t think he’s enough of a guarantee to put out serious money for. I’d rather scrape the bottom of the barrel and hope we catch lightning in a bottle for cheap…UNLESS Beltre ends up being cheap (aka $8m for 1 or 2 years).
Someone here has a sig line about signing Justin Upton in a few years. Its ridiculous…but I wish it could be realistic…and it can – if we actually plan ahead for once. $10m saved this year is an extra $10m we can spend later.
Even for you pro-Beltre guys, do you really think having Beltre starting at 3rd changes our record by more than 1 or 2 games?
Probably adds 3-4 wins to the A's record
And that’s just in 2010.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
improved D should add 5 wins
not relying on power in April and May but instead using aggressive base running and OBP should add at least another 5 wins too. Stable rotation being a year older with depth from guys who aren’t rookies anymore could another 5 wins. This could be an 85-90 win team next year.
I'm talking about Beltre alone
Other additions could add more. But as it stands now without Beltre I see a team that might finish at 78 wins. Add Cust and it’s .500. Catch a couple breaks and add Beltre and we might approach 90 wins.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
It's not just what Beltre can produce in terms of how many more wins he can offer
In the case of Beltre, I just don’t think he’s enough of a guarantee to put out serious money for. I’d rather scrape the bottom of the barrel and hope we catch lightning in a bottle for cheap…UNLESS Beltre ends up being cheap (aka $8m for 1 or 2 years).
It’s whether or not what the team pays for his services can be recaptured on the revenue end. I don’t think Beltre would be that much of an additional draw; the paying fanbase is just not that into this team at its current digs.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 7:20 AM PST up reply actions
Umm... no.
The A’s have much more than $4 million on the books in 2011.
They’ve got $4 million tied up in buy-outs to Chavez, Ellis and Crisp. They are almost certain to say good-bye to Chavez at the end of 2010 but it’s too early to say on either Ellis or Crisp. Plus they have arbitration raises for Wuertz, Davis, Suzuki, Devine, Sweeney and Braden.
Plus ~$400 K a pop for the other 17-20 guys on the 25 man roster.
For your perusing pleasure.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Exactly.
The last thing we need are more players who can’t hit.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
If we cant hit
We need to at least be able to pitch and play defense.
I’d MUCH rather have Beltre than McPhearson or Fox, mainly because of his defense.
While this is pure speculation, does anyone else agree that having spectacular defense, which the A’s would have all over the diamond with this signing, would significantly boost the confidence of the young starters, namely Cahil, a groundball machine who could use the infield defense, and Gio, who already I’m sure will see better numbers with 3 gold glove candidates in the OF?
Fuck you Bob Geren
by supermarc589 on Dec 26, 2009 7:03 PM PST up reply actions
except that they would have the added pressure
Of thinking that they need to hold the opposition to 1 or 2 runs every night, because we might only score 4.7 or so on average. Which, they would likely fail at.
"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 27, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions
Uh
Reducing every pitcher’s ERA by a full run would be a UZR of +162.
I’ve never heard of an entire TEAM posting a UZR that high. Half that would be a brilliant, league-leading type of defense. For a whole team.
No one is “acting like that is the case.” Ridiculous hyperbole adds nothing to the conversation.
Brett Anderson and Ryan Sweeney are easily affordable with a Beltre contract, as they get pricey (assuming they stay good) about when he gets on a plane out of 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?
"Ridiculous hyperbole adds nothing to the conversation."
Good thing neither of us never engage in such practices!
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 26, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
What amazes me
is that the author of the comment actually made it clear he was using hyperbole, and it was still taken literally.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
So I just reread that comment twice
and neither time did I see anything “making [that] clear.”
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?
Do you really think someone would say that if they were trying to give an accurate assessment of what the Beltre fluffers think
It couldn’t be more obvious that’s it’s a snarktastic way of characterizing the Beltre fluffers.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Yes
and it’s annoying and vapidly sarcastic and adds nothing to the conversation.
Which, surprisingly, turns out to be exactly what I said several lines ago.
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?
My hyperbole is never ridiculous ; )
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?
No, just when you try to make serious points. ;-)
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
A healthy Chavez is not walking through that door, Carney Lansford is not walking through that door...
I would agree with two years of Beltre. 3 years is too much. (Maybe two years and a club option?)
2/20 with mutual option?
still too much, but I won’t complain too loud.
"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 26, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
I hear Wayne Gross is available.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
I think I just threw up in my blog a little bit
"Tonto think Billy Beane need to make team full of squirrels and bears."
1932?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:05 AM PST up reply actions
4x9mil
Maximum that I would stomach. That is his 31-32-33-34 seasons.
Do it Billy!
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
That's the same as Figgins, and I think it's reasonable.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:05 AM PST up reply actions
Retroactively, that sucks
We get a worse player than Figgins for the same money? I can’t possibly see Beane being willing to pay Beltre as much for as long as Figgins unless he truly believes last year was a fluke year for Beltre.
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 28, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
Contracts for Beltre where I would say, "Good job, A's"
1/9
2/16
3/21
4/24
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
This rules out the following
5/25
6/24
7/21
8/16
9/1
10/0
I was kind of hoping for the last one or two, personally.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Dec 26, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think it rules them out, though
If I’m willing to do 3/21, it’s pretty much implied that I’d do 7/21. Same with 4/24 and 6/24. So if you throw Fibonacci to the wolves and just figure I’d allow Beltre to play for free for as many seasons as he wished, you’ll see that I’d actually do most of those options. Except 9/1. I don’t want the guy around when he’s 40 at any price. A 40 year old with one testicle? That’s just gross.
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
ladies and gentlemen... the Fabulous Nico...
dinner show at 6:00, evening extravaganza at 8:00,
and of course, the 10:00 show is AWFULLY BLUE.
Do get your reservations today for this unlimited time engagement.
"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 26, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
I guess I can agree with this...
He isn’t going to sign with us for 4/24 (esp if you are offering 1/9).
To be honest, if we have to get Beltre, I almost like 1/9 the best…gives Cardenas a chance at starting a year from now.
For all we know, maybe the reason the A's are having
the most serious talks with Beltre is that no one is jumping at Boras’ multi-year numbers or anyting close, and they know Beltre couldn’t have picked a worse offensive season with which to enter free agency — so he’s interested in a decent one-year offer from Oakland and Beane is jumping at the opportunity. Which if so makes me very happy — I’d LOVE to have Beltre on a one-year deal.
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 Dec 26, 2009 4:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Same
I’d give him more than 9mil for a single year, as long there’s no option year (or at least a very inexpensive year or buy out) AND with an added bonus of allowing us to offer arbitration and a guarantee he won’t accept. That way if he does do well, we may get a TYPE A out of it, if he does normal, we can get a type B out of it, if he does poorly, we’re not stuck with him.
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."
Yeah, I could be convinced to go higher on a one-year deal
1/10? Beyond that, you’re spending a lot in a year that still likely isn’t a contending year, just to improve your team a little.
Again, even if some don’t feel Beltre and Hannahan belong in the same conversation, consider that if you want a very good defensive 3Bman who isn’t a great hitter, Hannahan is around league minimum — and generally has a decent OBP. The last time Beltre got on base more than 1/3 of the time, he was 25 years old. He’s now turning 31.
Do I think Hannahan is as good as Beltre? No. Would I spend 20 times the money on Beltre for a season than I would on Hannahan? No.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think you're overvaluing Hannahan and undervaluing Beltre
Not by much. But I think you are. But for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re right. What are you paying for?
1) a player you currently don’t have (cause we don’t have Hannahan and he’s not an option)
2) a possible 1st Round pick OR 2nd Round sandwich pick next year
3) security for the pitching staff in an ultra defense
4) a vet
5) a right handed bat that could net us 10-20 HRs
6) an above average filler for a position of need
7) an improves possibility of competing in a year with low expectations
8) a name on the back of the jersey
9) someone to fill the cap until Cardenas is ready.
10) not having to watch Fox play third
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."
Well, #3 and #10 apply to Hannahan too
But again, I’m not suggesting that Hannahan is as good as Beltre, just that I wouldn’t pay Beltre 20x what I could pay Hannahan. I’d pay 5x without blinking, and 10x without hesitation. After that…for the price of a Justin Souza level talent? Bring Hanny home, and water the lawn!
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
Well...
we don’t have Hannahan. If we did, it might be a different conversation, but it’s my understanding he’s still a Mariner. So whether Hannahan offers 2 of those 10 things or not is rather academic. And using Hannahan’s non-FA price as a base is a bit misleading (as would expecting it to be a lot higher, I suppose, if he were a FA). Fact is, we don’t have Hannahan. Was it a mistake to get rid of him? Meh. But we did, now we need to fill a need with what’s available.
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."
His asking price appears to be Justin Souza.
We have exactly 4 billion of those to offer.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I guess my main point is that
Beltre is a glorified version of Hannahan, and I mean that by way of complimenting Beltre — he’s a better version of Hannahan. But enough better to warrant 20x the salary? I don’t think so.
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
The only reason Hannahan is worth a little as he is
is because he’s not a FA. And he’s just not that good at baseball other than defense. On the open market, I suspect Hannahan would get in the low millions as a contract. So we’re really looking at maybe 4 to 10x times. Certainly less than 20.
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."
Yes, but he could had, right now, for a Justin Souza type
and you could pay him half a mil. And I’m opposing offering 10M for a year of Beltre. If he’s available for 1/9, or 2/16, or 3/21, or 4/24, I say go for it. I’m just not on board with paying him more than that for being what Hannahan would be if he were a little better.
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
Enough better to warrant 20x the salary?
Yes, if you believe Fangraphs and paying market value for a player’s WAR.
Beltre isn’t going to be a lightning in a bottle Frank Thomas 2006 type of signing, but he’ll be a really good player getting what he’s worth.
Frankly I’m more worried about the amount of years (no more than 3, please) than the dollar amount. Fuck it, it ain’t my money!
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Oh. This whole time I thought it was my money we would spend.
Never mind, then — carry on!
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
Where the money does matter
On a one year deal or a three deal, he’s likely out the door before it has any roster effect. So while I understand the sentiment of not liking to overpay, really if the money is available. And if that money doesn’t necessarily go anywhere else. Why not?
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."
and at the time i said it was one of Beane's worst moves.
mostly because Hannahan was far better than people thought.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Dec 29, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
Number 8 also applies to Jack Hannahan
Though, it depends how the A’s charge for printing names on the back of a shirt.
If it’s a flat fee, Beltre offers better value by dint of having fewer letters; if it’s per letter fee (with associated markup), then Jack is clearly better.
Plus, I’d probably get a Hannahan jersey.
If I had a job.
I suspect it’s the flat fee, though. Are players with shorter names a new market inefficiency? If so, why did they release Cust, again?
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.
The fact that you'd buy a Hannahan jersey if you had a job
may explain why you have financial difficulties.
They released Cust because they realized that if they just took off the "ust" and kept the "C" stiched on, Coco Crisp would only require four letters of stitching — and all lowercase.
risp < Cust
Which is ironic, given that everyone groans when Cust bats with RISP.
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 mean
they don’t regard those jerseys as a sunk cust?
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.
Oooh! There's a reason to love the Crisp signing
Lots of fun “c-RISP” jokes in the game threads.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Does anyone else think it's odd
that MLB allows players and teams to agree to not accept or offer arbitration?
Yes
Seems like a classic example (or what should be an example, rather) of an unenforceable contract against public policy to me.
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 should come out and say this:
I couldnt give any sort of a crap about Jake Fox at all. In fact I hope he’s at AAA for most of the year. That trade just wasn’t very necessary at all.
Huh?
Removing Jeff Gray for Jake Fox makes the 25-Man Roster better.
by Colorado Fan on Dec 27, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
The problem is he might be one of the team's best hitters.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:08 AM PST up reply actions
Ill take 2/20 please!
Consider me not wanting to bank our 2011 3B production solely on one good looking prospect.
I miss Chad God
ChadGod?! Is that you?
"Tonto think Billy Beane need to make team full of squirrels and bears."
by OptimistPrime on Dec 26, 2009 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
But he's REALLY good looking!
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
Have you ever wondered if there was more to life other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking?
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
I haven't really had to.
He said as he blogged to strangers on Saturday night.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I do
but then reality smacks me in the head with an ugly stick.
I'll have a sandwich and a draft(sic). - Bill King (RIP)
Earth to winchester5...
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 28, 2009 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Are you saying that that is the earth actually calling me?
Are you in a control tower trying to reach outer space aliens?
Helllooo
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
That Hansel...
He’s just so hot right now…
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 29, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
Those WAR numbers sold me.
Beltre is not a useful investment, especially not a useful long-term investment. They can pay him as much as they want, as long as it’s no more than two years. Pass on anything else.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I would rather take the "other Boras" 3rd baseman...
Joe Crede
and toss the extra money at Ardolis Chapman.
Between Crede, Chavez, McPherson we would have the all back surgery team.
Joking aside Crede “when healthy” has plenty of power and was neck and neck with Chavez for gold gloves.
I am sure a contract simular to Dukes would get him signed and leave a nice leftover for a 100 mph lefty.
Platooning them (Chavy & Crede) would insure both were rested and hiopefully keep them healthy.
Not a fan of tosssing big bucks at Beltre
Whats weird is that
Its perfectly feasible that we sign Beltre, Chapman AND one of the DH crew of Delgado, Thome, Cust, Vlad or Sheffield.
Totally could happen, not even joking. Would make us a REALLY relevant team in 09 actually, especially if Chapman is ready to pitch in ’10.
Would make us a REALLY relevant team in 09 actually, especially if Chapman is ready to pitch in ’10.
brilliant
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
Hey look, buddy,
some of us haven’t given up on 2009 yet, ok?
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
The way I see it, the A's haven't lost a game in nearly 3 months.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 27, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
And Rajai still hasn't regressed,
while Chavy has played in as many games as Tejada has.
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
Plus Sweeney is tied for the league lead in home runs during that stretch..
his power really is developing!
