Possible Trade Assets: Andrew Bailey
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 4:30 PM PDT
Email
PrintI wanted to take a break from looking at the teams we could trade with (Seattle is coming up next) since I was running out of good fits and start looking at some assets we could trade to possibly improve this team. This proposal is an unconventional asset to be sure. I acknowledge that this is a very unlikely proposal, but go with it, the idea is to see what the player is worth. Andrew Bailey is the first of these assets. There are many teams right now searching for cost controlled bullpen aces with deep farm systems. Both Florida teams need bullpen help, and don't have the budget room to go out and get a Kerry Wood type (valuable arm with a contract that makes his current team look to move him). I was in LA and watched two games between the Yankees and the Angels last weekend. While both are larger market teams, their bullpens, but especially the Yankees sucked it up. Texas had been rumored in pursuit of relief pitching earlier, though calling up Feliz will mitigate that. Atlanta, which is one of the reasons for doing this post, will need a cost controlled closer at the end of this season when Soriano and Gonzalez depart via free agency.
We all know about the season Bailey has had an amazing first half of a season in the A's bullpen. He was the only rookie on the All Start team. He met the President. Even mentioning the possibility of trading him drowns fluffy puppies. I get it you like him.
That being said there is a reason why he is such a good story, because no one expected him to succeed in a major league bullpen right now. Look at the AN Community prospect list which had him 28th in a deep system. Baseball Prospectus only included him in the Lineouts section of their 2009 Prospectus, and just mentioning his lack of control and secondary pitches. He was an older college arm who stalled out as a starter in AA with a good fastball and not much more with a future destined for middle relief in the majors a couple of years from now if he was lucky. A kinda dime a dozen player.
Group-think can be wrong, but usually there is a reason why it is wrong (eg. everyone assumed those AAA bonds were rated AAA because they were safe). With Bailey there are some legitimate reasons that explain why it could be. Moving to the bullpen can increase the velocity of pitches (however, I don't have Bailey's velocity readings from last year before or after the conversion to the bullpen) as a shorter outing allows more effort to be put into every pitch. The marginal increase on his fastball which currently registers 93.4 MPH on average could make a huge difference in a game of millimeters of trying to hit a baseball.
Additionally, Andrew Bailey has developed a cutter this year. This is the most logical reason for Bailey's dramatic and unexpected success. The cutter is 5 MPH slower than his fast ball and moves about three more inches horizontally and three more inches vertically according to his Pitch Fx data (a note, I am not nearly as well versed in Pitch Fx data as I should be so if who knows it better than I can double check this that would rock.) He throws it more than any pitch besides his fastball, at a 30% clip. Not only does he throw it often but it has worked registering 1.37 RAA per 100 pitches, and 2.8 RAA overall. In one season Bailey has developed the 8th best cutter among relievers in all of baseball.
The addition of the cutter and the move to the bullpen has had the effect of playing up Bailey's secondary pitches. The combination of adding a strong secondary pitch plus eliminating the need to face a batter three times a game allows for less cat an mouse trying to set up batters for the next at bat, and a more direct approach that requires less change ups and sliders. This allows Bailey to essentially shelve a bad change up that gets hit to the tune of - 4.8 RAA/100 pitches (SSS) and his slider. Additionally his curveball goes from his number two pitch that needed to heavily be relied upon, to a gotcha pitch that is shown only 15% of the time and when expecting mid 90s heat or a hard darting cutter, has been supremely effective to the tune of 4.3 RAA this year.
That being said there are some reasons to think that he is a mirage. He has never walked this few batters in any season in his pro career. Last year in AA Bailey walked 1.2 more batters per 9 innings than he has so far this year. Bailey gave up far less home runs that he did previously. Bailey's home run per fly ball percentage is flukey low 5.3% which is far lower than the 12% and the 11% that it was the last two years respectively. The Hardball Times claims that deviation from the 11 to 12% range for pitchers is due to luck rather than skill. Furthermore, Bailey has been getting lucky on his BABIP with an average of only .246 compared to a league average of .300. While, there is a small component of skill involved in BABIP (if you put me on the mound and I was pumping 82 MPH fastball and a slurvey as all get out breaking ball from my high school pitching days into the heart of the zone you would expect my BABIP to be pretty high, you also wouldn't expect me to last in the majors long, so over time outliers get weeded out that way), Bailey is due for a major regression toward the league average. If he does regress as expected look for his BAA to jump 90 points. Bailey is also stranding runners at a 14% higher rate than league average. Therefore, it is easy to understand why ZIPs rest of the season projection shows skyrocketting FIP and ERA for the rest of the season. ZIPS for first year pitchers who have changed their game as much as Bailey isn't the most trust worthy thing, but it is certainly a data point, one that projects that Bailey has a 4.98 ERA and 4.70 FIP for the rest of the year.
Finally there is a question about the value of relievers. Only two relievers were 3 WAR players in 2008 Mo Rivera and that douchebag Papelbon. Ten were worth 2 WAR. Lets face it even shut down relievers aren't that valuable. Every team has about 6 relievers at any one time on the active roster. That means that there are about 180 relievers in the bigs at any one time, and many many more that we aren't going to count that get hurt or are shuttled back and forth between the minors. 1/18th of relievers or 5.5% are worth the low end of an average starting regular position player in the bigs.
