SS And 3B: 3 Great Recent Moves By Billy Beane
by Nico on Jun 14, 2009 8:45 PM PDT
123 comments
As disappointed, and at times highly critical, as I've been the past 2-3 years over the absence of a "major league ready" SS or 3Bman on the horizon, the fact remains that there is a scenario far worse than doing nothing - and that is putting eggs in the wrong basket. Billy Beane has had opportunities to make mistakes that we would have praised at the time only to regret later, such as:
* Brent Lillibridge Remember when Lillibridge was such a hot SS commodity in the Braves' system that "conversations about him would start with Cahill or Anderson"? Maybe the A's could have swindled Atlanta by getting away with only parting with Mazzaro? Lillibridge, now 25, is sporting a line of .202/.247/.310 in AAA so far this season, after batting .220 last year.
* Andy Marte Now 25, Marte was another "hot 3B prospect" who at one time would have required a haul of talent to acquire. In 2005-08, Marte had 174 games and 513 at bats to show what he could do. What he did was sport a line of .211/.265/.337.
* Andy LaRoche Sure, in 2009 LaRoche has finally put up passable big league numbers - and by passable I mean a .764 OPS (.291/.367/.397) in the National League. LaRoche will be 26 before the end of the season and in his 2006-08 trials he hit .226, .203, and .152, slugging .312, .322, and .232 those seasons. How would we have liked to have parted with our minor league talent in order to bank our 3B hopes on that?
My point is that the A's could easily have put their eggs in one of those baskets, and at the time it would have made A's fans feel great - finally, Billy Beane has gone out and addressed the "left side of the infield problem" by getting a blue chip prospect! Sure it cost the A's some of their good young pitching, but it was worth it because finally the A's have, on the left side of the infield...Someone whom Jack Hannahan and Bobby Crosby have outperformed?
0 recs |
123 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It just goes to show the grass is always greener...
…until the Raiders start playing on that field.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Jun 14, 2009 9:01 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
We’re going to finish second place in the AFC West this year.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 14, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guarantee the Raiders will have less wins than the A's :)
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jun 14, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guarantee that the Raiders will finish higher in the standings than the A’s.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 14, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guarantee that Al Davis will never die.
by LoneStranger on Jun 15, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong.
he died 10 years ago and reanimated.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Jun 15, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you had to pick one public figure that you suspected was a zombie
he’d be it.
by OldhamA on Jun 15, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reanimated? I figured he was just keeping himself alive
by sucking the life out of head coaches.
by LoneStranger on Jun 15, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ROFL
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jun 14, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guess I'm getting old
Because I don’t recall the conversation that said Lillibridge would cost Cahill or Anderson.
Got a link?
As for LaRoche, let me admit a personal bias and say I’ve always liked the guy. Having said that, let me remind the Oakland faithful that the A’s haven’t had a 3B post a 764 OPS since 2007 and the earliest we could see such a thing would be 2010, and that’s assuming that the A’s either sign a FA 3B, trade for a 3B or have Adrian Cardenas suddenly blossom.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 14, 2009 9:34 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
A quick skim through AN's search function
supports grover’s memory of this. I see a lot of talk about Lillibridge as a low-grade prospect maybe worth taking a chance on, but no one seems terribly excited about him, and no one suggests he’s remotely worth Cahill or Anderson level.
This Nov 4 comment from Paul Thomas is a good summary of the general attitude toward Lillibridge on AN:
He had a horrible season this year, but he’s probably not that bad and he would be likely to come cheap.
“Probably not that bad” does not equal “trade Cahill or Anderson for him”.
This Oct 12 comment from Nico seems to suggest he thinks Lillibridge is about as good as Crosby.
I see two comments from grover last fall where he mentions that he used to like Lillibridge but doesn’t anymore.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Jun 14, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we were talking about Escobar for a MAC
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 15, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
another possibility
The A’s could certainly use an infielder who earlier this week had these stats:
Games 1st in AL
AB 4th
Runs 1st
Hits 6th
Doubles 4th
Walks 3rd
Average 19th
OB% 9th
Fielding: .996 (only 1 error)
Go Scuturo.
by santacruzasfan on Jun 14, 2009 9:36 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
GREAT POINT
Kind of funny how he stated to hit better playing on another team.
by Yellowhorse on Jun 14, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the 2007 team. Would the A's be better today if they just stuck with those guys?
Obviously, Piazza, Loiaza and S. Stewart retired, also many of the best Young players on the A’s would have been in the farm system anyway (Buck, Suzuki, Mazzaro, Braden)
I would love to have the Scutaro trade back, as well as the Swisher one. Heck even Kotsay and Kendall have been decent in the past 2 years.
by Yellowhorse on Jun 14, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice post nico…I appreciate this perspective.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jun 14, 2009 9:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, I don't recall any of these guy being a major aquisition by themselves
Marte especially, but LaRoche and Lillibridge were pieces of 2 or 3 for 1 player trades, ususally for Zito (Dodgers) or Harden/Blanton (Braves).
I mean, say one of the bajillion Zito rumors went down — say it was Kemp and LaRoche, or LaRoche and Billingsley, or LaRoche and Broxton. Whatever, doesn’t matter that much, but just the fact that it was addressed would have been nice.
Nico, you’re usually not an apologist, but this kinda seems like you’re defending Beane because a few people that AN wanted to acquire haven’t performed well.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Jun 14, 2009 11:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Dodgers were seriously interested in Blanton at one point
The rumor was the deal fell apart because they A’s were insisting on Ivan DeJesus. I’m fairly certain James McDonald was also part of the proposed package.
This was back when LaRoche was still property of the Dodgers.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This seems to contradict
You have “rebuilt” a team whose infield doesn’t have a single player who has any bright future with the team, and doesn’t have a single player who one can reasonably expect to be getting better in 2010. Chavez, Garciaparra, Cabrera, Kennedy, Crosby, Giambi, Kennedy, and an aging injured Ellis. It’s an octet of filler. Your “Plan B” for the past 5 years, if an increasingly crippled Eric Chavez didn’t work out, was apparently “to lose a lot of games.”