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
But Bobby Crosby has continued
to strike out in every at-bat.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
He's right up there with Julia Sweeney.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
I'm waiting for the appropriate moment to make a Mirajai Davis joke
m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!
it's not my money
I would welcome any attempt on the part of the A’s front office and ownership to make the team better and more exciting to watch. Even if we’re paying a little bit more than we need to for Beltre, he would improve the team, and from the standpoint of a fan, that is all I care about. As A’s fans we sometimes want to have it both ways. We bemoan the cheapness of our owners, but also vigilantly scrutinize every dollar the organization spends. Don’t tell me that it is a zero sum game. Do you honestly think that money not spent now will be reinvested in the organization later? I think such “saved money” is more likely to fund Lew Wolfe’s latest strip mall. We have no idea how much money the A’s plan to spend this offseason or in future off seasons. It’s not our money. Just look forward to seeing a gold glove caliber third baseman play everyday, and forget about the tab.
Can Beltre haters just explain to me
Why?
We arent going to have to buy up at any position except maybe SS. We have the money, he’s the best available option despite the near-retarded notion that he wont be excellent at age 31-34, or at least exponentially better than any other option out there.
I mean if your idea is to trade for one of the bestest 3B going, then you have a point. If your thought is “OH NOES! WE CANT SPENT MONEYZ ON ANOTHER 3B, WE JUST GOT RIPPED OFF WITH CHAVEZ WE CANT LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN” and instead rely on Jake Fox (puke) and Dallas McPherson (barf) you are simply dead wrong.
Post the main reasoning why you dont like Adrian Beltre as a member of the A’s for the next 2-4 years,
I don't mean to speak for people who'd rather not see Beltre sign with the A's
But you’re drastically simplifying their reasons for not wanting it. Also, you can’t just make the claim that “Beltre not being excellent at age 31-34” is a “near-retarded notion.” He’s been injured before and has had absurd production slips in the relatively recent past.
The main question is: Is Beltre worth it?
If you don’t think the A’s are going to compete next year, then it doesn’t make any sense at all. What would make sense is hoping Chavez or McPherson are healthy enough to play most of the season or just living with watching Fox or Miles play and praying the day Cardenas replaces them comes soon.
If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.
by NateHST on Dec 27, 2009 2:31 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
I'm sorry, but no.
There is no sense in hoping for a healthy Chavez or McPherson.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Why not?
Hoping, and expecting, and counting on, are all vastly different concepts. Plus, the odds of “one of them” being healthy for a while is a lot better than the odds of either one of them being healthy.
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 Dec 27, 2009 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
A good reply to that, IMO.
Count me among the senseless who dare to hope.
Rec’d
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
Context matters
According to Nate our 2 options are:
Hope.
Accept what is expected to be unacceptable play from Fox and Miles until Cardenas is ready. Cardenas might not be ready until 2011.
I vote for finding a 3rd option. It doesn’t have to be signing Adrian Beltre to a long term deal but it could be finding a more effective stop gap than Aaron Miles. There seems to be sufficient middle ground between those two points for an option to exist.
The monster at the end of this blog.
And what if Cardenas (or Weeks) doesn't work out?
The A’s have a black hole at a position that they’ll to fill via trade or FA. Why not take a good option now?
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
My answer would be that free agency
is the right path for solving 3B. The market this year and next just isn’t right. Use free agency to solve something else and use the trade market for prospects to address 3B. The A’s may already have done this successfully with Cardenas, but if not there are other opportunities out there.
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
The omission of the word "not" is kinda key, huh?
“…free agency is NOT the right path for solving 3B.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Or get established players at third via trade
and use the trade market for prospects to address 3B.
The Royals, Pirates, and Cubs have good prospects at third that will push the incumbents in some way. I’d say Gordon and LaRoche would make more sensible options than Beltre and for what Beltre would ask for. And, imagine Aramis Ramirez’s bat in the line-up. The Athletics could pull that off financially once Chavez’s contract discharged. It’s just a matter of whether or not the Athletics prospects to acquire him would persuade the Cubs to trade him. Ditto for the other teams mentioned.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting.....
Ramirez could be a possibility depending on what the Cubbies would ask for.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
I just don't get this...
If you have an available FA option that’s affordable, you take it. Why would you make a trade when you can buy what you need and give up nothing? We’re not talking about a contract that’s going to destroy our ability to keep our kids. We’re not talking about holding a kid back. If there were no options (i.e. Beltre wasn’t available or cost way too much money or didn’t want to play in Oakland) then yeah, you have to go the trade route. But why trade if you don’t have to? Why not trade to fill a need you seriously can’t otherwise fill? Yeah Cardenas could work out, then he can play 2nd. Yeah Weeks could work out, but he could potentially play Center. Gambling that they work out and gambling that someone else’s prospect or filler will be available at an affordable/reasonable trade price? That’s just a bad move all around. Every team out there will know we need someone, so the price in terms of prospects goes up. So why do it if we have an alternative? And if all the in-house options do work out or we find someone else at a reasonable price later, we can still trade Beltre for more prospects.
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."
by DMOAS on Dec 27, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Then you don't get it. Many others might not either.
It makes sense to me, though. Plus it gives this team one year to see what they have as in-house options without tying up ten figures plus for even more years.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
One year? You mean one more year.
We’ve already been rebuilding for three years, and we still haven’t found a 3B replacement good enough to inspire confidence.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
We know what we have
And what we have doesn’t cut it. It hasn’t cut for the last 3 years. And Fox & the DL Duo aren’t something to rely on in the future. The minor league in-house option is basically converting a second basemen who, if good enough, gives us the option of trading Beltre OR Ellis for prospects depending on which is more valuable to us at the time and which would net us the best chips in trade.
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."
Nailed it
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 bloggers do, apparently
And they’re in the best position to know, I’m guessing.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
No one
All the people saying to sign are more or less saying IF AFFORDABLE. If he’s asking for the moon, I’d say f*** him and move on to plan B. But if he’s willing to accept a fair offer, then sign him.
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."
I think he figures to be a "decent" option in 2011 (in an average all the outcomes sense)
and a poor option in 2012. The team should be 2012>2011>2010, so you’re tying up resources for years where they will be needed to spend on a good team.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
That's a completely different topic
Weeks isn’t an option (at least, I’ve never heard the A’s or any of BP, BA, Sickels mention him in the conversation) at 3B.
If you’re worried about Cardenas failing outright, then the idea of signing Beltre to a 3-4 year deal has a lot of merit. I don’t think the A’s are convinced about Cardenas as their 3B of the future (and that’s just my gut talking) but I don’t think they’re worried about him not making it in any form.
The monster at the end of this blog.
The only way Beltre blocks Cardenas is
if Cardenas is not as good as the A’s 2b and Beltre is still around when Cardenas is ready. That means Weeks has to succeed and Cardenas has to succeed for Beltre to block Cardenas.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Not exactly
Beltre vs. Cardenas is obvious so we’ll skip that. And we’ll also ignore the “it ain’t happening” of Cardenas to SS.
Mark Ellis is still signed for up to 2 more years, plenty of time for the A’s to groom Weeks as his replacement.
The overall question at play is how much do the A’s trust their evaluation and development of their prospects? Signing Beltre isn’t just about how the A’s feel about Cardenas, but Weeks as well. And that’s just us talking about the top guys in the upper minors.
I don’t doubt that Beltre will be the better big league 3B in 2010. I question if the A’s might not have a better (or at least, a 90% of the performance at 1/20th the cost) option in 2011.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 27, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If he isn't the best option in '11
why can’t you trade him at that point. Particularly mid-season when both Cardenas, Weeks & Ellis are there (assuming they’re all ready AND healthy). And it gives you the advantage of picking between Beltre & Ellis as to who you choose to trade increasing potential buyers. I don’t see this being decided until ’12, but assuming it happens earlier, we still have options and opportunities.
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."
You're far too rational,
I mean the A’s NEVER trade anyone, ever. ;)
This is one of the reasons why I’m not bothered by the prospect of 3 years of Beltre.
It also wont hurt to at least have a someone asides from Crisp ( and maybe Duke ) that someone asides from an rabid A’s fan has heard of either.
If his contract is an albatross
it’s going to be difficult to trade him. Not saying it will be, but if it’s $10MM annually or more, with a year or more left, it certainly could be.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I think by "he" you mean Beltre?
Sorry, 4 different guys are in the discussion so I hope we’re on the same page.
How much money are you willing to pay Beltre for him to not play for the Oakland A’s in 2011 and 2012? I mean, just to get a decent return in prospects? Are you willing to pay half of his remaining salary if it came down to it? And don’t forget that when you trade a player in the middle of a multi-year contract he has the right to demand a trade from his new team after 1 season with them… that could influence the trade return as well.
Not to mention the message it sends to other potential free agents: Sign a multi-year deal with the A’s and end up with a team you didn’t want to play for 12-18 months later!
Of course, you could always trade Cardenas and have a declining Beltre through 2012 and then try to figure out who plays 3B down the road. Hey, it is an option! (Although I for one would prefer Adrian Cardenas and the $16 million in cash.)
The monster at the end of this blog.
Okay, okay, time out for a second...
Not to mention the message it sends to other potential free agents: Sign a multi-year deal with the A’s and end up with a team you didn’t want to play for 12-18 months later!
I have to disagree with this, g. There have been multiple occasions where Billy didn’t trade someone (Piazza) or moved a guy somewhere he had a chance to win (Cabrera) or somewhere he wanted to go (Huddy).
The only multi year FA I can think of that Billy signed and then let go elsewhere is Loaiza. Signingi a multi year deal with Oakland is hardly a guarantee that you’ll be dealt, and if anything it means that you’ll be playing for a GM who will at least make an attempt to find somewhere else you actually want to go if he is going to explore a trade.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
None of Piazza, Cabrera, Hudson match what DMOAS is suggesting:
That the A’s trade Beltre 1 year after they sign him as a FA… assuming that Cardenas is a better option blah blah blah.
Loaiza didn’t get traded, he got picked up as a waiver claim. It’s a part of the business of baseball that most vets with big money contracts get exposed to the waiver wire every August; there’s little reason for animosity on the part of the player when it happens because they know that most times their home team pulls them back off the waiver wire should someone show interest.
But the Loaiza story is one for another time.
Derek Lowe got miffed because the Braves were actively shopping him a year after signing him to a 4 year deal. I’m not saying that bridge can’t be repaired now that he’s staying in Atlanta but that’s road work that needs to be done by doing exactly what it is being suggested the A’s could do with Beltre.
Veteran players understand that it is possible they could be traded in the final year of their contract. They understand that it’s even becoming common practice to get shopped when they’ve got a season and a half left on their deal. But to get shopped 1 year after signing a 3-4 year deal?!?! That’s a WTF moment and it could have consequences down the line.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think that's fair
But I also suspect that it’ll be at least 2 years into the contract (probably into the 3rd year) before he’d be traded. With Ellis nearly gone, there’s room for a year of Cardenas at 2nd before moving Beltre. I just don’t think that scenario should be a reason not to sign Beltre because there’s always a way around it that can benefit the team, even if the actual solution is problematic or less than ideal. In the end, all we’re really giving up is money.
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."
And I think Csardenas is ready to contribute
by the start of 2011, making Beltre more of a roadblock than an asset.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Start him at 2B after Ellis' option is declined?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Beltre/Cardenas costs more than Ellis/Cardenas
Is the extra cost actually more productive?
Hypothetically speaking (because we’re trying to predict player performance from 3 different guys 2 years down the road) is there really any reason to spend more money to get equal production out of the same two spots?
The monster at the end of this blog.
According to Fangraphs, yes.
Beltre’s “down year” was 2.4 WAR — still 10.7M worth of production
Ellis’ down year was 1.2 WAR — only 5.3M worth of production
Both guys were basically paid what they were worth, and if you’re going to assume they will both return to form, Ellis @ 3 WAR + Cardenas would cost 6.4M, and Beltre @ 4 WAR + Cardenas would cost what? 8.4M? 9.4M? 10.4M? Include the 500K for Ellis’ buyout as well, and you could basically break even with Beltre + Cardenas as long as Beltre is paid $10M per season or less (assuming 4.5M per win)
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
For one thing
Not counting the disaster that was 2009 for him; Beltre averaged ~3.5 WAR as a Mariner. I’ll agree to your 3.0 projection for Ellis.
So the performance question is essentially a push, both in terms of cost efficiency and actual production. Assumming health and anticipated decline and etc.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Considering the contract shouldn't cripple us financially
(at least not this one alone), I’d pay the full remaining salary if it netted us something worth a damn. I’d consider (though be hesitant) for more than 10 mil a year for 1/2 years. Less than 10 for 3/4. If in year 3 or 4 we owe him 10 mil, I’m not sure I’d like the deal.
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."
Well
Rather than argue with you, I’ll just say that I do not agree with the idea of giving Adrian Beltre $16 million over two seasons to not play for the Oakland A’s. That kind of money could fully finance two entire draft classes, including more than a few over-slot signings.
The monster at the end of this blog.
You realize that's a number you pulled out of your ass right?
And, if we’re paying him $16M to play for someone else it’s because we got a return that was better than 80% of having Beltre play for us.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I think Scott Boras is good
but with Figgins signing for 4/$36 I have a hard time seeing Beltre surpassing those numbers. Even if you want to drop it to 3/$21 that’s still a lot of money DMOAS is willing to ship to get some prospects in return.
And I really don’t see where Boras goes any lower than 3/$21 for Beltre. If it comes down to it, he’ll have Beltre take a 1 year deal to re-establish his value for 2011. I’ve got no problem with a 1 year deal for Beltre!
I did not realize that my ass set the FA market rate. Thanks for that info.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Ok
I thought we were assuming $10M per (hence the 80%). If we’re assuming $7M per, and a three year deal (your “two seasons”) then that’s even better.
The idea that the A’s would eat all of his salary in years 2 and 3 without getting a return that’s worth more than actually having Beltre is silly. So the question becomes whether actually having Beltre in those years is worth the $7M. I think it pretty clearly is (he’s good, we have no good 3B, we have money to spend, and I don’t expect Weeks and Cardenas to both be good). If you think he isn’t, that’s fine too. Either of us could be right.