So the question becomes how much do you trust Andrew Bailey and how much do you trust regression? If you don't trust him to regress into the most valuable less than 5.5% of relievers, you could sell high now. He is an All-Star, under team control for nothing for 2.5 years and 6 years in total, and has hella good numbers. With the number of teams looking for cheap controllable bullpen help the potential for a legit B+ prospect to return is there. From the Dodgers, Ethan Martin or Andrew Lambo could be a reasonable return. From the Rays, next year's starting SS Reid Brignac. Phillippee Aumont or Michael Saunders could come back from Seattle. Brandon Wood and a throw in from the Angles. Matt Laporta from the Indians would be reasonable. Jordan Schaffer from the Braves who have need a long term solution at closer. Bailey could even go so far as netting someone like Logan Morrison or Michael Stanton (the A's would need to throw in something here).
So on to the poll:
121 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think it's a "at the right price" issue
If his “zomg he’s an all-star!!!111” status can help get you a key piece (e.g., SS, 3B) then I think you have to do it. But I suspect the lower BB rates aren’t a mirage so much as a function of more aggressiveness stemming from more confidence due to the cutter. Bailey has come right after hitters without nibbling much and that’s a great recipe for low BBs — but it’s also a recipe for more HRs and hits.
I think he’s like Ziggy in that no, he’s not as good as he’s pitching now but he’s still a very good pitcher, not a fluke. Yet if Devine can come back, he replaces Bailey without a blip and the A’s need a left side of the infield and some guys who can hit.
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 a borderline B/B+ level prospect enough?
Would you make a Brignac/Bailey swap with the Rays?
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I think those specifics would depend on my scouting dept's
opinion of the individual. For example, if they said, “This guy’s primed for a comeback — we think he’ll be the player everyone thought he was going to be 3 years ago,” I’d go for it, but if they said, “That’s guy’s just never going to hit big league pitching,” “The guy’s talented but he’s a total head case,” I’d say no (or “thanks, but we just tried a SS like 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
These are all Top 100 prospects
Brignac is 23 year old a premium fielding SS OPSing over 800 in AAA. One of the top 5 SS prospects in baseball.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions
if brignac was offered up...
Beane would have to consider it. However, I think we would risk selling too early on Bailey when he could either be a more valuable asset in a trade- later with more of a major league track-record- or, ideally, as a top shelf closer on a playoff team that we hope to field in the near future.
There’s no doubt that we have other young power arms who could fill in if Bailey was to be traded. As well, it is very believable that- had devine not gotten injured- he would be as dominant as Bailey has been. However, it’s hard to ignore the fact that Bailey’s arsenal of pitches are downright filthy. True, he did not get top 100 prospect consideration when in the minors- but you have to factor in that for most of his minor league career he was judged mainly as a struggling starter whose stuff should play up better in the bullpen. When he converted to the bullpen, he instantly became pretty dominant and has shown nothing sense then that would suggest he won’t continue to be dominant in the future, in the bullpen.
Beane, obviously, does not value closers as much as other GM’s do so the suggestion of Bailey as a possible trade chip is very much warrented and worth examining. But, IMO, it’s too early and his value could be much higher a year from now. Especially when we know if Devine can come back and regain dominance.
I’d think that if Brignac were offered for Bailey straight up Beane wouldn’t be able to say no…
A top SS prospect in AAA shouldn’t be passed up by this team.
If we had a few more postions locked up on this team I would say no
we have so many holes that any top prospect 1b, 3b, OF or SS prospect should be considered. If we end up with two many studs at one position that’s a good thing, it means not one but two actually worked out for once and we will move the other one to another position.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
Why 1b?
I mean we have Barton Dolittle and Carter. We also have Powell and Everidge in the back up back up back up pile.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 3:14 AM PDT up reply actions
we need stars.
I would be surprised if more than one of those guys ended up a star. serviceable yes.
I would pick another position grade for grade if having that option, but would not turn down a stud 1b A prospect , if all we could get was a SS B prospect otherwise. If we ended up with two A type 1b and they could not play another position it would be easier to trade one for a elite SS/3b prospect later than a reliever would be.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
Here is where I disagree
There were 5 SS that have an ok chance of sticking at SS on BA’s Top 100 prospects list. There were 12 1bman and even more that are likely to move there. Plus there are probably 4-5 more top 100 players that will need to move there. So out of 9 positions 1b get far far more than their share of top prospect labels. SS are perenially underrated. The demand for a stud 1b prospect might be less than you think are people really banging the door down trying to acquire Alonso, Lars Anderson or other similarly blocked 1b prospects? But I can tell you that a bunch of SS prospects that can only field (Escobar) , or can only hit (Donald) are very coveted.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm making the assumption that the scouts are more or less correct in grade's
your saying they over grade 1b and under grade SS so an A 1B is = B SS and if that bears out yes take the SS.
If that does not bear out and an A indeed has a 25% better chance (has anyone ever done a story on grading?) a to be a star (not just a starter) than a B regardless of position take the A and your team will be better for it over time.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
Oh come on Nico thats a cop out... take a leap.
What kinda guest come over here to my house on Fanpost lane and gives me nothing to argue with? :-P
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Ha ha, you crack me up DFA.
I can’t speak for Nico, but if someone asks me a question and I don’t have enough information to give an intelligent answer, I hope I would just say so, rather than invent some BS opinion anyway and then try to back it up whether it’s right or wrong.
This “cop out” attitude is what has ruined the “analysis” on cable TV, talk radio, etc. Anyone who gets air time is expected to have an answer to everything. If they don’t know, they can’t admit it, so they have to make shit up, which is why so much of sports journalism is complete garbage.