Which you said less than a month ago and suggested that Beane step down as GM. I mean seriously those were the options that we were talking about so what should Beane have done. Those were the available players who we could have gotten and you say that passing was the right move.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 14, 2009 11:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
To me the problem has been that moves were not made.
A series of low risk moves would have undoubtedly come up with a better fit than what the A’s currently have.
For instance, somewhere in the last three years, pick up one or two Right Handed Batting minor league third basemen, who could platoon with Hannahan to solve the problem.
As to Shortstop, my beef at SS has been that Petit and Pennington never got a serious look. I am okay with a lower OPS at SS, if the defense is above major league average.
My gut tells me that Petit could have been as good as Crosby at SS.
What’s Tejada hitting this year, while we’re on the subject.
They're called RUNS for a reason.
by connie mack on Jun 14, 2009 11:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think this post just highlights the lack of 3b/ss talent in the minor leagues,
and shows that having holes on the left side of the infield isn’t a problem unique to or caused by Billy Beane.
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
by travdog6 on Jun 15, 2009 1:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That was my first thought when I read this and you beat me to posting it travdog
There are 25 or so teams in the league who would love to have a Longoria/Zimmerman/Wright-quality third baseman, either on their big club or coming up in the farm. We’re just one of them.
There isn’t one surefire minor league third base prospect in baseball right now. Not one. There’s some good hitting ones with major defensive question marks (like Wallace) and there’s several guys who are capable with the glove but will never hit at the elite level that the aforementioned group does.
And back last year when everyone used to bitch about how awful Hannahan was, he wasn’t even the worst starting third baseman in the league when you factored in his strong defense. The A’s basically acquired a top-28/top-30 major league third baseman for free from the Tigers when they got Hannahan the year before.
We were spoiled when the A’s had healthy Chavez. The dropoff from “top 5 third baseman” to “bottom five starter at the position” – is incredible.
And just as depressing, none of the prospects league-wide that you could possibly trade for fall into the category of “future top 5 third baseman” or shortstop.
That might’ve been part of why Beane gave Chavy the extension in the first place.
Batting 4th for the 2014 San Jose A's: 26-year-old RF Justin Upton, in the 1st season of a nine year, $250M deal.
by notsellingjeans on Jun 15, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
They had Crosby coming up behind Miggy, and everybody in the whole freaking world was certain that Crosby was going to be an All-star.
That’s why they could let let Miggy go and lock Chavez up.
Think of what this team would be doing right now they had a healthy Chavez and Crosby had developed as expected.
Ellis for President
by tosk on Jun 15, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In Crosby's 2nd Season
Gammons picked him to win the MVP
by echerrst on Jun 15, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow, I've never seen this conversation on AN before
; -)
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
by micdog2001 on Jun 15, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The same thing is true at SS
I mean before the year started there were really 5 top 100 prospect candidates who were SS. The first Elvis Andrus I was not high on at all due to his lack of power and nearly 400 BABIP. The second was Escobar in Milwalkee who the Brew crew are going to hang on to so that next year when Hardy leaves they have someone to replace him. Also while his defense was excellent he only has had one strong offensive campaign. Lastly there is Jason Donald, who is old, has questionable range, and is hitting a stuckitued at AAA and I believe is hurt. Nico was a big proponent of acquiring Donald. Gordon Beckham and Tim Beckham qualify on the list but in the even more untouchable ranks as draft picks cant be traded in their first year.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 15, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
does this mean
that the A’s will sign Crosby for another season or two?
Ellis for President
by tosk on Jun 15, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With respect to Andrus
Could part of his ridiculously high BABIP be explained supposed blazing speed and ability to beat out some of those ground balls?
by Pucking Insane on Jun 15, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a small part
yes to the extent that it is? no
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 16, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the most interesting point to me.
There just aren’t that many good 3Bs out there. Far fewer than there have been in recent years. Is the current scarcity an aberration? Or is it the norm and the recent abundance is the aberration?
This leads directly to the point that Elston Gunn raised in his recent Cardenas post, drawing on recent writings by Tom Tango.
The common rule of thumb — we’ve seen it right here in this thread — that to justify his value as a prospect, a 3B needs to have a better bat than a 2B, is based on the assumption that it’s easier to replace a 3B than a 2B. If that assumption turns out to be untrue, then the rule of thumb is called into question.
Those of you who are still comparing 3B and 2B prospects with the expectation that the 3B must be a better hitter to be of equal value, I’m curious how you respond to Tango’s argument.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Jun 15, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andy LaRoche
I would take Andy LaRoche – he has an OPS+ of 107 this year and a career minor league line of .294/.380/.517. Plus he won’t be 26 until September.
by DeJay on Jun 15, 2009 1:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
An OPS+ of 107 in Pittsburgh equals about a 86 OPS+ in Oakland.
We need an established star at 3B, getting a guy like Holliday was a decent step, but it would have been even better for a legit 3B talent not a LF one.
by PL78 on Jun 15, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say it's
5+ of one, a little more than a half-dozen+ of another.
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 Jun 15, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I pulled those numbers out of the air anyway based off the way players hit here, historically, its generally been for the worse. Our park is, simply put: an outright nightmare to hit in.
by PL78 on Jun 15, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like this post, Nico
I recall the infatuations with Marte and LaRoche specifically by just a handful of posters. It’s funny how these things are normally forgotten. They’re certainly forgotten by the people who write such stuff as more ideas typically come down the pike every few months.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 6:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd still take LaRoche.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Jun 15, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure. I'd take him too.
But at what cost do you still take him? Because if cost is not a consideration, why not shoot for ‘taking’ David Wright instead?
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's play the "What If" game then
What if… instead of Cardenas/Outman you could have had LaRoche/McDonald in exchange for Blanton?
Yeah, I know Spencer came in the Philly package but there would have been a 3rd player from the Dodgers as well, so imagine a comparable prospect from the Dodgers to even things out.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First off. I don't like that "What if" game.
That’s what my indirect criticism is about. I don’t follow the rumors enough to even know if LaRoche and McDonald (and a third player) were even on the table. But if you say they were, then fine, I’ll take that at face value.
But, for one that wants to play the “What if” game: what if Chavez was healthy?
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Chavez was healthy...