All I’m saying is that your point about paying him to not play for us is make-believe and has nothing to do with market value (real or imagined).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
What if he isn't good?
Sure, it’s more likely he will be, but expensive free agents bust all the time.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
How not good can he be?
If he perma-breaks we’re screwed, of course.
Otherwise, we’ve sunk a cost in order to have Beltre on our team for three years. If we move him, it is because we are getting something back that is worth more than having Beltre on our team.
Obviously, the worse Beltre is, the worse that return would be but that – again – gets us back to the main question about whether we think Beltre will be worth his contract.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
He could be pretty not good.
His bat is already suspect, and as noted by others, it’s the sort of bat that could get worse fast, since he has little plate discipline. You have to wonder if trade partners are going to pay a lot of money for just a glove. I don’t know if a lot of teams other than the A’s and Mariners are really stressing defense these days. His trade value is all about perceived, rather than actual, worth.
It also seems to me that free agent signings rarely end up being worth what they’re paid in general, which is why the A’s typically avoid big ones in the first place.
All that said, it’s about the years to me, moreso than the dollars. No more than two years, and I’m OK with it, unless the dollars are way more extravagant than I’m guessing.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Fair enough
3/24 could well be a bad deal, I just don’t think it is. My point here is just that if it’s a good deal we should do it (irrespective of Cardenas/Weeks/having to trade Beltre and eat salary).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Sounds reasonable to me.
I think it’s the definition of a good deal that’s elusive.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Boston sniffed at Beltre early
But they’re still trying to figure out what to do with Lowell and if they’re going to make a go after Adrian Gonzalez.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm saying 3/$24 for Beltre
That’s my official guess, for point of discussion. I thought you were arguing a lower figure. Anyways…
I don’t believe that Beltre will be worth 20X’s what the A’s could be paying Cardenas in 2011 once you look at their production. That’s comparing the two as 3B.
I’m not convinced that a Beltre/Cardenas pairing in 2011 will be anymore productive (but will almost certainly be more expensive) than Cardenas/Ellis.
And I’m not even factoring in whatever chance Weeks and/or (to a much lesser extent) someone like Horton could come in and contribute by 2011.
I also don’t expect more than 1 high quality prospect in return for Beltre even if the A’s are kicking in his entire salary. He’ll be 32 (at the time of the proposed trade) and will have had to have a good bounce back year in a tough hitter park to bring in a greater return. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but there’s also a lot that could go wrong.
And what’s the endgame? Beltre isn’t going to help the A’s contend for the play-offs in 2010 unless a whole bunch of the younger guys suddenly blossom. (Which I’m certainly not opposed to!)
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't think those are helpful comparisons
3/24 is fine, and I’m happy to use that.
If the A’s trade Beltre going into 2011 with that deal, and eat all the salary, they’re only doing it because the return is better (in their minds) to having Beltre for two years. It has nothing to do with the fact that Beltre is owed $16M since that cost is sunk on signing day. In other words, if you think having Beltre for 2/16 starting in 2011 is a good deal, you’ll think the trade they make is a good deal too (or the front office is stupid).
As far as production, I certainly agree that Beltre will not produce 20X Cardenas’ WAR in 2011 or 2012. I’m not sure at all that Beltre/Cardenas isn’t better than Ellis/Cardenas since Ellis has more injury issues and is older. I haven’t broken down the scenarios, but you also have to include the safety net of Beltre/Ellis in a year where we’re hoping to be very good.
Finally, as to endgame, that’s easy. It’s to have the best team possible on the field in 2011 and 2012. I think Beltre would be a big part of that team if signed.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
My problem is
If the bulk of the “better” return is coming from a player the A’s already have in their system then why create the sunk cost to begin with?
Gotta go have lunch with the wife. Later.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Enjoy
I don’t know what you mean. I don’t think Cardenas will be strictly better than Beltre in 2011, just likely better in $/WAR. I also think Beltre will be worth more than $8M. Either/both could be wrong.
If they’re right, though, you create the sunk cost because it makes your team better. Gaining assets with net-positive value is a good thing when, like the A’s this off-season, you can afford to. If we really do have a huge roster crunch with Ellis/Beltre/Cardenas/Weeks we can make a trade to re-align some of the value.
Another way to say that is that if Cardenas is ready to be a solid MLer in 2011 and we prefer Ellis to Beltre, I’d rather have a Beltre’s worth of talent and be out $16M than have no talent and $16M. I’d rather trade Beltre and his contract for a lesser prospect than have nothing. Obviously, the same goes for other combinations of return and salary-eating.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
That sounds like a bad investment strategy
I think it’s incredibly unlikely that you’re going to get an immediate $8 million (annual) return if you trade Beltre prior to 2011. Not if you’re just adding up the pieces coming back in the trade.
And you’re assuming a robust trade market for Beltre that I’m not sure will exist. (Doing some back-o-the-envelope work now.)
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm still missing the downside
Beltre + Cardenas is likely to be enough of an improvement over Ellis + Cardenas to be worth the money, especially if we’re talking about a 3/24 contract for Beltre.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
The downside is probably a push in actual performance
but the upside is only a marginal improvement, although one that would still offer solid value re: fiscal cost.
I have to admit, having this discussion has persuaded me that if the A’s could land Beltre on a 2 year + team option deal it would be worth the investment.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yeah, that would also work.
I doubt Boras would do it though.
Still, I’d be perfectly fine with giving him a 3 year deal, with the assumption that he may well be shopped around if and when Cardenas is ready to take over.
That, or sign a 1 year, $10M deal and be the best 3B on the market next year.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I don't see why
The A’s will have Beltre for two seasons. If he’s not worth $8M in those seasons, they shouldn’t be signing him (I think he is). Why would they trade him if the return isn’t an improvement?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
That's were we disagree
I think Cardenas will be ready by 2011 and when he’s in Oakland he’s playing 3B. I do not want a decline phase veteran blocking Cardenas’ path when that time comes.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I want the better 3B playing 3B in years we expect to contend
Even if it means Cardenas stagnates for a season/moves to 2B
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Could you tell her to wash the whites before I get home?
Also why are you having lunch with my wife?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
a cunning linguist indeed.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Sure
But hasn’t Beane already stated in the past those two budgets are more or less independent of each other? And we’ve already been able to do this even with a worst albatross on the books in Chavez. I find it bit unconvincing as an argument against. Now if there’s another player likely to be available that we’re signing next off-season that you want that money for, sure I’d go for that. But draft money, not so much. There seems to be a lot of room in the budget and I don’t see 8 million really keeping us from signing player types we’re most likely to go after.
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."
I'm just pointing out
That the $8 million a year you’re willing to kick in for a couple decent prospects in a Beltre deal could be spent on an entire draft class. Yours is not exactly a cost-efficient way to acquire prospects.
The monster at the end of this blog.
But it's not (primarily) a way of acquiring prospects
It’s a way of acquiring a solid third baseman for a couple years.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Look
My entire argument is hinged on the belief that Adrian Cardenas will be big league ready and producing by Opening Day 2011. I’ve got him pencilled in at 3B.
That means Beltre doesn’t have two years in Oakland from my perspective! Explain to me why I’m wrong on Cardenas to change my perspective.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'm not saying you're wrong.
I’m wondering why he can’t play second base when Mark Ellis’ option is declined, though.
Incidentally, wouldn’t that kinda be a best case scenario? “Oh, shit, Cardenas is ready now AND we have Adrian Beltre! WTF are we going to do with both of these good third basemen???”
I mean, the other thing is the 2011 Free Agent class for 3Bs kinda sucks. The highlights are basically Brandon Inge and Maicer Izturis. Having Beltre at, say, $9M per season is probably a pretty good trading chip, especially if he has a decent season in 2010.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Hmm...The trading chip argument
actually sways me the most. I hadn’t considered how the weak 2011 3B FA class might inflate Beltre’s trade value at the 2011 trade deadline.
I’d be fine with having Beltre for the time Cardenas isn’t ready, and getting a good return for Beltre when Cardenas is.
As for any overlap period (the first half of 2011), Cardenas’ ability to play 2B makes me confident there’s enough playing time to go around.
Plus it’s no guarantee whether Cardenas will be ready 1/2 season sooner, or later, than “expected,” not to mention the chance that always exists: he gets hurt or busts.
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
Your last point is the one that matters most to me
2011 is supposed to be a contention year for us. That won’t happen if we have a 3B who pulls a Crosby and ends up being terrible. That’s a lot more likely from Cardenas than it is from Cardenas + Beltre.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Are we counting on the health of Ellis as well in this scenario?
Ellis has had health issues, he’s on the decline (no, not huge, but decline), who’s to say Beltre won’t be better than Ellis (yes, at a higher cost and per dollar. Not necessarily a better “deal” but better player). Why not have options? Options are good. I like options. Not having options and being forced to take unnecessary risks, make poor(er) deals, find stopgaps, use filler… all suck.
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."
Why not structure the contract in such a way that Beltre is worth more to the A’s in trade in the future while subsequently giving them a good option now?
2010: $12 mil
2011: $5 mil
2012: $5 mil
Now you have Adrian Beltre on a three year, $22 mil deal, which is likely as much as he was looking to get. It’s a little pricy for just this year, but if you want to deal him after this season you’re selling a two year, $10 mil deal for prospects. Even if you had to pick up some of the money it’s not all that much. Beltre could even be cool with a deal like this:
2010: $10 mil
2011: DUAL OPTION – If A’s pick up option and Beltre agrees, Beltre gets $8 mil. If Beltre picks it up and A’s don’t, he gets $4 mil. If A’s pick up option and Beltre doesn’t want it picked up, he becomes a FA. It’s like a convoluted player option.
2012: Same dual option
This gives Beltre the option to become a free agent at any point he wants, or for the A’s to either make him a free agent or pay him significantly lower money than he’s likely worth.
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 28, 2009 5:05 PM PST up reply actions
Well... those are certainly interesting ideas
Fact is I need to draw the line somewhere and the front-loaded contract begs a trade after the 2010 season. That kind of contract would require serious negotiations between the team and the player and that’s where I tend to draw the line.
Maybe Beltre would be fine with a 1 year stop over in Oakland or maybe he wants more security than that. He might agree to that if he gets partial no-trade protection. That all needs to be negotiated and I believe that’s beyond the scope of informed discussion on AN.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I wonder at what point the player's union takes an interest
If the total dollars are ok, maybe they don’t care how any contract is structured. Or maybe a contract where one year’s amount is less than 1/2 of the year prior (12 —> 5) is an issue?
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
Scutaro's contract has a dual option
The contract is two years, $11 mil. There is then an option worth $6 mil if the Red Sox pick it up, or $3 mil if Scutaro picks it up.
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 28, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions
Instead of that you can just pay part of Beltre's contract
if/when you trade him.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 6:07 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, but you're paying more of it up front
Instead of picking up, say, $5 mil each year of an $8 mil contract, you’d pick up $2 mil of a $5 mil contract, having already paid him bigger dollars this year.
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 28, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
That doesn't make the difference you think it does (the former is better for the A's unless the economy actually deflates)
Although I do think there was a significant front-loaded contract this year.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
This isn't true anymore:
And don’t forget that when you trade a player in the middle of a multi-year contract he has the right to demand a trade from his new team after 1 season with them… that could influence the trade return as well.
That changed in the last CBA
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Dec 29, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
grover, what about Cardenas and Donalson in 2011?
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
I like Cardenas but...
I can see where someone might not be as convinced and want to make a play at a FA 3B signing. As good a prospect as Cardenas is (and he’s pretty damn good) he’s still just a prospect and while his numbers support his continued improvement and eventual emergence as a big leaguer… shit happens. At one point Dallas McPherson was considered by many knowledgeable people as one of the best 3B prospects in baseball and now we’re talking about him as a minor league FA pick-up who might get to platoon with Jake Fox.
As for Donaldson… I think the A’s are going to continue to emphasize his catching. They’ll give him spot duty at the infield corners to increase his versatility. If the A’s FO (and keep in mind this is my divination of their actions) truly believed that Donaldson could play 3B at a starting caliber level they would have made the switch already. They’ve got Suzuki entrenched in Oakland and a gaping, sucking chest wound at the hot corner and still Donaldson dons the tools of ignorance.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Your final paragraph is NOT correct
If you think the A’s can contend in 2011 if they add a good third baseman (and don’t think that 2010 is the last year when Beltre will be good) then it is correct to sign Beltre now.
Why? Take a look at the 2011 3B free agent class.
Garrett Atkins COL
Wilson Betemit CWS
Jorge Cantu FLA
Eric Chavez OAK *
Bill Hall SEA *
Brandon Inge DET
Maicer Izturis LAA
Mike Lowell BOS
Melvin Mora BAL
Nick Punto MIN *
Ty Wigginton BAL
Painfully awful. Brandon Inge is the best player on this list, and he’s a poor man’s Beltre to begin with. Maicer Izturis has barely played the position in 2 years. Lowell’s falling apart at the seams.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in calling Beltre the best 3B option in the next two years.
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 27, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Isn't acquisition an option?
You’d think that there are some good 3B in the league (some good ones that are still under contract) that will be pushed by other younger 3Bmen their organizations. And of those, isn’t there a possiblity that one of those organizations deep at the hotcorner could use some of the Athletics pitching?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Yes
You know who else could use that pitching? The Oakland Athletics.
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?
They wont all be on the 25-man roster at one time will they?
You know who else could use that pitching? The Oakland Athletics.
And of all those prospects who aren’t, some of them will still have trade value.
It is possible that the Athletics will not have just a Big Three come along, but an entire Big Five with a few valuable pieces still in the pipline. What do you do as a GM, continue letting them develop and be blocked or trade some away for something you want…to a team that has a surplus of valuable IFs that you may need.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
The notion of good pitchers ever being "blocked"
is about the most insanely optimistic thing I’ve ever heard. Between injuries and the flameout rate of pitching prospects… yeah. Not happening. I’d be happy if the A’s got two additional good SP out of their high-minors and major league arms. Four? Hard to credit how improbable that would be. Not a scenario that’s worth wasting any mental energies on.