But the TV networks love it, because all they care about is turning up the volume on the arguing. Maybe SBN loves it, too, I don’t know. Me, I don’t.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I was kidding...
Everybody knows I like a good debate. I do these posts for two reasons: the research for them educates me, and because I like to debate with people.
That being said, the assumption I work off of in all of my Possible Trade Partners and now Assets posts assume that scouting department in the shadow A’s run by daring, handsome, and ruthless DFA, doesn’t come up with red flags that aren’t available to the fan community (BA, BP, Sickles) but could be to a real organization.
I don’t know everything about these prospects but I think making an informed guess makes this kinda stuff more fun thats all.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I know.
I was just messin’ with you.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
oh good
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions
It's possible that for exactly the reasons you cited
(ie fluky HR/FB rate, possibility of BABIP regression, etc) teams won’t be willing to buy high for him. And as you mentioned, Bailey was not considered a top prospect before this season so other teams might regard him as a half season fluke. And typically, most contenders aren’t willing to overpay (or at least at the level of the deals you’re suggesting) for a relatively unknown rookie pitcher with a shaky minor league track record and one good half season under his belt.
And of course at some point, constantly trading away good, young, cheap pitchers (especially ones who haven’t even had a full season yet) for more prospects would be detrimental to the team both long term and short term.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
As for the first point yes GMs are genearlly more equipped than I am to judge.
but I think its likely that the long term team control part and the need right now. I mention the Rays because if you listen to Maddon he clearly thinks that Bailey is for real, they have a need in the pen, and they have two quality SS options on the big squad in Zorbist and Bartlett.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions
As always it depends upon the package...
[that’s what she said]
If someone would give up a SS/3B of the future, then of course I trade a reliever. But I wouldn’t let him go for anything less than my starting SS/3B for the next 4-5 years.
Good teams need dominant bullpen arms in the playoffs, and if this team is ever going to win anything, they need to keep those types around for a playoff run.
The questions really are..
- Is Bailey for real?
- Will a legitimate playoff run occur in Bailey’s possible time with the team?
- Is contending for the division title only going to happen with the player(s) received for Bailey?
- Are their internal candidates to replace him?
I think Bailey is for real. I think a playoff run could be in the cards within the next 2 years, which makes a shutdown closer important.
The next two questions are really the crux of the issue. The A’s need to fill one of the two gaping left-side holes to make a run. Can they do that without moving someone like Bailey…I don’t know.
Do they have an adequate internal replacement? Maybe Devine…but it is hard to trust another player coming back from surgery. Maybe H-Rod, but control issues are certainly there.
I’m probably more on the “keep him” side of things, but easily swayed.
by chri5 on Jul 16, 2009 4:55 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
also...
Does anyone happen to know if the plate discipline section of fangraphs for a pitcher shows the opposing batters’ plate discipline, or their plate discipline when they batted?
its when they were pitching on the pitching page ... Bailey doesn't have an AB so its moot.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions
The answers to your questions go
Maybe
Yes
Maybe
Yes
I have no problem trusting Wuertz and Ziggy with the closer role next year if Devine doesn’t come back.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions
You forgot one
Will his overuse lead to severe arm troubles within the next couple of years negating the time frame we expect to compete.
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 already has had TJ once.
The success rate for second TJs drops from like 85% with the first to 20% with the second.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Hence my concern about his arm, his overuse, and add one more reason
to at least consider trading him now.
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 can't believe we're talking about a reliever and no-one has used the word fungible yet
fungible fungible fungible fungible fungible fungible fungible fungible fungible fungible fungible.
I gotta go to class now bye.
As effective as his cutter is and as good as his fastball is,
within a year of learning the cutter, the Rivera comps are enticing. What Rivera has that Bailey doesn’t — and most pitchers don’t have — is truly pinpoint command. But Bailey’s ceiling is pretty high, and his non-great prospect status has to be considered in the context of lacking a cutter most of that time.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
But it does
according to Fangraphs…
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Once you dunk 'em, they're not fluffy any more.
Sell high! sell high!
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
i think we should trade Ziggy
we probably can get a decent prospect for him, and we can call up HRod.
'Cause his style is so similar?
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 love having a gimmick pitcher for some reason.
I wish the A’s had somehow picked up Wakefeild a long time ago. It seems like after the other team has faced a gimmick pitcher it messes them up afterwords.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
Charlie Hager says hi...
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 3:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Id love Stanton or Laportta
Everyone else u mention is just meh.
"Their Triple-A rotation, led by Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson, could be better than some big-league rotations; Michael Ynoa is the best Latin American prospect of the decade; 2008 draftees Jemile Weeks and Rashun Dixon bring much-needed tools to an advanced group of hitters." - BaseballProspectus.com
Yeah, I have to agree with this.
If someone wants to fork over an elite prospect, go for it.
If not, no.
><
Stanton is probably a no go... but Laporta? really?
I would prefer Wood, Aumont, Saunders, or Schaffer to Laporta.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Schafer, Saunders, yes.
Aumont, maybe, especially since the Mariners are using him out of the pen.
I’m not a big Wood believer. He’s got huge upside, but the contact rates and lack of plate discipline suck.
><
In a SSS
He looked really good the game I saw last Saturday working the count taking some close pitches earning a walk in his 1rst ab and crushing a homer in his second. His ground out was unremarkable.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I want impact, power bats.
Wood could be… but Im not high on him.