The A’s win more games in 2008 and 2009 and have probably already kicked in his team controlled option for 2011.
The Dodgers had serious interest in Blanton but talks broke down over Ivan DeJesus Jr. Beane had let it known that if he was going to trade Blanton (or Haren) he wanted at least one arm in return. At the time, the top 2 pitching prospects in the Dodgers’ system were James McDonald and Clayton Kershaw.
Kershaw wasn’t going anywhere!
That means McDonald plus one other major prospect (‘cause this was a full year before Blanton actually got dealt to Philly) and in this game of Red Rover, Blue grover I’m calling LaRoche (not DeJesus) to come over.
I understand people not liking to play the What If game. I don’t like that fact that the A’s have traded a lot of talent in the past couple years and have done next to nothing to address obvious problems at SS and 3B.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, then where does LaRoche play?
Wait, before answering that, why is getting LaRoche so important since the hypothetically healthy Chavez has his 2011 option picked up?
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad
I didn’t realize you were combining the “healthy Chavez” scenario with the LaRoche alternative.
Gimme a bit (gotta go back to pre-2008 roster moves) and I’ll see what I can whip up.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's my bad.
I should have realized that evaluating what could have been, after the fact(s) while ignoring the circumstances at the time that the “could-have-been”, should have been, is all that matters. Beane sucks! Anyone that doesn’t see it this way is a homer. And arm-chair GMing is best left to those that have only the best evaluative minds. Everyone else should just STFU.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if you're going to be persnickety about this...
Let’s focus on the circumstances at the time.
We know, and the A’s knew, that Chavez’s shoulder was an ongoing issue. He played his last game (for the season, as it turned out) on July 26. He would go on the DL for back spasms August 3rd, but the A’s FO is going to wait a week before making that move because that’s what they tend to do. (So we’re forgetting your Chavez-is-healthy fantasy, ’cause the circumstances at the time say otherwise.)
The A’s send Marco Scutaro and his .624 OPS to man 3B. This is a bit of a problem for the organization because Bobby Crosby broke his wrist 7/24 and is probably done for the rest of the season. Scutaro should be manning SS but now Donnie Murphy gets a turn instead. J.J Furmaniak is Plan C down in Sac.
Then, around the 29th of July, it appears as if the Dodgers call about Blanton. This is key, because if the Dodgers initiated the talks than Beane holds that extra bit of leverage. Then again, considering the holes in the LA rotation at the time, plus the fact that Blanton would be under team control for the next 3.5 years, meant that Beane was bargaining from a position of strength anyways.
The article says the talks were about 3 prospects and considering the deals for Hudson, Mulder, etc. it seems more than likely that 3 is a real number. Clayton Kershaw was probably untouchable by this time but it was LaRoche who had entered 2007 as the Dodgers’ #1 prospect according to BA. LA had a healthy Nomar at 3B and 3 beat up pitchers in the rotation… if Beane had focused on LaRoche as the make or break target then it looks extremely unlikey that the Dodgers say no on account of LaRoche. The decision on the other two prospects would still need to be handled.
But would/should Beane have focused on LaRoche when the Dodger offer materialized? Let’s look at the circumstances at the time.
Chavez was hurt with a bad back.
The A’s had no viable alternative to play 3B on the bench (Scoot’s got a .624 OPS) and even less in AAA. Jeff Baisley, probably the top 3B prospect in the entire system, is struggling to stay healthy and hit in AA. Behind Baisley is nothing.
Is it really unreasonable to think that a competent GM wouldn’t at least consider Laroche in that situation? One of two things happened at the end of July, 2007. Either Beane did not consider LaRoche when talking to the Dodgers (in which case he fucked up) or he did like you did and wished for Chavez to be healthy (in which case he was wrong).
What would have been the worst case scenario had the A’s taken LaRoche and Chavez turned out to be healthy? The A’s would have had a reasonably priced, GG caliber 3B with 30 HR power either manning the hot corner in Oakland or attracting a ton of interest from a dozen or so potential trade partners and they would have had one of the top, if not thee top, 3B prospect in the minor leagues.
Oh what a horrible position to be in!
And what’s the worst case scenario if the A’s don’t take LaRoche and Chavez turns out to be seriously hurt, to the point where he may be done?
You’re living it.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of assumptions on your part
Did you ever once, in your reply, stop to just consider for a moment that LaRoche, the Dodger’s #1 prospect, was the break-the-deal for the Dodger’s GM? No, apparently not because this is what you mustered: “Is it really unreasonable to think that a competent GM wouldn’t at least consider Laroche in that situation?”
No it’s not unreasonable. It is, however, unreasonable to think that the Dodger GM didn’t consider it, that Beane didn’t consider it, and then either decided not to for whatever their reasons might be. Do you think that it’s unreasonable for me to lack the faith in your mindreading skills, grover?
I’m not even sure what LaRoche was eventually dealt for but I believe it was a three team deal involving the Red Sox. If it was a three team deal, I’d like to see your excellent analysis in unwinding it to see what the Pirates, from a true costy perspective, gave up to get LaRoche. And then perhaps we could “what if” this fucker all the way back to see if Blanton would have been enough…and then do all this prentending to know what Beane and the Dodger’s GM actually discussed.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ivan DeJesus Jr. is what killed the deal, it seems Beane pressed for him in every discussion
You asked for the circumstances at the time and I gave them to you, not my fault they make you look bad. I’ve heard several variations of the names involved, the only constant was DeJesus… a player the Dodgers wouldn’t part with. I don’t know if it was because they loved him so much or if the quality of the two other players involved were so high that the Dodgers felt like adding DeJesus was too much like price gouging.
In July, 2007 the Dodgers needed pitching. Andy LaRoche isn’t a pitcher. Joe Blanton is. As things turned out, the A’s really needed a 3B. Joe Blanton doesn’t play 3B. Andy LaRoche does.
I’m tired of playing defense on this, so let’s see you answer the hard part for a change: Give me one sensible reason why a team (the Dodgers) fighting to maintain their division lead and in desperate need of big league starting pitching, with a healthy former All-Star at 3B and 3 Top 10 3B prospects would object to dealing 1 of their 3B prospects for a big league SP with 3.5 years before he hits FA, especially when the pitcher in question is young, healthy and something of a workhorse.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because Ned Colletti is a bad GM?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Jun 15, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You say that like he's trying to be a bad GM
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not say it?