If we’re talking relief pitching, that’s a different story. The A’s already have a dominant bullpen even before taking prospects into account. But bullpen pitchers have limited value. One major potential trade partner (Tampa) already filled their hole with Rafael Soriano.
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?
Expecting Beltre to be THE piece that leads us to the playoffs
The notion of good pitchers ever being “blocked” is about the most insanely optimistic thing I’ve ever heard.
doesn’t qualify as insanely optimistic?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
It doesn't have to be a 100% chance that he does so to make the risk worth taking
In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a 51% chance. It all depends on what the A’s own actual “marginal revenue from a regular season win,” “marginal revenue from a playoff berth,” and “projected WAR rate of Adrian Beltre” spreadsheet says. I’m just saying you have to factor in the second number.
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?
And your calculations say?
“Give me a no bullshit assessment here, McKinight” ~ General Garrison
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
Warning: all numbers made up
Marginal revenue per RS win: $2M
Marginal revenue per playoff appearance: $25M
WAR projection for Beltre: 3/2.5/2/1.5
Increase in playoff appearance percentage from 1 win: 2/4/6/6
The value of his regular season wins is $15M over 3 years or $18M over 4. The value of increased playoff probability is $1.5M+2.5M+3M+2.25M=$7M over 3 years or $9.25M over 4.
By this calculation, the A’s ought to be willing to offer $22M for a 3-year deal or $27.5M for a 4-year deal. Those sound like exactly the kind of offers I expect Beane to be making.
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'm a bit more optimistic on Beltre's WAR
As such, I’d give him 3/30 without blinking. Over that, it becomes tough. I think he’ll eventually sign for 3/36. Whether I’d do that, I don’t know.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
3/30 yes, not sure I'd want 3/36
That seems a little too much.
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."
except that I don't think Beane wants to give him four years
And he’d never take $22M over 3 years, right? At least not in late December he won’t. Talk to him in March and maybe you have a different story.
"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 27, 2009 9:26 PM PST up reply actions
OK, sure
Like I said, I made the numbers up. Bump the marginal revenue per win up to $2.5M and suddenly the A’s should offer him 3/26 or 4/31. It makes a significant difference, and our idea of the relevant data is very fuzzy right now.
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?
No one is suggesting that at all
We’re simply saying that if we’re looking for the best 3rd base option for the next 2/3 years, he’s it, so why not get it.
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."
+1
Aside from a freak nutsack injury last season, Beltre has been very durable. He hit 48 HR’s out of nowhere one season way back when, and people claim that his production slipped in the years after. No, he had a fluke season. Every other year he showed exactly the type of hitter he is. His HR totals starting from 1999 at 20 years old were as follows: 15, 20, 13 (515 PA with injury), 21, 23, 48, 19, 25, 26, 25, and 8 last season with the injury. Prior to 2009 he hit 25+ HR’s 3 seasons in a row in a tough AL hitters park. Add in the fact that he plays GG defense and this guy most certainly is the best 3B option over the next couple seasons. That is, unless, people want to trade away some of our top tier minor league talent to aquire one. It’s going to take quite a haul to aquire a 3B with more talent then Adrian Beltre. I understand the argument about Cardenas, but I really don’t think it’s smart to count on him making the switch to 3B and succeeding well enough to play, and hit at the major league level. I think he’s a legit prospect, but in no way is he a sure thing.
To expand on my thought
One has to at least consider that Chavez and his contract are limiting what this organization wants to do — third base — the 2010 season .
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
If it's limiting them, it's only doing so in Billy Beane's head
and his head is wrong.
Chavez should have no impact whatsoever on the 2010 Athletics except to implicitly lower the payroll ceiling (whatever it is) by $12M.
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?
Put your businessman's hat on to see if Beane (a partial owner) is wrong.
Would you pursue someone like Beltre to play 3B at $10+ million
morethis year if the expected payout in additional revenue this year were some degree less than the $10 million cost?
Unless, of course, you think that Beltre would make for a net gain in this regard.
Ifhe’s not, and
ifyou concede that point, tell me how Beane is wrong.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
Jeez...too many beers for me.
quotes=italics
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
If the expected revenue gain is more than the total value of the contract,
then signing it makes sense even if the expected revenue gain in 2010 is not greater than the salary in 2010. If you think Beltre buys you a playoff berth in 2011 or 2012, that’s very plausible.
None of which has anything to do with either the price of milk or Eric Chavez.
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?
Those are big 'ifs'
I think that both are iffy at best. Your milage may vary.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 6:25 PM PST up reply actions
The ifs are iffy?
I think you just won the Most Obvious Statement Of 2009 Award. :p
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 do like it when you write opinion...it's less offputting.
You know, like when you writethat Beane is wrong and the Athletics can afford this or that. No qualifiers, no nothing. Leaves you to be the expert in the blogosphere.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
I find the old IMO and especially IMHO to be really annoying
and poorly written. Nearly every statement is an opinion and if it’s fact based, it’s generally clear anyway. Stating it’s your opinion is both a waste of time and a sign of someone who lacks confidence in their opinion. I’d say that’s just my two cents, but I’d hope that would be obvious.
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."
I think its usefull if your not citing anything specific.
Or something your not tied to defending to the death.
I see your point
But it doesn’t even have to be “IMO”. You even did this above by taking ownership of your opinion on the matter by preffacing, “I find”. And had you began without it and replaced “to be” with “are”, the reader’s attitude would be more like, “Well who the ____ are you? Do you speak for everyone here or something?”
Many people do, in fact, use qualifiers but not neccessarily throughout a reply or fan post. I think that most people find the right balance. Some, however, wont do this and then just come off as, “I’m right. You’re wrong. So STFU about it because you’re an idiot.”
Take PT’s statement above about Beane. PT believes that Beane is not limited by financial constraints to the point where he could sign a FA like Beltre. And that if he does think that he’s limited, he’s wrong. Now PT may be correct that the organization has room in it’s budget for increased spending [budget not financial capacity] but to come off like that’s a certainty without being challenged by it? I’m going to challenge him on that because I’m less confident than he is. If it were truth, I think that Beane would have brought Figgins over to play 3B for less than what the armchair GMs want to bring Beltre over for.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 28, 2009 6:00 AM PST up reply actions
I think Beltre is better than Figgins, personally...
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?
Figgins does add about 5 runs/year with his non-SB
baserunning though. That pushes him slightly ahead for me.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
IMO has it's place
I find that when I’m referring to various scouting reports and/or opinions it feels necessary to point out when I’m jumping in with my own 2 cents. IMO makes it clear to the reader that we’ve stepped away from the pros and are dabbling with the thoughts of an (admittedly gifted) amateur.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I have no problem with using IMO or its variants
Otherwise things often come off like people are speaking in absolutes.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
In theory, you're right.
In internet reality, where so many people are ready to pounce, I have to disagree. Every exception to the rule must be noted, lest “…but you said…” or “but you didn’t say…” be thrown at them to try and paint them into a corner and prove them ‘wrong’… or, themselves ‘right’. Disclaimers have become the unfortunate necessity to head off the dumb-ass crap that most people really do know yet seem to forget.
Funny thing is, I don’t see people do this stuff in face-to-face conversations as much, yet they seem to relish it when hiding behind the computer screen.
IMHO, of course, but that should be obvious as well. ;-)
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
I agree with this, PT, but don't think free agency
has to be the way the A’s 3B. In fact, I’d recommend against it.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I prefer adding assets to trading assets.
You’ll never get anywhere if all you do is trade. The point of having a young core is so that you have enough money to fill the gaps. 3b is a gap, has been for years.
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
How'd we get Anderson, Carter, Taylor, Cardenas, and Sweeney,
aka “much of the best of our nucleus”?
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
Trades
You build a core with trades, prospects, etc. You build a winner by filling the gaps of your core with FA. If you never fill the gaps, you = 2009 A’s.
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
I think it's more that you
fill “cheaper on the open market” needs (e.g., defense) on the free agent market, and build your significant talent (power, starting pitching) through trades for guys who haven’t proven that talent yet.
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
Yes that's the ideal strategy
It doesn’t always work out that way. And the situation we have now is holes at 3b and probably SS. We have money to spend, Chavez will be off the books in a year, and a good available 3b on the market, and the best for the next few years. We have the flexibility, the holes, and the candidate? Why not add the asset?
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
Hm
I know a third baseman whose primary skill is defense, which is cheaper on the open market. He’s also the best overall option for the next two years, and is available right now.
I think the A’s should look into signing this guy.
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?
And what of Cardenas?
If you sign Beltre for 3 years or whatever, does that mean you give up the idea on Cardenas to the hot corner?
How do you factor what the A’s already have in the pipeline with the pieces you might want to acquire via FA?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I factor it in by assuming that only one of Cardenas and Weeks will actually be a good player
and putting Jemile Cardenas at second base.
If they’re both “hits,” fabulous, but I’m not hanging my hat on the possibility.
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 an assumption that is thus far unsupported by the progress reports
Sure, there’s a question as to if Weeks will ever stay healthy over a full season but performance wise both Cardenas and weeks have shown good progress and have continued to advance.
I’m all for playing it conservative when it comes to looking ahead at what kind of goodies will be provided by the farm but you’re going to have to convince me why one of Cardenas/Weeks will fail. If you’re advocating signing Beltre to a 3-4 year deal at $8-9 million annual I want to know why the A’s can’t just wait a year and pop in a cheap, homegrown alternative.
The monster at the end of this blog.
OK, here's my argument
I have Cardenas rated as a prospect in the 25-50 range (a range, I’d point out, which is higher than the consensus) and Weeks optimistically at 75-100.
The average surplus value of those two prospects, combined, is $31.9M. An average prospect provides about the equivalent of 4.2 cost-controlled years to his team (3 free years plus 3 arbitration years at 60%, 40% and 20% discounts). $31.9M divided by 4.2 is less than $8M a year, which is not even enough to fill one position with a league-average player.
Now, I can see arguments against this type of analysis— in particular, I think the BA rankings used in the calculation give vastly too much emphasis to players at very low levels of the minor league chain, and thus the value calculation discounts high-minors guys who have high floors. Certainly I’m hopeful that one of them will be a good player. But… both is very unlikely.
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'm with PT on the "two to make one" theory
that Cardenas and Weeks will likely produce one good player and you needn’t worry about them producing two. If they do, fantastic — now you have 3 good players at 2 positions and you can trade one. More likely, stuff happens and you’re left with 2 good players for 2 positions.
My personal hunch? Cardenas makes it, Weeks hobbles to a delayed and disappointing career (seems to run in the family), in which he’s not a factor anytime soon.
That all supports signing Beltre — which I’m actually all for, just not at 4/32.
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
As an abstract concept, sure
“Two to make one” makes a lot of sense. But which two? When you ask about specific players you have to throw the abstract out the window and try to answer the specific questions.
My personal hunch? Cardenas makes it, Weeks hobbles to a delayed and disappointing career (seems to run in the family), in which he’s not a factor anytime soon.
My problem with that quote is its the best attempt at answering the specific question… and as you said it’s a hunch that doesn’t justify a long term deal for Beltre. It needs to be built upon to create a convincing argument.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Well, the two that play the position
Weeks has “ability” and “health” hanging over him, but could certainly conquer both. I’m looking at the odds as being, say:
Cardenas makes it: 80%
Weeks makes it: 50%
That would yield…
Both make it = 40%
Neither make it = 10%
One but not the other makes it = 40%
However, in the last scenario, which one makes it isn’t that important — you have one position filled and one vacant.
Of course, it’s never actually that straight-forward because you have situations like Barton — bad for a season, still has promise, may have a breakout season or may be a bust, and Sweeney — better defensively than you might have expected but still not sure whether the power will develop, but he’s going to be in the big leagues for a while.
Kind of like handicapping Beltre’s bat, and how he ages, for the next 3-4 seasons. Not easy and not an exact Science.
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
Never said it would be easy!
Let’s look at the A’s.
They’ve got Ellis signed through 2010 with a team controlled option for 2011 at very friendly terms.
Seattle is gearing up for a run in 2010 and on paper, even with Beltre, the A’s of next year lag behind.
You’re giving (in a not-necessarily-scientific-method) Cardenas an 80% chance of making it and it looks like he’ll be able to play 3B for Oakland.
Cardenas shouldn’t be expected to excel any earlier than 2011; which just happens to be when the A’s might get their next window of opportunity to make a post-season run.
If next season is truly a lost cause for the A’s then do they really benefit from having Beltre on the roster in 2011?
The monster at the end of this blog.
No, but I'm the one who wrote the post
against the Beltre signing. I think we’re on the same page here.
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
Me too
I mean, as a fan I’m all for it in that it will instantly improve the team. But at what cost/years is it actually a good move? For now, I’m sticking with
1/9
2/16
3/21
4/24
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I can't justify a multi-year deal for Beltre
Not if you believe in Cardenas.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I can. I believe in Cardenas
but also believe that:
1. Any prospect is a question mark until he’s had major league time.
2. Cardenas has two positions at which he could land, so Beltre wouldn’t even block him outright.
3. Too many good players is a nice problem that the A’s don’t have often enough.
It’s just a question, to me, of how good Beltre is going forward. Not good enough to make a big investment in, IMO, but good enough to make a medium one in.
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
'Cause Cardenas will take out the Unicorn no problem!
There are question marks and then there are questions. If you believe that Cardenas has what it takes to go from where he’s at (AAA) to the Show then the question is: when?
You talk about big league time… there has to be a roster spot available for him to get that time in.
Too many good players is a problem when you have a limited number of positions in which to play them. Is it really more cost efficient, heck, will it help the A’s win more games if they have Beltre at 3B and Cardenas at 2B in 2011 vs. Ellis at 2B and Cardenas at 3B? ’Cause signing Beltre to a 3 year deal goes a long way towards deciding the fate of Ellis after next season.
As for just making a trade to clear everything up, don’t forget that there is a very strong chance that the better players will be the ones you don’t have tens of millions invested in.