"Their Triple-A rotation, led by Trevor Cahill and Brett Anderson, could be better than some big-league rotations; Michael Ynoa is the best Latin American prospect of the decade; 2008 draftees Jemile Weeks and Rashun Dixon bring much-needed tools to an advanced group of hitters." - BaseballProspectus.com
I voted keep him
More because I highly, highly doubt the price would be right than because I think he’ll continue doing a Mariano Rivera impression. Though I do definitely think he can be a very, very good closer for us if we so choose to hold on.
Outman, fighter of the Hitman, champion of the K, he's a master of scoreless innings and friendship for everyone.
what is your right price?
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I would only want him to be traded for infield help
like Nico said
the A’s need a left side of the infield and some guys who can hit.
although in my mind any infield position would work.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
Would Brignac work for you?
I think that is actually a realistic trade.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know much about prospects on other teams. Too much reading for someone I might never see in an A's uni.
but if you think he is good and realistic then yes.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
I see above that he is a SS with a .800 OPS in AAA
I say get er done Billy.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
The skinny on Brignac
Drafted out of HS in 2004 played extremely well in rookie ball
2005 Had a not so hot year in low A, 740 OPS and a ton of Ks
2006 Has a break out season in the Cal League, and then with some luck did very well when promoted to AA
2007 rated #2 prospect in the Rays system (a head of Longoria)by Sickles “Reid Brignac, SS, Grade A- (Breakthrough season with the bat)” who also threw out some Chipper comps before the season. Went on to hit for a unlucky .766 OPS (856 adjusted for park and luck) and a .342 wOBA
2008 was given a B+ before the year and then sucked really really badly with a .711 OPS (689 neutralized) at AAA in his age 22 season. The one good thing is he became a plus defender this year but there were some serious worries about his bat.
2009 was given a C+ before the year but bounced back with the bat to the tune of a wOBA of .353 in AAA and cut down his strikeouts to only 12% of his PA while having 7% BB rate.
In the Majors for 61 PA his walk rate has collapsed but I expect it to rebound but hes still slugging 390 despite a significant drop in ISOp. In way too small a sample size to judge he is showing league average defense.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions
The thing I like about your posts DFA
is that you usually take time to address most of the comments. sometimes people like me get ignored when commenting because I don’t have all the knowledge of someone like yourself. If I took more time maybe I would have more to contribute but I waste my time online with randomness so DLDs are usually what I do.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
I try
I think that it makes them more inclusive and everybody learns if you get a good debate going. All that is required is the desire to learn, which is why I do these, they teach me while Im doing them.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh and he looks like this
Thanks Flashfire!
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 18, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Unless we get back a can't miss slam dunk mo-fo of an IF prospect
in return……Bailey stays. I think he is a revelation for this team and could possibly turn out to be a dominant closer for years to come.Ziggy, I could see going somewhere else, but Bailey, I think, is staying put.
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
Briggy makes most sense from both sides
However since TB has Bartlett and Zobrist at the MLB level and the SS of the future in Beckham (although rumors already he might go the way of BJ) I think the A’s could get a low level guy also in that deal.
Bailey is EXACTLY the guy the Rays would covet due to his cost and performance. TB is contending while also having a farm to make the deal.
With that said I don’t see him being moved until Devine shows he is healthy. Plus by then Bailey should have even more of a track record. However I don’t think his value will ever be any higher.
So hypothetically I could see a Briggy/Ty Morrison for Bailey and another low level guy the Rays like
I don't know much about Morrison besides his numbers being not good
Beckham is going to be able to stay at SS. Moving him off is way way way premature and I don’t think its wise. 19 yos make some errors. Its going to happen.
The whole point is selling high on him now. If he regresses as the year goes on it will significantly hurt his value.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
And it's a great point.
This is the best idea of all of your diaries thus far. + bunches.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Did you like any of the Holliday trades?
I think Brignac for Bailey is around fair value.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Some of the Holliday trades were decent.
What I like about this idea is that I think you can get a return that exceeds the value of the player, because of the desperation of the team acquiring him, and because Bailey’s value is inflated. Brignac would be fine with me, too. Just about any player you posed above is fine with me, because plus potential position player >>>>>> relief pitcher.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
They are hard to write because finding something both fair and that I want is often mutually exclusive
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions
No doubt.
I hope I didn’t come across as demeaning your efforts, because they are considerable.
To me, winning trades is just like any other business proposition; it’s all about ROI. In many instances in the business world, that’s about exploiting something, not an exchange of value. I want the A’s to look for the former as much as they can.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Shit replying to this totally ate my response to grover.... DARG
I didn’t at all.
I was trying to distinguish whether there were offers that you liked or whether you thought the trades were fair. I can like a trade that is totally lopsided in my favor that is bonkers nuts (Matt Holliday to the Marlins for Mike Stanton, Cameron Maybin, and Gaby Sanchez a recent 3b convert). I can like a trade proposal as fair but not be excited about it (Holliday for Ludwick, Motte, Jay). Its a language thing that makes it hard to tell.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I thought they were fair, for the most part.
I wasn’t excited about a lot of them. Even if the A’s can’t really win a deal in the manner you suggest above (and the manner I intimated), I’d rather see them get one fucking-A guy instead of a collection of decents. I’d love it if you did a follow up on your trade partners series suggesting trades built around taking a crown jewel from the opposing team’s system, even if it meant giving up quite a bit.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I was looking at the poll results...
and I was generally happy when a third would do the trade, third thought it was too much for the A’s, and the last third didn’t think it was enough. That seems to me like the mark of a fair trade.