You’ve pretty much insinuated the same thing about Beane.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Inferring that maybe we think
LaRoche alone (or “LaRoche plus less than Blanton was worth”) might have gotten a deal for Blanton done even if it wasn’t “enough talent” in return, the question seems to be:
Should the A’s have settled for less in return overall, in order to address need, rather than taking a better package of prospects overall?
I have wondered that at times, thinking maybe instead of getting these six prospects, or these three prospects, maybe it would have been better to get only 1-2 but including a SS or a 3Bman.
With Blanton, however, I’d argue the answer is no, partly because that’s the one trade where the A’s got someone who might be really good who might end up at 3B – Cardenas. Should the A’s have acquired LaRoche, and maybe a non-sure pitching prospect, instead of Cardenas and Outman? No. I think holding out for DeJesus Jr. made sense 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
by Nico on Jun 15, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again,
the question seems to be:
Should the A’s have settled for less in return overall, in order to address need, rather than taking a better package of prospects overall?
we’re speculating and assuming things with the benefit of hindsight but without so much hindsight that we know for certain what kinds of things were actually discussed between GMs. And for this some insist that Beane made mistakes by not pulling the trigger? I think that these views that Beane is mistake prone are taken up by the most arrogant among us. And, I think that the views are misguided by that arrogance as well.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Time out
I’m the guy who was hot on Outman the day he showed, you thought he’d end up in the bullpen. So don’t go acting like you thought Outman was some kind of sure-thing pitching prospect.
I’ve got no problem saying this again… if Cardenas makes a successful transition to 3B then all is well. It’s a move I wanted the A’s to make the day they got him! So I’m all for the attempt.
However…
If he doesn’t pan out at 3B then he’s still a real good 2B prospect but it leaves the A’s with the continuing problem of trying to find a new left side of the infield.
At some point the A’s have to find answers to 3B and SS. Maybe those answers are right around the corner, it would be a relief if they were. But if they aren’t then you have to invest in the areas of need.
Passing on a guy that you know could fill the hole at 3B for the next 6 years to get a more talented player who doesn’t have a place to play is not necessarily a better deal.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a great problem to have, though
2B prospects aren’t easy to come by. Quick, name the top five 2B prospects in baseball!
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Jun 15, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've done no such thing
All I’ve done is pick up the gauntlet you threw down and hit you in the face with it.
I asked a simple question, would an A’s fan prefer Cardenas/Outman package vs. LaRoche/McDonald? I even said that in overall talent the Philly package is better. I asked a question, its kind of sad that you feel that asking questions is an affront to Billy Beane.
In July of ‘07 the Dodgers came calling about Blanton. Do you deny that actually happened? Are the stories lies? Assuming they’re not, and it seems unlikely that they’re fake, there is no defensible reason why Beane would not inquire about the Dodgers’ top prospect (according to BA at the start of the season) to be included in the package.
I believe Beane asked about LaRoche, but that’s just me assuming Beane is competent.
I also think it’s more than fair to say that if Beane had somehow “known” what was to come with Chavez he would have pressed less for Ivan DeJesus Jr. and would have found a deal that included LaRoche.
Beane gambled that Chavez would be healthy, knowing full well that the A’s system had nothing behind Eric should he falter. It was a bad gamble then made more obvious by the reality of now.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Really?
I’ve done no such thing
So, you really do not think that Beane is a bad GM? Because I don’t recall you writing much but critical things about his personnel moves.
All I’ve done is pick up the gauntlet you threw down and hit you in the face with it.
Hmm, maybe I should have metaphorically felt it then.
I asked a simple question, would an A’s fan prefer Cardenas/Outman package vs. LaRoche/McDonald?
Funny, I cannot seem to find you asking that question. If we are to ask this “an A’s fan” the question back in the summer of 2007 with all of the knowledge and information available, I’m not sure what the answer would have been. I think I know your answer though but cannot be certain. Unlike you, I do not have the mindreading ability.
I asked a question, its kind of sad that you feel that asking questions is an affront to Billy Beane.
For me it’s not so much the affronts on Beane that you manage so well, it’s the affronts on reality that repulse me.
In July of ‘07 the Dodgers came calling about Blanton. Do you deny that actually happened? Are the stories lies? Assuming they’re not, and it seems unlikely that they’re fake, there is no defensible reason why Beane would not inquire about the Dodgers’ top prospect (according to BA at the start of the season) to be included in the package.
Sure, why not inquire. But then why assume that LaRoche is touchable but Kershaw isn’t, hmm? Oh, wait, i know, it’s because the Dodgers had more 3Bmen, correct and they could afford to deal from a position of ‘strength’ for them since they have Garciaparra. Or, perhaps they could find a different suitor. certainly Blanton wasn’t the only SP that was a target and LaRoche could be the chip in a another deal (or not).
I believe Beane asked about LaRoche, but that’s just me assuming Beane is competent.
Which leads me to ask from you: do you not feel that he is? You don’t have to answer, of course, I won’t be answering many of your silly questions either.
I also think it’s more than fair to say that if Beane had somehow "known" what was to come with Chavez he would have pressed less for Ivan DeJesus Jr. and would have found a deal that included LaRoche.
Beane gambled that Chavez would be healthy, knowing full well that the A’s system had nothing behind Eric should he falter. It was a bad gamble then made more obvious by the reality of now.
Whew! Finally something in your post that I can agree with. My face even feels better than before we got all nasty with each other. Was that a gauntlet or a theraputic massager you hit me in the face with?
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All the things you didn't notice...
It’s because you weren’t paying attention.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As things turned out, the A’s really needed a 3B.
Ah ha. The benefit of hindsight. Something that you miraculously had at the time but was just not occupying Beane’s position as GM. Okay, so Beane gets LaRoche and one (maybe two) other(s) for Blanton. If Chavez gets healthy — and you know that he doesn’t because your crystal ball so finely tuned — you have a young 3B to flip. Got it.