The monster at the end of this blog.
The Phillies had it right
I’d love to have the Polanco/Thome/Howard/Utley scenario.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
The market has changed since then
Teams are holding on to their prospects now and are being more spendthrift with their cash.
Are you really willing to pay Beltre $8 million next year and then conceivably pay another $8 million over the following two years just to get a couple decent prospects in return?
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yes
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."
Not really a problem
If Ellis comes back strong in 2010, then you have a number of choices. You can replace Pennington with Cardenas and field a Carlos Guillen type shortstop for a year; or you can use Cardenas as a utility player by way of getting his feet wet; or you can just have him work on his power stroke in AAA (he’ll still only be 23 that season). Or you can deal Ellis to the Mariners.
As for Weeks, I’ve long felt that his skills played better in center field than at second base to begin with. If that’s where he needs to go, and he actually is good enough to do so, then so be it. I suspect that Rajai Davis’s hitting will make him unacceptable as a full-time option by 2011.
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?
But by 2011,
won’t the A’s have picked up Coco Crisp’s option AND signed a “Coco Crisp clone” for $6M?
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
Just curious:
What do you mean when you say Weeks’ skills would play better in CF than 2B?
Just allowing him to utilize his speed more or am I missing something?
If you think Billy Beane is a bad GM, I hate you and find you stupid.
He's quite rangy but does not have great hands
and he has some difficulty making off-balance throws from the hole, because he has a below-average arm.
CF accentuates the range benefits while deemphasizing the arm and hands problems.
Please note, I’m not saying that he’s hopeless as a second baseman. But I think he might be better as a center fielder.
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 A's have said they don't like Cardenas as a starting SS
They’ll spot him there, but he’s not someone they want there for 150 games. So stick to the scouting reports when you make up these line-ups.
Weeks to CF? What about Brown and Desme? Not to mention the fact that Weeks has been earning good marks on his defense as of late.
And what a wonderful solution to the “too many good players” problem: we’ll just sit one in AAA where he provides no help to the A’s winning games through 2011.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Why can't Cardenas start at 2nd
and move to third when Beltre is traded or is contract expires? At which time Weeks (if he makes it) takes over at 2nd or Center.
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."
He can
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:20 AM PST up reply actions
Because barring unforeseen disaster
Cardenas will be more than ready for the Show by the start of the 2011 season. The A’s have also been very aggressive in pushing Weeks; he could also be ready (and note I said could) within a year.
As for Weeks to CF, keep in mind that Weeks might be the better 2B defender (I read some stuff at the end of last season and I’m curious to see what comes out over the next month) and furthermore the A’s already have Brown and Desme in CF in the upper minors (AAA and AA, respectively).
The monster at the end of this blog.
Say what?
Desme isn’t a center fielder, or wasn’t the last time I checked.
Brown’s skillset plays just as well in right as center anyway, so I’m not concerned about exactly which outfield position he ends up at.
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 where he spent most of his time last year.
While at Stockton, 43 games in center, 11 in right, 4 in left.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Excuse me then
Desme played a lot of CF in 2009 and I can’t remember everyone who hypes the guy as a future CF option for the A’s.
The A’s already have a bunch of prospects in the upper minors for the corner OF spots as well.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Oops, ha ha. Sorry!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
It was sort of correct if you imagine
the “one” to be a specific one, as in “this one but not that one makes it” and then the missing 10% is “that one but not this one makes it”.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Yeah, but my point was that it didn't matter
which one made it. And my point is enhanced by the correct number, as the odds “one but not both” make it is in fact the most likely. That was actually my point, and then I put the wrong number.
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
Don't give me crap about average surplus
I am asking for you to explain why one or the other is going to fail. Because in my mind if you can’t do that than you can’t justify signing Beltre to a long term deal. If we were talking a 1 year deal we could just wait and see how Weeks and Cardenas develop and let things work out as they may. But that doesn’t seem to be an option, not with Boras as his agent.
I want to hear the reasoning because we know, we know, that the Coliseum isn’t a great place for hitters and the stadium itself isn’t an attraction and oh yeah, the A’s have had 3 consecutive losing seasons and 2010 (even with Beltre in the fold) doesn’t look like the A’s are poised for a play-off run.
All that translates to paying top dollar for Beltre. Oakland can’t expect any kind of discount and before anyone says “the A’s are his only suitor” keep in mind that a year ago the A’s were the only team bidding on Rafael Furcal. Suitors can appear.
So I need to be convinced that signing Beltre is the better option to waiting for Cardenas to arrive by 2011.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Because prospects fail all the time?
I would think one needs to be convinced a minor league player will become an impact major league player in order to forego upgrades at the major league level. Competition will work out better for the team.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
I'm all for competition
Except a veteran player in the 2nd year of a 4 year deal paying him $8 million annual has a considerable edge over a rookie because the team needs to get value out of that money spent. Even if that playing time is merely designed to create a market for a trade of said vet player.
Yes, prospects fail all the time but both Weeks and Cardenas have played AA ball (Adrian finished last season in AAA) and have had some success; they’ve already cleared several hurdles that typically do in prospects.
Staying specific with Cardenas… he’s proven himself at AA and his 2nd go around in Sac was fairly successful. His bat is conceivably half a season away. I’ll grant you any argument you want to make about his ability to handle the defensive needs at 3B; he simply hasn’t proven that he can handle the hot corner.
But the information we do have on his defensive ability at 3B is thus far positive. There is a very real chance he can be a big league 3B and it looks like his time could come very soon; possibly during the 2010 season but seemingly Opening Day 2011 at the latest.
I’m not saying Beltre isn’t “worth” a 3 year/$24 million deal. I’m asking if the expense is justified because it looks like the A’s have a prospect who can give them 90% of the performance at the big league minimum and he could be ready to contribute inside of a year.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Also, while Cardenas hasn't proven himself at 3B yet
I’m not sure why he wouldn’t make it there. It seems like the questions surrounding him have not been “is he athletic/mobile/good enough hands to play good INF defense?” like they are with Wallace, Carter, and others. It’s about his arm for SS (negative) and his range for 2B (uncertain). All of which would suggest a solid 3Bman.
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
Kieth Law says
that he’s not quick enough for 3B, atleast according to someone on the scout boards. But that could just be Kieth Law seeing a guy once and then making up his mind on it, which he often does.
Hmm...Now if he were not to be quick enough for 3B,
where WOULD he be suited to play? Cardenas doesn’t strike me as someone who’s especially slow — he’s certainly not big, or stocky — and if he’s been scouted as a “maybe” 2Bman and a “SS but not at higher levels,” that sounds like a guy who’s perfectly quick enough to play 3B.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I found the quote
“Fox can’t play third base at the big league level, and I don’t think Cardenas has the arm or quickness for it.” -Apparently from Kieth Law. Again, just one’s scout’s opinion, and I use the word “scout” loosely.
Yeah, I'm inclined to
“consider the source” on that one. I haven’t heard that offered as any sort of scouts’ consensus.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm doing a quick online search to see
what I can find to refresh my memory on scouting report on Cardenas’ defense.
First one I’ve found (from "The Diamond Cutter, 2008): Cardenas has a strong, compact stroke that gives him the ability to drive the ball to all fields. Moved over from shortstop as he was never a stellar fielder at that spot. Once he gets down the footwork of second base, he should do just fine there with his above-average arm strength.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm not finding too much good recent stuff
but most of what I can see from 1-2 years ago suggests he’s more likely than not to make it at 2B defensively, which suggests to me that he must have the range to play 3B.
And if he played SS in high school, and the one recent report I can find mentions “his above-average arm strength,” he probably has the arm for 3B.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
BA and Sickels (and I think BP)
thought Cardenas has the hands and arm for 3B. No one said anyhting about his reactions because heading into 2009 his 3B play was theoretical.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Sickels even says,
“there has been talk of moving him to 3B to take advantage of his arm” — so, sounds like he has the arm for 3B.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Demanding the impossible is kind of a conversational nonstarter
How on earth would I know why one wouldn’t work out? No one knows why prospects work out or don’t work out. We have vague guesses which are slightly better, probability-wise, than throwing darts at a dartboard. That’s about it.
It is not possible to explain the success or failure of one particular prospect, except in hindsight. All we can do is group them and take guesses based on what box they seem to fit into.
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?
WTF?
I’ve seen you make plenty of arguments about why you don’t like certain players/prospects. I am not asking the impossible, I’m asking you to justify why signing Beltre to a long term deal makes more sense than waiting for a AAA prospect.
What are the holes in his game that make you think Adrian Cardenas won’t make it as a big league 3B?
The monster at the end of this blog.
I don't think that
I think that if the A’s were not to sign Beltre, there would be a 70% chance or so that Cardenas would be at least OK as a big-league third baseman. I just gave him a frickin’ B+ over at Minorleagueball.
Signing Beltre makes (at least conceptual) sense because it increases the density and depth of potential options, not because there is no possible scenario in which the A’s get acceptable production out of third base.
That doesn’t mean that the A’s should nail his colors to the mast and be willing to spend unlimited amounts of cash on 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?
Especially since unlimited amounts of cash...
…could have been better spent on Figgins.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 9:52 PM PST up reply actions
Why is Figgins so much better than Beltre?
They seem pretty similar to me
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:23 AM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't say he so much better
But I do think that Figgins is better even though they are similar players; here’s why: 1) Figgins has shown improvement at 3B since he’s ettled there — to the point where they’re near equals; 2) Figgin’s plate discipline is improving year-over-year and appoaching a BB/K balance while Beltre is not (in fact, Beltre looks to be slipping in the area over the years); 3) Much of Beltre’s appeal is the HR power he possesses [which seems on the decline]…isn’t it more likely that playing in Oakland will reveal a steeper decline if one is actually beginning?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 28, 2009 6:41 AM PST up reply actions
Plate discipline
Beltres bad walk rate plummeted in 09, but it looks like it bounces around natually. I wouldn’t say its slipping.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury
Seattle and the Dodgers are notorious hackers, too
Perhaps he would be better at taking pitches on a team that values that particular skill?
Eh who knows. Just thinking out loud.
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 28, 2009 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
That's hoping to fit a square peg into a round hole
(and no, that’s not what anyone said). At 31, Beltre is unlikely to learn a whole new paradigm of patience.
He’s not the world’s most disciplined hitter and as a result has carried an OBP under .333 for 5 years in a row. If that doesn’t work for you in combination with his defense, I wouldn’t bring him over hoping he’ll learn patience.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm not saying he'll do it
Was just kinda thinking about loud. Remember the part in Moneyball where Hatteberg talks about the way the Red Sox hitting coaches would rip him for taking pitches? Perhaps the Dodgers and Mariners did the same thing. Who knows. It was just a thought I had that I figured I’d post; it’s 99% likely to be wrong. But maybe he picks up a small number of extra walks (15 maybe?) upon joining the A’s and learning that he won’t be yelled at for taking a few pitches, and that would make him just that much more valuable. Not saying it’ll happen, just that I’m saying there’s a chance.
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 28, 2009 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
I hate that saying
Because a square peg can actually fit into a round hole as long as the square peg is small enough.
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."
Or the round hole big enough.
And in the case where the square peg is a toothpick and the round hole is the grand canyon, it’s really almost hard to miss unless Henry Rodriguez is the one throwing the toothpick.
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 we're back to the original question
Is it really the best use of the A’s financial resources to drop 3/$24 on Beltre considering Cardenas’ presence in the organization? Could the $8 million you’re spending on Beltre in 2011 and 2012 be better spent on another player/players during those seasons?
Is Beltre really going to be worth 20X’s what Cardenas is going to be paid in 2011? Because that answer is “no” than it would be a mistake for the A’s to sign Beltre.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Yes!
Could the $8 million you’re spending on Beltre in 2011 and 2012 be better spent on another player/players during those seasons?
Especially so. That $8 million is more like $20 million (actually $17 mil first year…$3 mil buy-out) available once Chavez’s contract is up. Now there may not be any sure FAs at 3B or SS in 2011 but that money could be spread elsewhere or used to acquire someone [whether outright cash transfer in a transaction or used to take on a large contract for a team looking to salary dump]. Another year of waiting is a luxury while 2010 expectations are low [and so is the likely attendance].
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 28, 2009 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
I hesitate to add Chavez's $$$
Those dollars are getting paid out regardless and I wouldn’t turn around and argue against signing Beltre merely because of Chavez’s contract.
Put another way, if Cardenas wasn’t in the organization and the nearest legit 3B prospect was in A-ball I’d have no problem with offering Beltre a 3 year deal.
The monster at the end of this blog.
He's been garbling the issue with the irrelevant sunk cost of Chavez all thread
Why stop now?
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?
It's irrelevant?
Does that payroll ceiling comment of yours show irrelevance? Because I’m thinking that when a team has less money to spend one year than it could have had, it becomes very relevant. Or is that me just garbling business concepts like planning, budgeting, and cash flow, Paul?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 28, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
"Having less money for a year" means that winning that year is less likely
It does not make any difference in how you should spend the money you DO have.
At this point, it would require either optimism that would make Candide blush, or simple insanity, to expect Chavez to contribute more than a tiny amount of value at the third base position in 2010. As such he is irrelevant to the discussion. The money being paid to him is already taken out of the A’s budget and cannot be recovered. He is a complete nonissue.
Given that signing Beltre is a possibility, and we are given that by the fact that the A’s are apparently engaging in nontrivial discussions with his agent, Chavez does not even enter the conversation. Signing Beltre is a good idea, or it isn’t. The fact that the A’s burnt a bunch of money on the position already is not pertinent in the slightest.
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?
Candide wouldn't blush
Candide wasn’t the absurdly optimistic one in Candide – that was Pangloss. (You missed an excellent chance to use “Panglossian” in a sentence, but you’re young, and I’m sure the opportunity will arise again!)
I side with Paul on this one.
Candide subscribed to the optimism taught by his master, but guilelessly. Pangloss was a windbag and something of a hypocrite. A reference to him would take a different tone, one which in my opinion would be less artful.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Well, my given name is "Paul" as well
But I take your point and I’ll defer to you on this. It’s been a lot of years since I read the book your take on it sounds right to me, in retrospect.