Ill tell you why I don’t go for crown jewels. Generally I think they are overvalued even if you can get them. I love Posey but otherwise, the next prospect on the Giants I like is Crawford. I like Reese Havens as much as any Mets prospect. Todd Frazier does more for me than Alonso and I think he is the real crown jewel of the Reds, and when it comes to Cozart, I would rather have a SS who can field than a 1bman that can hit. The Cardinals don’t have anyone that really excites me.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
That's a very good point.
It’s the same reason why the free agent market is such a consistently losing proposition. It’s guys like Ryan Ludwick that give me heartburn—we know he’s not ever going to be any better than pretty good.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
The top of the FA market seems to be fine
with the exception of things like the Zito deal where everyone was like WTF. Its the Michael Tuckers/Esteban Loiza’s of the world who cost you a 1rst round pick and are only mediocre that kill me.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions
The top of the FA market tends to perform
but you tend to overpay for it, too. And, as with Zito, your exposure if far greater if the signee shits the bed.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I should add
your Frazier proposal was my favorite one. I love his bat, and am not worried about the A’s finding him a position.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I think its slightly a loss on value unless you can get Cozart
but that because of positional need you take the hit. I think he is one of the top 3 best MLB ready 3b prospects that can stick there (Cardenas is one of them too)
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I have to admit, it would give me warm fuzzies
thinking about the Giants fans’ reaction to them trading Posey away after all the hype.
by LoneStranger on Jul 17, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed that Beck should stay at SS
Bailey could regress however I believe his regression will be due to a possible injury if he does. His stuff is filthy in these short stints so I don’t see him any less dominant.
I do worry that Geren has over used him early on though.
BTW" Morrison a typical Rays pick. Fast as the wind and shed full of tools that still need some assembling. BA rated him #28 going into this year in a deep Rays system. He would probably progress with the A’s toolsy OF’s of Dixon and House. That would be 3 CF’s.
Wasn’t 28 what AN voted Bailey?
It twas...
Thanks for the info.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow, how could you vote false for this?
Relief arms are as fungible an asset as there is in baseball. If you really could get a team to give you Matt LaPorta (or to a lesser extent, Brandon Wood) for Andrew Bailey, I’d pull the trigger on that faster than Jason Giambi can swing through a fastball.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
In other words, slowly?
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
An interesting question, but the argument to trade is problematic at best
Let’s start with the overall evaluation of Andrew Bailey.
Dfa is correct in his explanation of how a move to the bullpen can enhance a pitcher’s stuff. Last year his (Bailey’s, not dfa’s) fastball ran anywhere from 88-95 MPH, the variation coming from moving from the rotation to the pen, playing with 4-seam and 2-seam fastballs and various attempts to create movement. Sitting at 93 out of the bullpen makes sense, as it is typical for a pitcher to sit at the higher end of his range when he’s used in shorter stretches.
My problem with the analysis on why Bailey might be a mirage is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that the bulk of Bailey’s minor league numbers come from his time as a SP. The guy is a different pitcher now and it is possible that the old data is essentially worthless! Dfa compared the walk rate from 2008 to 2009 and noticed a 1.2 BB/9 difference in Bailey’s favor even though he jumped from AA to the Show. That would be alarming, except the 4.45 BB/9 dfa is basing his judgement on is not a completely accurate representation of his 2008 work.
Bailey posted a 5.57 BB/9 rate as a SP for Midland in 2008.
He posted a 2.43 BB/9 as a RP for Midland in 2008. Put another way, Bailey posted a lower BB/9 in 2008 as a AA pitcher then he currently has in the Show. That’s how it’s supposed to be.
The real question becomes: Can the conversion from the rotation to the bullpen cause such a dramatic change in the numbers? I would argue that it is indeed possible, even if this case is somewhat on the dramatic side. The A’s preach consistency when it comes to pitcher’s mechanics, they allow a pitcher (Tyson Ross comes to mind) to stick with what got him drafted/traded for in the first place with only minor alterations as necessary if the guy can produce and stay healthy. The key for the A’s is that the pitcher can repeat his delivery again and again and again, because if he can do that it becomes easier to throw strikes and command his pitches. Without looking at release point data or film from the past 3 years, I’m going to assume that his mechanics have indeed become more consistent.
More consistency leads to better control.
Then consider that Bailey has embraced the bullpen role and has found a lot of success as a relief pitcher. That combination creates a comfort level that makes it more likely Bailey will have success. Being comfortable and confident in the pitches one is about to throw can only lead to better contol.
Bailey also scrapped the weaker pitches of his repertoire. 83% of the pitches he throws are coming from the same arm slot and motion, meaning he’s repeating success again and again and reinforcing the muscle memory that should help him continue throwing strikes. And it’s not like we’re talking about a guy walking 5 every 9 to Eck-like precision, there’s still some room for improvement. I don’t disagree that there might be some regression, but Zips is basing its crash landing on a pitcher who doesn’t really exist anymore. I’m more worried about how Bailey will adapt now that the AL has seen him a time or 3, because that will show just how good he really is.
As for how valuable Bailey is to the A’s, well… shut down relief arms might not earn a high WAR value but every team wants one (or better yet, three) when they’re aiming for the play-offs. I understand the desire to trade Bailey for an stud every day player, preferrably an infielder for the left side. But take care to avoid creating holes in an effort to patch others. Ziegler can’t close and Devine can’t stay healthy. Demel is unproven, Henry Rodriguez can’t always find the strike zone and Wuertz is already tasked to cover from the 6th to the 8th.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I still remember the pain of 2004 when the A’s had Rhodes and then Dotel closing the 9th. The A’s finished 1 game behind the Angles and missed the play-offs and what’s worse, the A’s lost 10 games after going into the 9th with the lead and calling out their closer. There may not be a lot of 3 WAR relief pitchers, but do not under-estimate the importance of the guy closing out the game for the win.