Ivan DeJesus Jr. is what killed the deal, it seems Beane pressed for him in every discussion
Because piecing together a few second-hand reports from sports media types whose job it is to gin up reader interest when there’s not much else left to report on, is terrific analysis. And, because I have nothing and refuse to play such games, I look bad. Got that too.
I’m tired of playing defense on this, so let’s see you answer the hard part for a change: Give me one sensible reason …
I do not wish to do the hard part. For a change, I’ll be one that trusts the Athletic’s GM. And, you’re forgetting: you have the crystal ball and the mindreading abilities, not I.
Say, what if I were to try my hand at doing the hard part. Maybe I suggest to know that the Athletics could attone for their mistakes of not signing Furcal and not making the deal for LaRoche and trade for Furcal so that he can play SS. If I recall, you were very disappointed in Oakland not landing the guy for four years at over $40 million, right?
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm tired of making you look bad
I don’t understand why you refuse to believe that there were other alternatives to the events that unfolded. It’s like you’re arguing that trading Blanton to Philly was predestined. I find that to be a ridiculous assumption.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
However, in hindsight
The Philly trade has worked out pretty damn well.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Jun 15, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I loved Outman from Day 1
And if Cardenas can switch to 3B than yippee-skippee, consider me thrilled.
And if he can’t make the switch, the A’s have 2B backed-up with Ellis, Cardenas and Weeks racing up the ladder. Meanwhile, Jack Hannahan is probably playing 3B ‘cause I’m not counting on Chavez until I read his boxscore the next day.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's like I'm arguing that the trade with Philly was predestined?
Where did you get that from? And if anything, I am precisely arguing that there were other alternatives to the events that eventually unfolded; namely that Chavez was assumed to be the 3B going forward for the next three/four years.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and keep 'making me' look bad
it’s great for my self-esteem.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it would, you're a fool
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So says the guy in blue tights and red cape.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 15, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I may dress the part
But it doesn’t come naturally as it does for you.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you making popcorn?
I’m not watching unless someone makes popcorn.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Jun 15, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grover,
I generally like what you have to say, and rec’d a couple of your posts in this thread, but you’re kind of being a jerk. Maybe it wouldn’t come off that way in person, but it sure does in print.
They're called RUNS for a reason.
by connie mack on Jun 15, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m tired of playing defense on this, so let’s see you answer the hard part for a change: Give me one sensible reason why a team (the Dodgers) fighting to maintain their division lead and in desperate need of big league starting pitching, with a healthy former All-Star at 3B and 3 Top 10 3B prospects would object to dealing 1 of their 3B prospects for a big league SP
Did you know that former all-star had a mid 600 OPS at the time you suggest that this deal should be made; by the way, nice loaded language there. You also had some interesting cmments about the health history and bat production of said all-start 3Bman on this very blog just a couple of years before this very period you seem to be signing his praises as making prospects expendable.
As for the other (LaRoche not included) top 10 3B prospects that the LADs had, who were they? DeWitt? Abreu? Who? If the Dodgers were so loaded with talent at the hot corner, why did they deal for Casey Blake just a year later and just before using LaRoche as a means to aqcuire Boston’s disgruntled Ramirez.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 16, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quoting me is the only interesting thing you've said in the last few posts
You asked for context, you insisted that we needed to view this based on the circumstances at the time and as it turns out that context does more to support my side than it does to help you. Deal with it.
Nomar signed a 1 year deal with the Dodgers in 2006, he ended up making the All-Star game that year. The Dodgers then re-signed him to a 2 year deal for 2007 and 2008. Nomar got hurt again shortly after the trade deadline in 2007, but at the time of the Blanton discussion he was healthy and hitting 285/330/360. That’s a .690 OPS btw, certainly not a great number but you’d have to be desperate or lying to call that a mid-600 OPS.
As for the 3B prospects, the Dodgers had LaRoche (1) DeWitt (8) and Bell (9). Sickels gave LaRoche an A-, DeWitt a B- and Bell a C+. They traded for Blake because LaRoche couldn’t get his bat going last year and after a hot start DeWitt, a 22 year old rookie, was struggling and the Dodgers felt he needed to work some things out in the minors. (He returned in late August and posted an .872 OPS in 100 Sept/Oct at bats.)
Nomar was of course hurt… again… so the Dodgers went out and traded Carlos Santana and Jon Meloan for two months of Blake plus cash. Santana was enjoying a break-out campaign a break out season at the time and entered 2009 as Cleveland’s #1 prospect, the 3rd best Catching prospect (behind Wieters and Posey) and the 29th best prospect in all of baseball. Sickels rated Santana as the 17th best prospect in the minor heading into this season.
Which just further proves that the Dodgers were willing to trade high quality talent in an effort to land veteran players that could help them reach the play-offs. They traded Carlos Santana for 2 months of Casey Blake… kind of hard to see how Blanton couldn’t have landed LaRoche.
But you see, I knew all this before I opened my mouth on the subject. That might be a lesson for you to consider.
LCJ is done. Anyone else want to give it a try?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 16, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LCJ is done.
At how many posts does one member need to get to, to tell another member that they are done? You must really believe that you’re something else here.
That’s a .690 OPS btw, certainly not a great number but you’d have to be desperate or lying to call that a mid-600 OPS.
Or I just made a mistake…like looking at June’s numbers instead of July’s. You might know a thing or two about desperation but that’s not what motivated my post nor are you very good about detecting your own characteristics in others; an honest mistake was what this was.
You asked for context, you insisted that we needed to view this based on the circumstances at the time and as it turns out that context does more to support my side than it does to help you.
Oh, so in your head, a .700 OPS (a figure that he had produced since the ASB of ’06) along with DeWitt and Bell shows a team with such depth at 3B, that why would Coletti not let his #1 prospect at a scarce position go for a middle of the rotation SP. Yep, this arguement which you began makes you shine like a polished turd.
so the Dodgers went out and traded Carlos Santana and Jon Meloan for two months of Blake plus cash.
The Dodgers did this so that they could turn right around and get in the three-way with the Pirates and Red Sox, trading this same LaRoche (whose stock might have even fallen since 2007) and deal him for one of the elite hitters of this decade. You know, Manny, Manny’s attitude & contract, are probably of more value to the Dodgers than Blanton a year earlier. I don’t know, though, I let you tell me what Coletti was thinking.
kind of hard to see how Blanton couldn’t have landed LaRoche.