The only place
the A’s have as big hole/don’t have good prospects as 3b is SS. Who do we spend this money on at SS?
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
I'd feel better...
…about waiting on these prospects if the organization were a little more forthcoming in saying these guys do indeed hold enough potential at 3B to take a chance and give it a shot and let the cards fall where they may. As of yet, by both words and actions, I’m not seeing that.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
My answer to that question is "no"
based on looking at the potential FA options.
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 do not believe that there are any other free agent options
who combine relative affordability, plausible upside, and positional need in the manner that Adrian Beltre does within the next two seasons.
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?
Yet Cardenas may provide all 3,
within the next one seasons.
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
In which case we've got a GOOD problem on our hands
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
And hopefully a problem with good hands
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
Is that your way of saying you oppose all free agent signings of any kind prior to 2012?
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?
No, not at all.
If offered the chance to upgrade from “awful” to “ok” while paying “good” money, when I have a good prospect on the way, I’m not going to accept just because the “% upgrade” is a lot.
I think a lot of Beltre’s appeal here is how much better he is than Fox, McPherson, Kennedy…Which is true, but it doesn’t make Beltre a better player.
There are other options. Inge for a year, then see what Cardenas can do, then go from there. Or trade for a prospect whose value isn’t as high as it once was (LaRoche, Marte, etc.).
Beltre isn’t the A’s only good option for two years. He’s just the best FA option.
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
Why would you pay money for a smaller percentage upgrade
when you could pay money for a larger percentage upgrade?
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?
Two reasons:
1. Less money. For example, I’d rather have Inge and Cust then Beltre for the same amount.
2. Not getting locked into an “ok” player at a position when I might be able to acquire, or develop, a better one in the near future.
I don’t know that #2 applies to “A’s 3B” right now but it might, and it certainly applies generally to your question.
Locking up a position for several years, and allocating a lot of money, in order to have an “ok” player there is not always a great idea.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think this is exactly backwards
Neither Inge nor Cust helps us in 2011. Beltre does.
Whether Cardenas can play 3B in 2011 or not, he’s very unlikely to play it as well as Beltre. I understand that he will be a LOT cheaper, but 2011 is supposed to be a contending year.
I think we are a better team in 2011 with Beltre and without $8M in payroll space. If you don’t, that’s fine, but that should be the debate.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Adrian Beltre is better than "ok"
Brandon Inge is “OK” and he would cost a player AND money.
Beltre is better and would only cost money.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Yeah, but money =/= money
Inge would cost money AND a player. Beltre would cost money AND some more money.
Unless you’re positing that the two will have the same price, but I don’t think anyone is saying we should take Inge over Beltre if the salary cost is the same.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Correct.
I’m also interested in being “a bit better” in 2010 where others may not be, as I see a value in having a team that’s around .500 or a little better on paper — then you can see if a bunch of stuff rolls right and you are “buyers” in July.
Plus you set your young team up to have to make less of a jump to get to 90+ wins the following year. I know, psychology stuff — you can go throw up now.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
It's quite likely that whatever player is traded for Inge
More than makes up for the difference in salary between Inge and Beltre.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Key word: "may"
The magical 2011 deadline is looming too close to let uncertainties such as “may” rule.
Besides, as mikev said, if he does pan out, we then have a problem of the good variety. Given a choice, I’d rather have a good problem than a bad problem, and signing Beltre increases that chance.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
Would Cardenas really be so bad?
In 2011, that is.
And if the answer to that is yes, there are still some league average/slightly below average guys on your list. It’s not like we are screwed if we don’t sign this awesome .680 ops player.
by SeanR on Dec 27, 2009 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Who do you have at 2B though?
Im pretty sure Cardenas is our 2011 opening day 2B. In fact, I really hope he is.
I'd be very surprised if he's ready before August even for a call-up
At that point he’ll probably need a couple of months to get acclimated.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:24 AM PST up reply actions
I keep seeing this sentiment expressed by many people, and...
If you don’t think the A’s are going to compete next year, then it doesn’t make any sense at all.
…it makes no sense. I view it as shortsighted.
It implies that cost and money should be conserved until “we’re ready”, which in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it also implies that after 2010 Beane and company will be announce that “we’re ready” and that all the needed good players will beat a path to their door to fill in the missing pieces.
Sorry, it ain’t gonna happen that way. To become good, it’s a process of time as well as money, and if good 3B options are not otherwise available, or will not be a certainty later when needed, then you have to be pro-active and build the team up accordingly, piece by piece. If we’re really serious that 2011 is going to be “the (first) year” of serious competitiveness, then beginning to fill in some of the weak spots in 2010 is very reasonable and practical…. and necessary.
Re: Cardenas and prayers… He’s far from a certainty at 3B, so it’s shortsighted again to put that kind of planning and expectation on his back with no Plan B in place. Then, if he does pan out at 3B, you’ve got a good trade chip to fill in other holes when it might be needed most.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
Its kinda funny
that Cardenas is that heavily inserted into the conversation, seeing as he has not played 3rd significantly yet.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - danmerqury
stop saying he's injury prone
he got injured in a freak accident and obliterated his testicle. thats going to fuck up your day, week, month, year no matter who you are.
He also had shoulder surgery
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
The economics of business decisions is one possible reason why not.
Why?…Post the main reasoning why you dont like Adrian Beltre as a member of the A’s for the next 2-4 years,
see: http://www.athleticsnation.com/2009/12/26/1220159/the-case-for-adrian-beltre#27776246
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 27, 2009 7:29 AM PST up reply actions
C'mon, man...
You can scroll up the thread and see plenty of reasons for why not to sign Beltre. I mean, I’ll give you bonus points for using an an inappropriate word in your response, to tip off your youth…but other than that, this post is just repeating your original post.
Here’s a final thought for you, since I guess you don’t like the ones above, and I’m not as nice as LowCountryJoe to link my own response above…
Had we not signed Coco Crisp, and if we had non-tendered Scott Hairston, we could just use this money you guys like to throw around on Matt Holliday. Yeah…he had an awful season in Oakland…where he OPS’d .831. Beltre OPS’d a .680 last year. You just can’t tell me that defense overcomes a pure inability to hit. I mean, you can, if we were talking a $5m/yr player. But for STAR money, you better be able to produce runs. Heck – most likely, the better of Fox/McPhereson will OPS higher than Beltre.
by SeanR on Dec 27, 2009 8:17 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Fox will definitely outhit Beltre, no question.
I’d also add that defensive results seem to fluctuate a lot more than offensive ones do, at least over single seasons. Signing a player purely on their glove is a bigger gamble than signing them on their bat.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Good thing Beltre has played 11 major league seasons and posted an average UZR of +14.8 during the last eight.
All those arguments about SSS and stuff that you hear with defensive stats? Yeah, this is the situation where they do NOT apply. Beltre is an awesome glove. Everyone knows that he is an awesome glove, scouts, computers, analysts— everyone. Even the idiot managers know that he is an awesome glove.
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 27, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
....which makes him a perfect fit for the A's.
I'll have a sandwich and a draft(sic). - Bill King (RIP)
I don't deny he's an awesome glove.
I’m saying that if he has a stinker of a defensive season (which he has in the past), that he becomes useless during that season. Am I wrong that defensive performance in a given season, compared to other seasons in a player’s career, fluctuates more wildly than offensive performance (usually)?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Yeah
but that plays against your argument, not for it.
Why? Because it could also fluctuate upward to a level where he’s suddenly a star talent. When you’re playing from behind, high-variability risks are good gambles.
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?
How does he become a better fielder that we already expect him to be?
Honest question. I don’t care about his bat, because it’s going to suck. I am resigned to that.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
By spearing a few extra line drives?
10 runs is like 12 plays over the course of an entire season. It’s not hard to see how a guy’s performance could change radically based on just a handful of plays going differently than they otherwise would.
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?
We could just put in his contract
that in his 3 years contract, he’s only allowed to suck ass defensively in 2010.
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."
Oh, I'd take that bet.
I don’t think Fox is anywhere close to a guarantee to outhit Beltre.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 27, 2009 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
lol no he wont
its Jake Fox going from the NL to the AL. Cust will likely double whatever it is Fox does in the batters box. Beltre will probably hit 15-25 HR and OPS 750-850 in Oakland every year. Oh yeah and theres that whole defense thing that he’s one of the best in the game at, and all our other options are miserable at it (I dont count Chavez as an option).
Im becoming less of a fan of Fox by the day FYI. Seems like such a boring hitter, like his ceiling is a poor mans Jermaine Dye, who cares
Why waver on Fox when he hasn't played yet?
I have optimism that because Beane sought him out, he’ll be worth a damn.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
Jason Kendall, Arthur Rhodes, Bobby Crosby...
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."
.750-850?
You’re joking, right? You know that in 11 seasons, he’s cleared .850 once, but been under .750 six times, right?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
SSS but...
…he’s got a career OPS of .658 in the Coliseum, consisting of 208 PA, which is the fifth-most of any road ballpark he’s played in. That OPS is his worst in any ballpark in which he’s had over 150 PAs (there are eight).
Last of the Ninth - Photography
But he won't be facing the A's pitchers and defenders
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:27 AM PST up reply actions
No, but I don't think it will make the kind of difference PL78 is suggesting
He’s probably not going to OPS .750-.850 in the Coliseum, especially considering he’s:
1) not come anywhere close to doing that there in the first place, and
2) already OPSed below .750 in home ballparks that have often trended toward the bottom third of those in park factors, much like the Coliseum, though Dodger Stadium has fluctuated toward the upper half as well this decade along with the Coliseum depending on the season
3) got a career OPS of .779 (.794 with the Dodgers, but .759 with the Mariners)
Continuing to play all those road games in better offensive ballparks will help balance it out but I’d be surprised if he finished with an OPS above .775 playing half his seasons in Oakland. Take away 2004 and a career that’s been fairly league average offensively is even more so, with excellent defense his main benefit.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Also, after OPSing 1.017 in 2004 his highs aside from that are...
.835 in 2000 and .802 in 2007. Last year’s (.683) was his worst of any season with over 100 games played.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Further
His career OPS in the two home ballparks he’s had:
Dodger Stadium: .738
Safeco Field: .713
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I think Matt Holliday might be interested in knowing where he's landing
and maybe even having some say in the matter. Nontendering a bunch of valuable players on spec that he will sign with you strikes me as… optimistic.
Also, he really WOULD interfere with keeping the team’s arbitration-eligible players. The A’s have a lot of payroll flexibility this offseason and next, but it starts getting very very tight around 2013 unless the current group of players just completely sucks (in which case, who cares? the prospects aren’t THAT good, so the team will suck anyway).
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?
Plus, if I'm going to pay someone millions and millions of dollars,
they WILL smile, dammit.
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
Or they damn well better look intense.
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."
So you recommend constipation?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:28 AM PST up reply actions
Whatever gets the job done
Or in that case, keeps the job from getting done.
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."
so Holliday doesn't sign with us...
There will be more stars available on the market in the upcoming years. I don’t like the method of spending on a baseball team like you have an escrow account about to run out. The money should not have to disappear just because you don’t use it.
So you're OK with Fox and Miles at 3B?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:29 AM PST up reply actions
Yes
What’s the worst that can happen? We miss the playoffs? Because thats happened the past few years and I’ve survived.
Our pitchers get over worked
because our pitiful defense at third base exposes an ugly hole that requires them to expend more pitches than necessary in order to get outs.
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."
If thats really the case
Lets use an extra roster spot on a pitcher. Lets let Cassevah pitch any time the other pitchers are “over-worked”. This is not a $30m problem.
Unless you pay Cassevah $30million
Which I would advise against.
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're over working, over stressing the entire pitching staff
from starters to the bullpen. Yes, you could give these guys extra rest, but higher stress innings (even if fewer) are harder on the arm/body/mind then low stress innings with more innings. Not to mention the added confidence of having a solid defense behind you and the added growth potential.
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."
The guy doesn't have a pure inability to hit!!
Why are people so quick to dismiss a players perfromance when they outperform their career norms, yet when a guy has an injury and doesn’t perform as well over ONE season they write off his ability to be a solid, not great hitter? The guy isn’t going to win any batting titles, and it’s true that he doesn’t walk. He is still a 25+ HR threat and a run producer with one of the best gloves in all of baseball. I don’t think anybody expects Beltre to hit .290/.360/.520 next season, but if you can find a better option that won’t cost some of our better minor league talent that can play 3B and hit say, .265/.320/.450 then sign me up.
Wow this is really annoying.....
My above post was in response to SeanR
And it went to SeanR
Just like your previous comment replied to PT as intended.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Sadly
I think this post made me want to sign Beltre LESS. I didn’t realize the difference in WAR was so minimal, especially given his prime seasons are over with. Not that he can’t be awesome for the next five years, but it’s less likely.
"I am happy because I do not have unrealistic expectations"- Karma Ura...or an A's fan.
Eh, 2005 was Chavez being Chavez. It's kind of silly to even include that
Because 2005 Chavez is absolutely not an option.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Dec 27, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Moneyball blog weighs in here
http://moneyballblog.com/2009/12/27/adrian-beltre/
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
wtf is that? never heard of it. michael lewis should sue.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
I am NOT satisfied with these anti-Beltre responses
So far, here’s basically what people are saying:
“He gets hurt”
No, he got hit in the nuts and that can really fuck up ANYONE’s year. This is the opposite kind of injury that Chavez has and wont effect his playing time in the future, at all.
“He cant hit, look at his numbers from last year”
Yeah uhhh he got his nuts smashed to oblivion, how many guys are going to pick up and carry on like nothing happened after that?
“He’s too expensive”
We have money and nothing to spend it on. He is the best 3B option over this year and next. Unless you want to trade for someone, Im not sure very many of these guys are even available.
“We arent going to win next year, why bother”
Signing Duke and having now the best defensive OF in MLB says otherwise. Our bullpen is also the best. You cant so many “best” things and be a uncompetitive team, it doesnt work like that. I’d say we are a great baserunning team too.