The monster at the end of this blog.
As usual many excellent points...
Where did you get the stats pre and post move to the pen? Did you compile them by hand?
I wanted to especially point out your comments about the slot as being astute. Before Bailey learned the cutter, the only off-speed pitch he threw without turning over was his change up. Fangraphs identifies his change up as a very hittable pitch. It seems to me (I have no hard data on this but thinking about it i am hard pressed to come up with good non knuckleballer examples) that most successful big league pitchers have an off-speed pitch that is thrown with the same arm action as their fastball (a change up, a splitter, a curve). Finding a replacement pitch without turning over has allowed his curve to play way way up, in addition to having a plus fast ball and cutter.
I think your problem with the analysis on the BB and ZIPs I think I acknowledge by spending the first three paragraphs talking about the lack of need to nibble setting up hitters, new pitches, and also with this sentence:
ZIPS for first year pitchers who have changed their game as much as Bailey isn’t the most trust worthy thing
Throwing away the information is I think a much worse practice than keeping it at a much discounted level. His HR/FB rate, strand rate, and BABIP is still likely to regress toward the mean, even if his BB rate doesn’t.
I think the point with the other arms is that Wuertz, Henriguez, Devine, Zigler, Demel, hell even Santiago Casilla, who is dominant for long stretches in between sucking, or Outman while rehabbing up to starting can be key cogs in the bullpen or close. Thats enough to fill a bullpen without even mentioning the lefty specialist or the long man. Like others have said relievers are fungible.
I think I would rather have Brignac or a good 3b prospect than Bailey, even if he does regress to still being elite.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh shit... I mean I obviously go there all the time but I never looked past the months
because day night splits don’t mean much to me.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Seconded grover....
like I mentioned earlier, I really think AB could really turn out to be the dominant closer this team has lacked since maybe Eckersly. Not saying he is or will be Eck, but he really does look to have truly dominant stuff and with the mentailty to boot. great post……
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
Bailey has way to little ISOmullet to be Eck
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Awesome! No one will ever sport a fresher"Mooleigh"
than “Eck”..ever!
Zeigler to Geren…."A-Rod? He’s my bitch." -alox
Seriously, as a general principle I'm always in favor of
trading away successful relievers. That’s not so much a result of careful analysis as just my reflexive reaction as an A’s fan.
I’ve been watching this team for about ten years now, and when I look back on those 10 years and try to remember every occasion where we had a great reliever and the next year he came back just as great, I think maybe it happened once or twice. On the other hand, if I try to remember every occasion where some new guy who we barely even noticed the year before comes along and becomes a stud, geez, it seems like that happens almost every year.
Maybe that’s not rational, but it just seems like every year Beane manages to find a stud closer somewhere, and it’s almost never the guy you were expecting from last year. (Yes, I do remember the awful year with Rhodes, but that’s just one year out of ten.)
So I guess I just figure that as awesome as Bailey is this year, he’s not the guy who’s going to be our best closer next year. So that being the case, if you can get something good for him, by all means trade him.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Jeff Tam
he wasn’t a closer but I remember him being awesome and then fell off the map.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
Chad Bradford
Mike Magnante
Jim Mecir
and on and on
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 16, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Looking more carefully now.
The pattern isn’t quite as stark as I remember it, but it’s sort of there:
2009:
stud reliever = Andrew Bailey
In 2008 did we expect he’d be the man in 2009? Definitely not.
2008:
stud reliever = Brad Ziegler
In 2007 did we expect he’d be the man in 2008? Definitely not
2007:
stud reliever = Huston Street
In 2006 did we expect he’d be the man in 2007? Yes.
2006:
stud relievers = Huston Street, Justin Duchscherer
In 2005 did we expect he’d be the man in 2006? Yes and yes.
2005:
stud reliever = Huston Street, Justin Duchscherer
In 2004 did we expect he’d be the man in 2005? No and no.
2004:
stud reliever = Didn’t have one. D’oh!
2003:
stud reliever = Keith Foulke
In 2002 did we expect he’d be the man in 2003? No.
2002:
stud reliever = Billy Koch
In 2001 did we expect he’d be the man in 2002? No.
2001:
stud reliever = Jason Isringhausen
In 2000 did we expect he’d be the man in 2001? Maybe.
2000:
stud reliever = Jeff Tam, I guess
In 1999 did we expect he’d be the man in 2000? No.
I’m not sure what this proves, but I know it doesn’t make me say, “ZOMG, we can’t afford to lose Andrew Bailey!”
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I'd trade him
for Saunders, Wood, or Stanton for sure. As much as I love Bailey and feel that he has elite closer potential, making one of these deals would be the simple act of trading from an area of depth (power bullpen arms) for an area of weakness (offense). Without Bailey, we’re still looking at a bullpen next year of Ziegler/Devine/Wuertz/Demel/etc. We would still have a very solid bullpen. Michael Saunders, while he might not be a star, will probably be a very solid player in the near future. Wood has potential huge power from a position of need (SS or 3B). Stanton has HUGE superstar potential. I think we would have to include a top prospect with Bailey in order to land him. I would have to think twice about the other offers listed: I like Lambo, but he is struggling a bit at the moment, and LaPorta no longer seems like the sure thing he was considered a year ago.