Uh, ye-ah. Unless, of course, Coletti didn’t want to deal LaRoche at the time. Or Beane did not want to deal Blanton for him and others. My point this whole time is that you just do not know who was being discussed or if the two sides were close. To pretend that you do just shows what kind of egomanic Internet personality you’ve become and that LaRoche (or any other 3Bman) would have come at a cost. And, all things considered (Chavez’s future, his contract, 3B prospects in the Athletics’s minors at the time, what other GMs were asking for, etc.), just were too much cost for Beane. In other words, there were reasons and all the desperate wanting for LaRoche and Hu that you pined for was not going to change that at the time or two years later.
But you see, I knew all this before I opened my mouth on the subject.
You must really enjoy the taste of your feet then.
That might be a lesson for you to consider.
There’s many lessons that I could learn. One of them being that you never seem to back down even when your inconsistencies are pointed out to you. Another being that you’re an Internet egomaniac. One more: I honestly do not know why I wasted my time replying to you after our history of you going down the same nasty road. I’ll do my best to ignore you from here on out.
by LowcountryJoe on Jun 17, 2009 6:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your spitefulness aside, I congragulate you for finally providing some basis of a counter-argument
If only you had offered this up originally, we might have had an interesting discussion. You call me an egomaniac, but you were the one who copped an attitude and decided that rather than counter my point you’d rather just stand there and say “I think you’re wrong grover… so therefore you’re wrong.” You asked me for context and I provided it. I asked you for the same and you decided not to do the work.
Folks think I can come off as abrasive. Well, that’s what happens when people waste my time like you did. You chose spite over substance right from the start and now you get huffy because when it became clear that substance didn’t matter to you I replied in the manner which you used on me.
If you feel offended then perhaps you shouldn’t have chosen such an antagonistic approach.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 17, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is my question
You have said that you like the talent in the Philly package is better. You also have said that the Dodgers were in really tough straights. Furthermore, Blanton was at the peak of his value that summer producing a pretty elite 5.7 WAR season as one of the best pitchers in baseball that year, plus he was under contract for three more years. If Beane could have gotten more talent 6 months latter when he was pitching like crap and had less service time, can you really be upset that he didn’t decline what was at least in my opinion a substandard offer by the Dodgers?
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 17, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair question
Its like this…
Let’s assume you (as GM of the A’s) decide to trade an established SP to fill in a hole elsewhere. Your problem areas are 3B, LF and now (‘cause you’re trading a SP) the rotation.
So Team A offers a 3B and a SP. You like the prospects, they’re good, but Team B offers you a LF and a SP and you like that package more so you make the deal with Team B.
You decide to trade another SP.
Team A offers up the same 3B/SP combo, and you still think its a good combo but Team C offers up a LF and a SP and you like Team C’s package more. You figure, I can always put the hitter in the DH role.
You decide to trade another SP.
Team A offers up the same package again! Team D offers up a LF and a SP and again, you like the overall talent of Team D’s offer more than Team A. Problem is… where you going to play that bat? And you’ve still got a hole at 3B. Now maybe you take Team D’s offer but now you’ve got to go out and find a 3B, and wouldn’t you know it, Team A (who’s still got the spare 3B) doesn’t need a LF. so now you’ve got to find Team E.
I prefer the Philly package because I like Outman a lot more than McDonald. I don’t consider LaRoche/McDonald substandard, just not as good as the overall talent of Cardenas/Outman. But if Cardenas can’t convert to 3B then the A’s will continue to have a hole at the hot corner and be over stocked at 2B.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 17, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That isn't a direct answer to my question.
Cardenas/Outman/Spencer is a great package of talent (especially with Spencer performing well) that was traded at a much lower point of value for Blanton. Laroche (who has had a ton of injury concerns including a bulging disk his back) hit well in the minors but so has Cardenas who has ARL on his side to make up for some of the power that Laroche had and could be a better defender. Why would Beane accept a trade that is less sound when Blanton was more valuable when he summized correctly that he could wait longer and even with a significant performance dip from Blanton receive a superior package.
What youre saying is that Beane should have taken a weak package due to it containing a better than average third base prospect. I strongly disagree. First, Cardenas is a better than average third base prospect and hes only played like 5 games there. Secondly the need to acquire a SS (in DeJesus) was more relevant if you believed that Chavez could return to form and play out the remaining 3 years and $37m of his contract (assuming a 2011 buy out). Thirdly, the cupboard is pretty bare when it comes to 2b too. Now the A’s have a declining Ellis who was a free agent to be at the time, some AAAA filler (Moneypenny Patterson Petit, though I think Petit has some potential at SS.), and Weeks. Now Weeks also has the skillset for CF where the A’s cupboard is Sweeney, who sucks, a high bust potential prospect in Corey Brown, a corner OFs in Cunningham and Buck. Basically Weeks is our second best CF option in the minors. So out of SS, 2b, 3b and CF, I think you are irrationally focused on filling only one of those positions. I believe this is especially true since there are more viable FA 3b candidates than there are SS candidates.
The Dodgers offered a poor package. Beane was right to try to squeeze a team that should have been much more desperate to giving up better prospects, and when they didn’t wait and get a superior package.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 18, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right now I'll take the package we got ta.
by OldhamA on Jun 15, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cardenas vs. McDonald is interesting
I’ve always liked Outman, so I think that in terms of overall talent the Philly package comes out on top. But the LA package focuses on a specific area of need (3B) which may or may not be filled by Cardenas.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're certainly right in your criticism that
we’ve failed to target a 3B whilst trading away our most valuable assets, but the Philly trade is looking exceptional right now. Cardenas is lighting up AA and Outman has nailed down his spot in the rotation – it’s tough to argue with that.
I wonder if we’re banking on one of the many promising middle infielders we’ve aquired over the past two seasons filling the 3B hole.
by OldhamA on Jun 15, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cardenas has played 4 of his last 5 games at 3B
The Philly package is looking great right now. But…
The A’s used their 2008 1st round pick on a 2B.