“He’s going to decline”
Funny, fangraphs disagrees and has him at 4.2 WAR next year. A 4.2 WAR at 3B would make him 6th in MLB last year for 3Bmen.
“The dropoff in WAR isnt that much”
4.2 compared to the 1.2 we will get from Fox/Kennedy/Chavez is MASSIVE.
Cmon guys, tell me good reasons why signing Beltre is going to make us a worse team. You arent doing a good job of it right now. Im perfectly open minded enough to recognize a good argument for anything, but I havent seen it yet. Is there some personal thing going on here? Did Beltre spit on A’s fans at some point and I forgot about it? The hatred of this potential signing seems wholly irrational and its not very logical either.
Damn, but you get bitchy when you don't get mass agreement
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Dec 27, 2009 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
ha!
Its not mass agreement Im looking for. Im looking for reasons I cant easily shoot down as to why he’s not a fit here.
Whether you think you can easily shoot them down or not isn't the point
In some cases the reasons can be valid while you still disagree with them.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Honest Question
Is it in your belief that we should compose the team that fangraphs projects to have the highest total value next year? aka, if 2 options are out there, ALWAYS take the option that fangraphs projects higher?
Never thought about it like that
Im sure theres better breakout options, like if Dallas McPherson decides hes going to hit 35 HR this year in the bigs, then I’ll eat crow on it. But Beltre is such a steady, young (unless you think for some insane reason 31 is washed up) option, there’s no real player out there like him that we could get, or is already in our system. At best: we get a league average bat and a top 3 defender. At worst: we get a below league average bat and a top 3 defender. All other options arent even close to being as valuable as this.
Option C
Just live with the guys we have — you said above that “we have money and nothing to spend it on.” Well, what, is it burning a hole in our pockets or something? We can sign him for a year or two, and wait until we know Cardenas is ready. If he’s not, screw him, but by then we can acquire what we need via trade and not have to pay a declining 33 year old Beltre in 2012 for the hole we have now.
"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 27, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions
So you're OK with Fox and Miles?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:31 AM PST up reply actions
I'm okay with them
and Chavez and McPherson between them being able to cover the majority of the games at 3B. The odds of all of them being injured at the same time are pretty bad.
All else being equal, of course I’d want Beltre. Just not for the money I think he wants and the offensive game he brings to the table.
"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 28, 2009 7:03 AM PST up reply actions
see, Im not okay with Fox and Miles
that’s where we differ. I see the chance to get a 3.0 WAR improvement by adding Beltre, you would rather let unknowns try their hand (like we just witnessed with Hannahan and Kennedy – who actually were hurting us not helping despite the things they did that were good, the bad stuff outweighed it)
Why are people banking on Cardenas as a 3B?
He’s played 38 games there. In his career. He’s also 21 years old. A 2-3 year deal with Beltre basically does nothing to interfere with the potential 3B replacement who can only even potentially actually play third.
we in the losin baseball binness. and cousin, binness is a boomin.
Cardenas weird development?
You really are projecting Cardenas to need 2-3 years at AAA? If that is the case, I think we should trade him ASAP for whatever we can get, because the guy isn’t very talented.
And by all accounts I've heard, Cardenas IS very talented,
is widely believed to have “.300 hitter with good plate discipline” batting ability, and has a perfectly decent glove for 3B or 2B, though not the arm for SS — and maybe/maybe not ultimately the range for 2B. I’ve generally heard 3B as the position scouts are most confident he’ll play well, since it requires less range than 2B and less arm strength than 3B.
And considering he’s already been at AAA, and will start there at the beginning of the 2010 season, there’s no reason to think he will arrive to Oakland later than April, 2011 if not a little sooner.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I want Cardenas at 2B
I want him there from whenever we trade Ellis this year until many years later.
A little late for that, sinc ethe A's have already decided he's going to 3B
Last of the Ninth - Photography
For now. If they sign Beltre,
I bet Cardenas moves to 2B as quickly as he was moved to “3B for keeps” upon the Wallace trade.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I dunno about that
Nothing wrong with continuing to give Cardenas time to play 3B in Sacramento, depending on the length of a possible Beltre deal. If it’s for a year or two, especially just a year, I’d keep Cardenas at 3B. If it’s more than a year I’d have him split time between 2B and 3B.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Yeah, I guess I was talking about a 3-4 year deal
Certainly if it’s a one-year deal, Beltre is likely keeping 3B warm for Cardenas. And in a two-year deal, a Kendall-Suzuki like transition is possible.
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
A three year deal doesn't hurt that either
A four, yeah, that’s not likely a good deal unless you’re banking on trading him in or after year three.
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."
That's my thinking
He takes over for Ellis at first. Then after Beltre is gone (for whatever reason that may be), he moves over to third, Weeks (or the next middle infielder) slips into the 2nd. Since Weeks is about a year or two behind, that seems to work out.
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."
Why would it be so terrible for Cardenas to be ready by age 23?
Two years in AAA is hardly some death knell on a productive career.
we in the losin baseball binness. and cousin, binness is a boomin.
by walk off bunt on Dec 28, 2009 2:34 AM PST up reply actions
What happened to BB going with the young players in 2010?
I am not against signing Beltre but isn’t that against what BB stated earlie?
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
There are still holes that need to be addressed...
…holes that the organization does not have a solid answer.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
There are no young 3Bs
Wallace was a 3B in name only but he’s not here anymore.
The hole we have at 3B is so gaping something needs to be done soon about it.
Can I just point something out?
Beltre’s hitting woes were NOT the result of his “testicle injury,” which took place in August. Prior to the All-Star Break, Beltre hit .259/.291/.374, with 5 HRs. Unless he was deeply affected by anticipating a blow to his balls, I don’t think one can just attribute his terrible 2009 hitting to a bad hop.
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 had shoulder surgery (bone spurs after a previous surgery) before the splattering
from which we could conclude some combination of
a: he’s a big injury risk
b. the bone spurs hurt his offense
Hard to say how to weigh those.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
I definitely buy both of those
I’ve just seen a few posts suggesting that his cup runnething over explains his lack of power, and that’s just not the case.
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
how would you guys explain Mike Lowell's 2005 season?
Sometimes you just catch a bad one. Beltre could never hit in Seattle anyway. Im not really expecting him to OPS more than 775, its his defense that makes him worth the money.
Point of contention:
Eric Chavez never “declined.” Eric Chavez angered the baseball gods with his gleeful and carefree dominance of their game. And thus those jealous gods undertook to destroy the mortal for his impudence— slowly, limb by limb.
'Tis but a flesh wound -- he's fine, better than ever!
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
A different starting 2B and other stuff or a better 2B
I’d think about Kelly Johnson ahead of Martin Prado. He’s freely available….well for money anyway.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:34 AM PST up reply actions
Here's CHONE's 2005-2009 WAR for Beltre:
1.9
4.6
2.7
3.5
1.1
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/b/belta001.htm
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
and if he gives us 3.5 every year for 3-4 years
He will be worth every penny we sign him for, just as long as its no more than $12MM a year.
The odds of him giving 3.5 per year for 3-4 years are very very very small
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
He didn't average that even with the higher estimate over the past five years, which were his prime (assuming his age is correct)
no way in hell we should expect anything like that over the next 3-4 years.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Interesting difference between CHONE and Fangraphs
Not only does UZR like Beltre more than TZ does, but Fangraphs seems to like Beltre’s offensive value more than CHONE does. Maybe it’s a difference in park/league factors?
Yeah, I don't know what to make of that
I don’t think either publish what park/league factors they use, which is frustrating. Fangraphs I think includes SB/CS in the “batting” number, whereas CHONE does not, but that doesn’t really account for the differences. They might also treat IBBs differently.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
uzr, chone, tz...David Frost
David Frost is a computer nerd – I hate all this crap. Pay players that can PLAY baseball, not have a higher uzr or whatever crap that is.
This is Frost's ex-wife:
Gotta be more than just a computer nerd.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Yes they are, grasshopper
And when you can un-clip the bra off the mannequin one-handed you will be ready to approach one of these legendary creatures.
The monster at the end of this blog.
the late Lynne Frederick
your curiosity, huh?
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
It can't be that hard to say "Forst" can it?
I mean it’s not like the guy’s last name is Szybrnewskivich.
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, the latter is the guy who invented ZiPS
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
As someone who usually stays out of debates on WAR and UZR because I don't follow the stats enough to really understand them...
…consider doing the same, or you come off looking silly.
Especially when you think it’s Frost and not Forst, too.
Part of paying players that can PLAY baseball and deciding who to give that money to is going to include stuff like WAR and UZR these days. Get used to it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Dec 27, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
The whole point of UZR is to determine to the best of our ability who can play.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
And contrary to how I come off sometimes, I don't think it's a worthless stat at all
I may not have taken the time to learn about it, but I get the point of it and understand that it has its place today.
To toss that aside as crap is not very open-minded. You could take a 3B who never lets the ball get past him compared to someone who stops 19 out of 20, but if the second guy gets to, say, 10% more balls than the first guy can, whose defense is more valuable? I’ll take the guy who doesn’t come up with every play if it means he gets to more of them.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
For the record, I don't think it's a worthless stat either
I do think it has a large standard deviation, and that adept eyeball scouting can be as valuable as “good UZR data,” but the two are complementary, not one “better” than the other.
One of my main problems with UZR is that by the time you have enough data to make a reliable conclusion, the player has fundamentally changed from what he was during the time of the data.
Guys go from “green” to “experienced” to “in their prime” to “past their prime” to “over the hill” in about the span of time that UZR data becomes reliable. So by the time you can confirm the ability of the caterpillar, it’s a butterfly.
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 do realize that UZR is tabulated by people using their eyeballs, right?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:38 AM PST up reply actions
And their calculators.
My way saves batteries.
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 your "eyeball scouting" is mainly valuable as a way to
save energy, and adds no baseball insight to anyone other than yourself? OK I can accept that.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2009 1:20 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry if this comes off as dismissive.
What I mean to say is we have the following to analyze defense:
1) UZR
2) Dewan’s +/-
3) Fan Scouting Report
4) Total Zone
5) Other scouting reports — BA, BP, Sickels, etc.
6) Our own eyes
The “eyeball analysis” of other fans such as yourself and anyone else here isn’t likely to add much to this, unless we’re talking about someone who’s seen a whole bunch of games for an obscure minor leaguer or international player where we don’t have a lot of other information.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions
I think you underrate the abilities
of “eyeball scouts” who are devoted to mastering the craft. The knock on “eyeball scouting” is that 95% of fans do it really badly (partly because casual fans are terrible “eyeball scouts” — not that they necessarily claim to be great at it).
That doesn’t inform how well 5% of fans do it. You can avoid things like selection bias with mindfulness, practice, and experience.
Few take the time or trouble, or devote the years, to mastering the craft at a high level — which makes it like playing the guitar or maximizing the odds at blackjack, or any of dozens of other skills that some master and many dabble in.
I’ve never claimed that “average Joe on AN” is a good eyeball scout. But like I’d claim PT is a “stat-based analyst” worth listening to when he makes a stat-based claim, I’d say there are a few on AN who are “eyeball based scouts” worth listening to when they make an eyeball scout based claim.
No one is suggesting you should listen to 20 random fans’ eyeball scouting, average the results out, and give it credence. But listen to the one who knows what he/she is doing? Absolutely.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think the biggest problem is that you just can't watch ONE guy enough
To get a good read on him defensively.
That said, if you were to actually do that, you’re basically not able to see anything but that one player because so much focus is on him.
I liken it to so many people thinking Derek Jeter is this wonderfully fantastic defender because they’ve seen him go into the hole and do this really cool looking jumping spin throw all in one motion to get a guy out at first base. What they don’t see is that he doesn’t get to that ball hit up the middle, and most other shortstops would be able to without much problem. If all you did was watch Jeter and no other shortstops, you wouldn’t know that he’s got plenty of issues on D.
Not only that, but people also get too locked in to how a guy appears when he makes a play. Personally I don’t give a damn how the guy looks, I care if he makes the play or not. He could look like he’s about to fall all over himself (like me dancing!) but if he gets to the ball and gets the out, I’m happy.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Right, but my whole point is that
you’re describing the reactions of a bevy of “bad eyeball scouts,” some of whom, unfortunately, are paid to trumpet their ignorance to a national audience. The good eyeball scouts aren’t snookered by these things, and in fact make a concerted effort not to be.
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
Who are these "good eyeball scouts"?
Seriously. Name them. That way I can test their analysis against defensive metrics and see who comes out better over the long run.
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?
let me guess
You’ll grade the test using defensive metrics.
Ha ha! I was just going to point that out.
If I say “Pennington was better than the metrics say” are you going to test that in 2010 by seeing if the metrics get it right? No, you’ll check the metrics to see if I got it right.
The problem, as I see it, is that you are seeking “truth” in a venue (baseball) that offer many stats and few truths.
If Pennington profiles, in 2010, as a good defensive SS, did the metrics catch up to my eyes? Or did he actually improve over the off-season, thanks to some footwork tutelage, and a year of maturity and experience behind him? Or was he healthier?
We’ll just never know. It’s why I love baseball.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I assume this means that you're one of the good eyeball scouts?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I am
Lucy Pinder has some sexy-ass eyeballs. I’m thinking long-term deal with a team option.
"HARK! BUT LOOK OVER HERE, IT'S A COST CONTROLLED COCO CRISP! DOES MY USE OF ALLITERATION HYPNOTIZE YOU?" (PL78)
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 29, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
So how do you tell these "good
eyeball scouts" from the “bad eyeball scouts”? Eye charts?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
Probably by seeing how many times they're right or wrong on how players pan out?
Last of the Ninth - Photography
How do you tell if players pan out?
If you believe scouts, awards, and all the other stuff, Derek Jeter is a fantastic defensive shortstop.
If you believe defensive metrics, Derek Jeter is average at best.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Scouts don't say Jeter is a fantastic shortstop.