Jack "The Must, Just has no Rust, ain't no Bust, after him the ladies Lust, turns pitchers into Dust, likes his pizza with no Crust" Cust
Bailey was voted 28th best prospect for a reason
Only two relievers were 3 WAR players in 2008 Mo Rivera and that douchebag Papelbon. Ten were worth 2 WAR. Lets face it even shut down relievers aren’t that valuable.
Last year at the end of the year, the A’s had six relief prospects: Bailey, Lansford, and Carignan at Midland and Demel, HRod, and Italiano at Stockton. Of those six, all had questions. Carignan, HRod, and Demel all had strikeout stuff but not command. Italiano had even less ability to find the plate. Lansford and Bailey had to prove they could improve leaving the rotation and going to the pen.
All six of those prospects were about equal in value entering 2009. It would have been silly to predict any of those six to come straight to the majors and become one of the best relievers in the game. Yet Bailey has. Bailey’s numbers: 2.60 FIP 10.45 K/9 1.5 WAR. Mariano’s line this season: 2.74 FIP 10.46 K/9 1.2 WAR. Look pretty similar?
Now you might point out that I’ve highlighted just how volatile relief pitching can be. And perhaps I just want to see a Devine, Bailey, Ziggy, Wuertz, Demel bullpen. True and true. Fair enough.
But as grover has already mentioned, Bailey has never failed in the pen (unlike HRod, Italiano, and Lansford). He’s been as dominant as Mo since he moved there. And almost all of the best relievers were former starters (unlike Demel and Carignan). The Huston Street-Chad Cordero college closer turned relief prospect is a relatively new concept.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
WAR rotting the brain?
Interesting pitch by DFA, but when we rationalize trading our best reliever based on regression guesses and WAR estimates (and I’m increasingly of the belief that WAR is largely crap — see the many WAR-based arguments in support of Jack Hannahan as a legitimate major league third baseman despite being one of the worst hitters in baseball), I have to shake my head and say, no sir.
It’s pure insanity to trade a cost-controlled stud reliever "for a legit B+ prospect ". B+? Oh goodie!!! Yeah, let’s trade a guy who currently rates an A for a B+ guy who might never pan out (what are the odds a B+ prospect flames out, 50%? More? For example, Daric Barten was such a prospect – ranked 28th by BA in 2006 in all of baseball, 48th this year – is he still a B+ prospect? Will he ever rise above AAAA status given what we’ve seen the last 1.5 years?). Maybe Bailey regresses, it’s certainly possible. Or maybe he maintains and proves he’s the real deal. Then we really have something of value because other teams will know he’s not a one-shot wonder and will pay a hell of a lot more than a B+ prospect.
Yeah, I'm not sure how well WAR works for relievers.
DFA, or someone else, how does the WAR calculation take into account leverage? Because if it doesn’t at all, then you really have to reconsider reliever evaluation. And you’re right, a prospect is much more likely to fail than Bailey.
But your other points don’t make a lot of sense. Just because you don’t think Hannahan is a decent player, doesn’t mean he isn’t. And there I think your quarrel is with UZR and BRAA, not WAR. And I really don’t get why people are so down on Barton. Yes, he was bad last year, but not that bad because of his defense, and he’s hitting really well in AAA now without getting a decent shot in the majors. I think he could be a close to average starting 1B right now.
It doesn't which is a good arguement to evaluate
but neither does any leveraged statistic that I know of take into account the fungability of relief pitchers and has a replacement baseline on which to judge it.
Using leverage means that you have 6 of one and half dozen of the other.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Really?
I was pretty sure reliever WAR did include leverage index.
Here’s a BtB link about it but I’m not sure if the FG version of WAR uses it.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Maybe I misunderstood it
but basically what I got from reading those is there is a higher bar for replacement level talent with relievers, rather than there is a particular value placed on the innings in which a relieve pitches and the situations under which they enter. When you say leverage I think of the latter rather than the former. Is that not right? Admittedly, I get position player WAR way way way better than I do for pitchers.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 18, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
I don’t think Brignac is really going to amount to anything special. Alcides, though, would be a very nice piece of the puzzle for 2010+. SS would go from a huge hole to a huge area of strength. Can you imagine how sick of a double play combo Alcides and Ellis would be?
Jack "The Must, Just has no Rust, ain't no Bust, after him the ladies Lust, turns pitchers into Dust, likes his pizza with no Crust" Cust
+2
AAA OPS time.
Player A: Aged 23. wOBAs are park adjusted, btw.
2008: .315 wOBA*, 94 wOBA+, .250/.299/.412 (.711 OPS)
2009: .357 wOBA*, 109 wOBA+, .292/.343/.468 (.811 OPS)
Player B: Aged 25. Costs nothing.
2008: .377 wOBA*, 105 wOBA+, .297/.426/.386 (.812 OPS)
2009: .351 wOBA*, 102 wOBA+, .284/.368/.392 (.760 OPS)
Now, I’m not saying Player B is a top prospect by any word, and I’m not saying Brignac sucks. I’m just saying that “SS with .800 OPS in AAA” is not as crazy impressive as some think, since there’s one sitting in Sacto right now. Yes, Briggy is the better defender.
Brignac’s numbers at every level he has been, with the exception of A ball back in ‘06, have been utterly unimpressive. And he doesn’t have enough power to validate those awful BB/K ratios.
Brignac has BUST written all over him. He’s not going to maintain a decent OBP in MLB.