They have lots of pitching and McDonald, while not as good as Outman at this time, would still be counted as an asset.
Who’s playing 3B?
And SS?
If Cardenas can make the switch to 3B and hit well enough to handle the offensive demands of the position then everything is groovy. If it turns out he has to stay at 2B then he’s still a quality prospect but the Oakland A’s would still have a gaping hole on the left side of the infield.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Weeks pick was justified as he was the best player
available. He has a good chance of being that dynamic top of the order batter we don’t have – though obviously you know this.
I’m pleased with the Green pick in this draft because he was the best player available and he also happens to fill a huge need in the organisation.
I dislike drafting for need in the early rounds – the whole process is such a crapshoot that you’ve simply got to take the best player and worry about how they all fit into the grand scheme of things later.
You’re right on Cardenas – I imagine Beane picked him up because the scouts really like his bat and again it’s a case of working out where he plays on the infield later on in his development process. The fact they’re trying him there already though suggests that they’re looking at that option already.
They almost certainly need to find a 3B for next season. Where that guy is going to come from I’m not sure.
by OldhamA on Jun 15, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Water under the bridge....
all of these conversations are largely based on what if scenarios. So moving forward, who do we try and get for Holliday, Cabrera and maybe even Giambi? Also can we afford to move a few pitching prospects to sweeten a deal for a stud prospect. Then other thing to is if we do trade Holliday, shouldn’t we try and get an OF’er that can play immediately, being we don’t have shit in the minors right now?
Byron
by DoomandGloom on Jun 15, 2009 9:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You have no eye for minor league talent!
Believe me, the A’s have plenty of shit in the minors.
What we’re looking for are baseball players.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My expectations for Holliday
Top notch SS/3B prospect
MLB OF
High level OF prospect
What do the Mets or Red Sox have to offer?
Byron
by DoomandGloom on Jun 15, 2009 9:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You're not going to get all of that for Holliday
Holliday is freaking good, but that’s way too much to expect.
1— He’s only under contract for 1/2 a season
2— Although his contract is below market value, its still not cheap, and not many teams can add payroll
Expect one of the 3 and then lower level stuff, but not all 3.
"You end up with a name like ‘Outman,’" he said last week. "What else are you going to do? You’re going to get people out, man." ~ Dallas Braden
by Blicks on Jun 15, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, unfortunately
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 Jun 15, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade him to the Giants
Conor Gillaspie
Eddy Martinez-Esteve
Some guy with possible reliever upside…Henry Sosa?
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Jun 15, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would want Alderson as part of any deal, assuming Bumgarner, Posey and Villalona are off limits.
by DeJay on Jun 16, 2009 2:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
mets/red sox wouldnt be the teams i target
stl or reds might be willing to part with prospects since they have fairly deep farm systems
by Asfan4ever723 on Jun 15, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not the Mets?
You think Omar Minaya’s head isn’t going to be served up on a platter if the Mets don’t make the playoffs and Omar doesn’t make a deadline move. It’s the wrong reason to fire Omar, but Omar knows the threat’s there if they miss the playoffs 3 years in a row. The guys on Amazin Avenue are a bit more rational than the average NY fan.
And these guys have F-Mart, Reese Havens, Wilmer Flores, and Josh Thole in the minors, and those are just the better position players.
"You end up with a name like ‘Outman,’" he said last week. "What else are you going to do? You’re going to get people out, man." ~ Dallas Braden
by Blicks on Jun 15, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their key injuries right now are Reyes and Delgado
If an OFer went down they might really look at giving something up to get Holliday. An added bonus for them is that they’d have a reasonable chance of keeping him beyond 2009.
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 Jun 15, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They went into the season with a "weak" OF though.
A lot of Murphy’s problems are BABIP related, but right now, they’re corners are staffed by a 40 year old Sheffield, Ryan Church, Tatis, and Murphy.
They could permanently shift the Murphy/Tatis (Murph came up as an infielder) platoon to 1B (is anyone expecting anything from Delgado), Sheff and Holliday could man the corners and Church could be 4th OF. Sounds like a Mets thing to do.
"You end up with a name like ‘Outman,’" he said last week. "What else are you going to do? You’re going to get people out, man." ~ Dallas Braden
by Blicks on Jun 15, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holliday and Crosby for Murphy and Church
Mets need a strong bat in the outfield, Church is having a down year. Murphy’s natural position is 3B. and Reyes has been hurt. Crosby makes a GREAT backup 2b. Balance the trade out with money or low level bullpen prospects.
They're called RUNS for a reason.
by connie mack on Jun 16, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would we want church?
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 16, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be saved?
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Jun 16, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We do have Devine.
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 Jun 16, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What we have...
in terms of the positions that we need help with moving forward into next season and beyond.
1B….Daric Barton, Carter
2B….Weeks
SS….Green
3B….Cardenas
OF…Doolittle, Spencer
Byron
by DoomandGloom on Jun 15, 2009 9:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Aren't Coleman and/or Christian
still in front of Green for SS?
I mean, I know he was a 1st round guy, but did he really jump to the front of the line already?
Also, how far off is Corey Brown?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Jun 15, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he does move ahead of them in the queue.
Of course that all depends on whether his game translates to the pros, but he was a much more heralded prospect for a reason. That’s not writing off Coleman or Christian mind, they both have a future, it’s just that Green looks like an exceptional player at this point.
As for Brown well if his numbers in Midland this year are for real he’s pretty close. He’s taken a huge step forward in his development if that’s the case and there really isn’t anyone ahead of him holding him down – we have no legit CFers ahead of him.
by OldhamA on Jun 15, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
coleman
K’s way too much, but considering his recent struggles still around top 10 in mwl OPS.
christian is at 3b and has struggled the last 2 months
by Asfan4ever723 on Jun 15, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat its mistakes............