Idiot sportswriters who vote for Gold Gloves do. It’s not fair to lump scouts and GG voters together.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Mangers vote for the Gold Gloves
But Jeter has also won BA’s Best Defensive SS in their tools survey of scouts.
Honestly, mangers would do a better job
The gold glove is the most farcical among a group of awards that are farcical enough as a whole.
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
Good to know.
On BA, that is. I knew it was managers, but should know better than to rely on passive memory…
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Jeter wins...
…with help, of course, but he’s a solid part of why his team wins. Which suggests that having the absolute best at every position isn’t necessarily required.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
Average at best defensively
Nobody has ever questioned his hitting ability.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I mean, the guy is clearly a Hall of Fame talent overall
Even as a shitty shortstop, he’s basically about average in terms of “runs created on defense” (since shortstops get a strong positional adjustment), and his offense is superb.
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?
Apparently it's impossible,
since Nico isn’t able to even give me a list of this putative group of people who I can usefully poll for their opinions on defense.
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?
... no
That would be idiotic circular logic.
Since I am not, in fact, an idiot, I was thinking that perhaps it would be a good idea to measure how well their teams stop the other team from scoring runs.
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?
You want to gauge Pennington's defense
based on how well Jack Cust reads a fly ball to RF?
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
Really?
You know he’s not saying that. So why go there?
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."
Because actually it sounds like exactly what he's saying
“How well (Pennington’s) team stops the other team from scoring runs” would make the RFer’s defense absolutely relevant.
If he’s saying something else, I’m not sure what it is; that’s the only meaning I get from what he said.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I read it as
Evaluating the individual player’s contribution to his team’s ability to keep runs from scoring.
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."
In that case, how will you measure this?
With metrics, not, “Pennington into the hole, great backhand pickup, turns, throws … and saves his team 0.17 runs at this moment!” It’s just not that easy to quantify an individual’s defensive contribution.
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
That's basically what iglew was asking
and I haven’t the foggiest, PT would have to answer for himself.
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."
And how do you measure that?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The big problem with Nico's point is
that the presumed best of these “eyeball scouts” work for MLB teams. We get information on their collective opinions from the likes of Goldstein, BA and Sickels.
Additional opinions of self-appointed “eyeball scouts” without portfolio aren’t going to count for much when they disagree with the collective wisdom of the MLB scouts, because 1) If they were really that good why isn’t someone paying them; 2) I’m not aware of any such “freelancer” who uses a rigorous process like the MLB scouts do; and 3) They’re not accountable for their performance
If a freelancer wants to use a transparent process to form opinions and is willing to be held accountable for his/her performance, he/she’s got my attention, and probably the attention of MLB teams as well.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
I don't know about your first sentence
That’s like saying, “The best broadcasters are employed at the major league level.” Sometimes who you know, who your dad was, who your agent is, etc. can be more influential than “how good you are at your job.”
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
That's assuming ALL MLB scouts are the best
and not that amongst all the MLB scouts, you’ll find all those who are at the top of the class. If you were to look at all broadcasters at the major league level, odds are you’re seeing/hearing the best (even if quite a lot of them clearly suck and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a mic (Hawk, Kuiper, McCarver etc.).
That’s not to say there aren’t people capable of being up there, but I doubt there’s anyone out there with quite the experience level and talent to really be among the best. If they were to keep up the hard work, they could similarly rise to that level, but I can’t imagine anyone outside of the baseball world having that skill level and if they did, I’d sincerely wonder why no MLB team is currently paying them to do it.
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."
Not true about broadcasting
There are many excellent broadcasters who don’t get the jobs taken by terrible broadcasters. Having been in the industry, I can assure you of that.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Figure out an expected runs allowed for their teams
based on the pitchers and other defenders on that team.
Then measure the difference between that expected runs allowed and the actual number.
[I’m not saying this would necessarily be EASY, mind you.]
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?
And how do you get the
expectation of the “other defenders on that team”? From their defensive metrics?
Too much of what you’re trying to measure is already built in to your model. If your study shows that your defensive metrics are a better match to expected runs than scouts’ eyeballs, to a large extent that would only be demonstrating that defensive metrics conform better to a model based on defensive metrics.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Seems like you can look at games where the player plays
And games where he doesn’t.
Obviously that’s an oversimplification, and it would be an involved process, but it isn’t procedurally impossible. It also wouldn’t rely on UZR or any of the metrics being tested.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
From the same source as the player you're trying to measure
We’ve already established that you can’t measure a metric using itself. Stop attributing that (stupid) position to me.
Seriously. It’s starting to become irritating.
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?
Don't these instances make stat-based conclusions just as flawed or inconsistent as well?
What they don’t see is that he doesn’t get to that ball hit up the middle, and most other shortstops would be able to without much problem.
Personally I don’t give a damn how the guy looks, I care if he makes the play or not.
Back in the day people would say that Player A is faster and gets to more balls, and makes more plays doing so, but boots a few more in the process, while Player B doesn’t even get to them but has better stats Either way the batter is on first regardless.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
Not really.
That scenario assumes that Player A boots every ball he gets to that Player B wouldn’t have the range for, which is obviously incorrect.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Right, but...
Player A… while booting more balls… also gets more outs. (Potential) outs that aren’t even considered one way or another, and scored as clean singles, where Player B’s defense is concerned.
What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brusher her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third. ~Leo Durocher
and that's where the metric comes into play
instead of the eyeball approach
When Player B doesn’t get to the ball and therefore Mr Eyeball doesn’t think it affects his defense, the defensive metrics will show that a ball hit to that location is fielded by Player A and converted to an out X amount of times.
The eyes will say “solid single” and the metrics will say “3/4 of the other shortstops in the league will field that ball”
That’s the difference, IMO.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
You really don't think some scouts
can tell which balls “3/4 of shortstops” would get to? I think you guys just give way too little credit to keen eyeball scouts.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I was referring to uncleleo's scenario
In which one player gets to more balls and boots them, but the other player doesn’t get to as many but has better stats
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I certainly don't think that eyeball scouts can tell you
whether a ball should be fielded by 70% of shortstops or only 60% of them. The difference is small (about 0.08 of a run) but adds up over time.
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?
This whole thing is a false comparison anyway.
We’re debating it as if it’s “stats” vs “scouts”, but the defensive stats all come from scouts anyway.
What we’re really comparing is scouts’ observations tallied according to a rigorously defined standard vs the same scouts’ observations tallied by the scouts’ memory and intuition.
Forcing the observations to conform to a standard can either enhance or diminish the value of the information, depending on how good the system is. I suspect it helps more than it hurts, but it surely does some of each.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Can you give an example of how
forcing observation to conform to a standard diminishes the value of the information?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2009 12:51 AM PST up reply actions
Edge cases, unusual shifts
Are two that come to mind.
Say, manager pulls OF in and hitter just barely clears it. Hitter’s ball would be caught by 90% of OF (and the guy out there if he was playing in a normal position), so a flexible system wouldn’t make a negative conclusion about the OF’s defensive ability. UZR (as I understand it) would.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
OK, but then the UZR input form can be
modified for cases like this. How is having no form better, with the scout just giving his impressions every month?
More than that, how is a scout without access to UZR, Dewan and Fan Scouting Report ever better than one with access to those things?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2009 8:34 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying they are.
You asked for an example of a weakness, I gave it.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Sure.
The point of the standard is to say “only count these things, and don’t look at anything else”. Depending on how elaborate the standard is, that might mean only look at what part of the field the ball went to and whether the fielder got it, but don’t look at whether the ball took a tricky bounce, if the sun was in the fielder’s eyes, etc.
This is both the strength and the weakness. It’s a strength because the observer’s bias might draw errant conclusions from those things, and forcing them out of the equation to allow them to even out over the long run helps to correct that error. But it’s a weakness if the observer’s conclusions are more right than wrong, because you’ve eliminated that information.
As I said before, I suspect the better standards in use today do gain more than they lose, but they certainly do lose some information as part of the cost of doing business.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I think that most scouts can do this...
…even thougfh there are some biases that can easily creep in. And until better data can be collected & presented, eyeballing these things is going to be the way to go. The balls being put into play are already being recorded but it’s only two demensional data as far as I can tell. What we’re not seeing yet are things like the trajectories and velocities on balls as they’re being fieled or misfielded. We don’t even see the positioning of the fielder and would not know how mush that positioning is affecting by the coaching, situation, or player’s experience even if we could see the positioning. And, hell, the whole game relies on umpire-eyeballing to occur on every single pitch and play.
So, yeah, I think that there’s to little credit given to eyeball scouts considering what there is to work with at this particular time. It’s certainly not perfect but nothing is going to be perfect based on the measuerment tools currently in use.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2009 2:26 AM PST up reply actions
Velocity and trajectory of batted balls are totally being taken into account in zone ratings
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?
How are these things taken into account?
Through human subjectivity or through measured data?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2009 5:11 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not even sure what you're asking for here
The difficulty of a play is graded based on where the ball is hit to and how hard it’s hit. Then players get scored based on how they performed relative to a hypothetical league-average fielder.
Does that answer the question?
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 looked into the methodology myself
Seems like it does cover a lot of stuff — the variables. But doesn’t it also rely on human beings to make judgement calls such as classifying what type of batted ball it really was (soft fly, pop up, linedrive) and whether or not the fielder was in proper position to make a play?
by LowcountryJoe on Jan 1, 2010 6:55 AM PST up reply actions
To some extent, yeah
Determining the exact position of the ball when fielded, and the vertical launch angle, at this point probably has to be done by eye. (The velocity can easily be calculated from the launch angle and the time it takes for the ball to reach the key spot.)
Still, that kind of discrete task (“figure out where this ball landed”) is one for which the human brain is far better suited than a task like “think back on every one of the hundreds of games you’ve seen this guy play, and assess his fielding competence.”
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?
If avoiding selection bias was that easy,
the world would have a lot fewer problems than it does today.
Take this spat over the question of what age players peak at. JC Bradbury was accused, in several of his studies, of committing the error of selection bias (and, I think, rightly so), reducing the value of those studies to almost zero.
This is a PROFESSIONAL ECONOMIST. Avoiding selection bias is part of his job description. And yet, faced with the felt need to prove a point, he committed a pretty fundamental statistical error. I suppose it’s possible that he was being intentionally intellectually dishonest, but that seems unlikely. Much more likely is that he thought he saw something that proved his point, and just didn’t realize how it failed to do so.
You can’t overcome a fundamental defect in the human psyche with “mindfulness.” Being really earnest does not suddenly transform your brain into a blank slate.
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 think we agree then
Also the Fan Scouting Report basically does average the responses of tens of fans. They’re not random, since they all took the trouble to fill out the forms, but it is based on the wisdom of crowds.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
That's why I've never paid much heed to the Fan Scouting Report
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Hmmm...I do pay attention to it.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 29, 2009 5:56 PM PST up reply actions
(And this is just a quick and dirty example)
If the guy who gets to more stuff actually makes less plays than the guy who has a smaller range, obviously there’s a cutoff point where one’s better to have than the other. But it’s just saying that just because I may see someone who almost never lets the ball by, that doesn’t automatically make him the best defender if his range sucks.
I know you know that, though.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
This 3b mess couldve been avoided if they kept Jesus Guzman in 2008
All it took was a spring training invite. But seriously, 3b and SS are the only 2 positions where they have failed to add depth. Of course all of this could change around late 2010 if the cardenas conversion goes well and Green can rise rapidly through the minors. As mentioned if the contract is in a realistic range of $7-9 mill A’s should do it. Yet that might be a realistic price range for many teams and they will jump into the mix too. Likely, the A’s are being used by Boras to increase the market interest of Beltre and force a team to overpay. I would think oakland would be down on the list of his preffered teams. More likely if they can use their OF and pitching depth to pry away a Callaspo, Gordon, Izturiz, Wood, Inge (detroit might be in salary dump mode), Headley, or Kouzmanoff.
Isn't Jesus Guzman a crappy 1B? How is he the answer to a 3B problem?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 28, 2009 1:39 AM PST up reply actions
Because by playing him at 1B, you avoid playing him at 3B!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
On a semi-related note
Rosenthal is reporting that the Giants are on the verge of signing DeRosa to a two-year deal. If it’s at the $6MM per previously reported, it makes me more optimistic that Beltre will come at a reasonable price.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Just curious
but what do you consider to be the maximum reasonable price for Beltre?
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."
I'm flexible on the money
No more than two years in any case.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I miss Jack Hannahan.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
There is no case.
There is no case for Beltre. He would be a flat out waste of money. If we can get a 1-year contract (which i’m sure we can’t) then I’m all for it. Cause if he hits like he did the last couple years, then he should be gone after 1 season. There is no point into being stuck with this guy for multiple years if he can’t perform.
"being stuck with him"
means “being stuck with saving 10 runs a year on defense”. Not many 3B can say that. That’s worth $8-12MM a year quite easily.
Hitting is whatever, no one can hit in Oakland anyway (except Cust). We arent going to be in the Joe Mauer sweepstakes or anything like that, so we have money to burn and no 3B. Makes sense to get him for 3 years while we groom one.
You have to win the game by scoring at some point
I could care less if he saves 10 runs. If no one on the A’s can hit, then we wont be able to win a game, even with great defense. I would much rather allocate the money we would spend on him for players that can hit and have an average defense.
oh i think he can help us with the bat
we are looking at a TON of 2-1 games if he comes on board. If we (god forbid) go with Jake Fox, those games become 2-3.
Which is also the scoring on all the third strikes we chase into the dirt.
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
oh come on nico!
Its actually not going to be that bad, especially if we get Beltre instead of Fox/McPherson and a real DH like Delgado/Vlad/Thome/Cust/Sheffield instead of Fox full time. I actually think our offense is coming along quite nicely, I cant see how Sweeney or Suzuki are going to get worse, in fact I see them both improving quite a bit, Ellis you can never predict but everyone seems to be sweetening on Barton and Davis.
It would take a lot of things to go wrong on Seattle and Texas’s end (lol that LAA will prob finish last) for us to take the div, but adding Beltre and a real hitter (for cheap) makes us a solid 85+ win team.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