I see the comments of water under the bridge and ‘what if scenarios’. It is fair for all of us to critically look at not only deals that were not consumanted, but deals that were and turned out to be bad. If we consider the possibility that Beane was too quick to pull the trigger on dealing Ethier and Cruz (those of us in Sacramento know what we saw in Nelson Cruz). We could have been looking at an Ethier, Sweeney, Cruz outfield today. What is to say that Carter, Doolittle, Cardenas etc won’t be traded before they recognize thier full potential?
by djhbaseball on Jun 15, 2009 11:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
blanton dodgers
from what i remember A’s demanded dejesus in every scenario and dodgers refused which ended talks. also olney mentioned the package could be as high as a 5 to 1 deal, obviously not all top prospects. dodgers were very also stubborn on laroche, my guess is they tried to entice A’s on hu/dewitt and A’s declined.
here’s an older article…
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2955237
L.A. is stocked with prospects, from third baseman Andy LaRoche and outfielders Andre Ethier (a former Oakland prospect who was traded for Milton Bradley) and Matt Kemp to left-handers Clayton Kershaw and Scott Elbert and right-hander Jonathan Meloan.
The Dodgers are believed to have initiated the discussions, and the two teams talked about a package of three frontline prospects for Blanton. They failed in their initial attempt to mix and match possible combinations, but there were indications talks could still be revived before the deadline. Blanton makes just $380,000 this year, and will be eligible for arbitration for the first time this winter. Teams rarely trade young and cheap and established starting pitchers in the current market, which explains why Oakland has set a high price for Blanton.
by Asfan4ever723 on Jun 15, 2009 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Right. What I'm suggesting is that Beane
may have correctly assessed which targets were “future busts” and which were worth pursuing – he clearly coveted DeJesus Jr. but may not have been willing to part with good trade chips to get Marte or Lillibridge (who was a pretty hot property when he was in lower minors).
Now believing Chavez would be healthy, believing Crosby’s biggest problem was health, not using the Rule 5 draft to take a chance on a “high upside” SS or 3Bman – there are many reasons why I think the A’s have dropped the ball over the past few years, but I am also pointing out that at least they haven’t made a big deal for a bust. That’s a real plus that should be acknowledged.
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 Jun 15, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine, point acknowledged
Now can we do something about the bloody wounds at 3B and SS which pretty much killed the 2008 season, has 2009 on life support and threatens to make 2010 stillborn?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Jun 15, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Works for me!
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 Jun 15, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
marte was DFA'd and available for free
around spring training.
whether its legit or not, he’s hitting well in AAA. its pretty bad that he’d be considered A’s best 3b but A’s have nothing else. i’d take any AAA fring/mlb ready 3b over hannahan playing 3 months longer here
everidge- bad defense, can hit some but 26 and new to AAA this week
valdez- hottest hitter in A’s system since may. but will be 25 in a few months and an milb FA. maybe another jesus guzman that bolts for another team.
vitters 3 yrs of injuries and lousy production before doing ok in 09.
by Asfan4ever723 on Jun 15, 2009 11:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I had to look up who Valdez was
And I actually do look at Midland box scores, too.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Jun 15, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I would like to see
is a right handed hitting, good defense playing, healthy cheap platoon mate for Hannahan.
I’ll take my chances at Shortstop.
Or that Murphy kid from the Mets, who is now at 1B for them, but capable of playing 3b.
They're called RUNS for a reason.
by connie mack on Jun 15, 2009 5:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
apparently buck pissed somebody off (from mychael urban mailbag on the official site)
Did Travis Buck hack someone off by saying he didn’t need to go on the disabled list?
— Carl H., Monterey, Calif.
That’s not something anyone involved with the current regime would admit to on the record, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable assumption. I also have a feeling Buck upset some people even before that, by saying he didn’t think it would be wise to play in the second game of that doubleheader in Texas a while back after getting three hits — including a homer — in the first game.
What I do know is that Buck wasn’t allowed to hit for at least a week after he was put on the DL, even though he said he was pain-free. If he’s not activated shortly after he’d eligible, you’ll probably have the answer to your question.
by inbillywetrust on Jun 15, 2009 5:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I generally like Urban
But this doesn’t make much sense, and one part of the story contradicts the other.
First of all, after the doubleheader, Buck said, “It got worse and worse. I couldn’t take a step without it hurting.” If he said it wouldn’t “be wise” to play game 2, good for him for not being a macho idiot and hurting himself worse! Does anyone really think that Buck, languishing on the bench and in AAA all year and coming off a 3-for-4 game with a home run, just declined to play game 2 because he’s some kind of wuss? Does anyone (except perhaps Urban, apparently) really think the A’s think that?
And that whole story line is belied by the immediately following events. Buck is “shocked” to find himself DL’d the next day (which happened partly because Cust got hurt in the same game and the team was way short of outfielders), saying the pain was “not excruciating pain” but rather something he can play through. Now he wants to be the macho idiot. Look, Buck is no damn doctor, and oblique injuries are nothing to fuck with. They tend to get aggravated, and linger for a long time. If the team had to forbid him from swinging a bat to keep him from hurting himself worse because of Buck’s own professional medical opinion that he was good to go, then good for them! (Although you could question why they let him play in game 1, as the injury visibly got “worse and worse.”)
Personally, I’d like to see Buck (Barton too, for that matter) get an extended chance to establish himself so we know what we have going forward. I acknowledge that with Giambi, Cust, and Holliday on the roster it’s not easy to make those opportunities happen (and for Cunningham as well). I just don’t see much reason for conspiracy theories here.
But bad blood and infighting are more entertaining, and I guess we need a break from all the feel-good stories that have dominated this season so far…
by Faust on Jun 15, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beltre anyone?
maybe try for a 3/30 deal? Give it a shot?
Your 2009 Oakland Athetics: This time, it's personal.
by Kallus on Jun 15, 2009 7:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd do it.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Jun 15, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he will be that cheap
but if he is i do it in a heartbeat
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 16, 2009 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
someone else suggested Andy Marte
And I think its a very good idea. He is a right handed batting former top prospect at 3b. He could platoon with Hannahan at 3b and has (or at least used to have) the upside that he could potentially grow into a full time major league average 3b. He’s playing AAA 3b for Cleveland right now and I’m sure would be available for cheap. He cleared waivers earlier this year.
based on 2006-2008 splits for Marte against LH pitchers, he OPS’s around .780. Hannahan against RH pitchers OPS’s around .730. That’s not great, but it’s cheap and not embarrasing.
They're called RUNS for a reason.
by connie mack on Jun 16, 2009 9:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