><
I don't think this argument holds water
You cherry picked your numbers for 2008 which is really not cool though I am assuming its by mistake. You didn’t include 244 miserable plate appearances in MIdland where Pennington OPSed less than 700 in AA as a 24 year old. Brignac had a bad year last year to be sure. As for “since there’s one sitting in Sacto right now” in my world 760<800 and that is a pretty huge difference in terms of value but whatever. Finally the likelyhood that Pennington hits in the big leagues is low. Major league pitchers know how to throw strikes to people that can’t hit for power and is unlikely to sustain .300 BA or thhe .100 isolated walk rate which he needs to be a valuable player in the big leagues. Look at his MLEs Brignac comes out 50 points of OPS ahead, Pennington’s average tanks and while his isolated walk remains strong its not elite and if he hitts .225 – 250 he just isn’t a good player. You also mention that Brignac has better defense, which at the SS position is key. Brignac will never get on base at an outstanding clip but I believe that he can be a .280/.320/.430/.750 kind of player with excellent defense. I see Pennington getting into a lot of bad counts and hitting .270/.340/.340/.680.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes. You're right.
I totally missed the 2008 Midland stats and came off nonsensical. Eh. I’m not a big fan of Brignac, he’s got a major bust risk, but meh.
In other words, I should stay off AN when on large amounts of meds and before having my (afternoon) cig.
><
Meh it happens
Im not a huge Brignac fan, I don’t think I could get Cozart Beckham (either) Crawford Havens Escobar (either) Hardy or any other good SS package, nor do I see a top 3b candidate thats ML ready besides Frazier that I like, which is why I think getting rid of Hannahan was a mistake.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the Hannahan trade
is much more puzzling than is generally acknowledged here on AN. To me it looks very un-Beanelike, and much harder to justify than so many other trades that are commonly criticized here.
I genuinely believe that it was more about networking than about value. Otherwise, I don’t see how one explains it.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, 90% of AN is saying “but Hannahan sucks!!!”, but I’m not talking to those people.)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
What do you mean by this?
I genuinely believe that it was more about networking than about value.
><
I mean establishing a working relationship
Trades don’t happen in a vacuum. You have to know the other GMs, talk to them about what they want, what they’re willing to offer. Among Beane’s greatest values as a GM is that he has good working relationships with a lot of other GMs.
But these don’t come out of nothing, they need to be developed. Not all relationships are equal. It’s not just coincidence that certain teams are frequent trade partners. There are some guys that Billy is obviously very close to — Ricciardi, Towers — and that’s where some of the best trade opportunities come from. Billy also has mentioned that he talks with Cashman on a regular basis.
With other GMs he has no real relationship at all. I’m not saying they’d refuse his call, but they’re not on friendly terms, and that means they’re very unlikely to do a trade, no matter how logical it might seem in our theoretical blog world where we just line up the team needs and stats.
With the Mariners, Beane had no working relationship at all for many years, because Bavasi simply didn’t want to trade with him. Now with Bavasi out and Zduriencik in, I think Beane is looking to develop a relationship where before there was none. So when he finds out Z wants Hannahan, he’s motivated to make a deal, even if it isn’t necessarily a good deal for value. It’s a small-potatoes deal anyway, so even if he comes out a little behind, maybe it’s worth it for the relationship. That’s networking. Many of us have done it in our professional lives; sometimes you buy a little something from someone that you otherwise might not have wanted to buy, just because you want to develop the relationship.
This is not without precedent. I think when Beane traded Juan Cruz for Brad Halsey in spring of 2006, that wasn’t a particularly valuable deal either. But that was Josh Byrnes’ first season as GM in Arizona, and I think Billy was looking to establish a relationship. Cruz-for-Halsey may have been a bust, but it started a dialogue that eventually made possible the Haren trade.
That’s my theory anyway. It’s all speculation, of course, but that’s what I think is going on here.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Bavasi didn't want to trade with him? Omar Olivares and Randy Velarde say HI!
and we saved a bunch of money on the Halsey/Cruz deal which needs to be taken into account.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 18, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
They said hi in 1999
Yes, I’m well aware of that trade. We even discussed it in a similar conversation a while back, though that may have been before your time.
Bavasi made a trade with Beane in Beane’s first year with the A’s and Bavasi’s last year with the Angels. Bavasi did not deal with Beane at all during his days with the Mariners and he is on record saying he had a policy against trading “within the division”. I personally read that as a euphemism for “with Billy Beane”, but regardless of the motivation, the fact remains that Beane did not have a working relationship with Bavasi at the Mariners and now he does with Zduriencik.
I’ve been keenly aware of the lack of trade possibilities between Oakland and Seattle because (1) they are the only two teams where I really know the farm system, and (2) I really really really wanted Adam Jones, whom Bavasi grossly undervalued and dangled to practically everyone except Beane.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I for one thought the Han deal was a great one for the A's
I guess because I was surprised we got anything for him let alone a top 10 ERA in his league starting pitcher two years out of college. I mean did anyone think there was more value to be had out of Hanny?
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
The point is that Hannahan is way more valuable to us than he is in general.
Was the deal a good one in a vacuum? Yes. IRL? Not so much.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 18, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't think it made sense to trade him at all
He’s an above-replacement-value player at a position that’s hard to fill. If that is undervalued around the league (and I think it is), then you keep him. If you need a spot on the 40-man roster, dump one of the AAA relievers.
Maybe Souza will turn out good, I’m just not excited about a reliever who throws hard but otherwise isn’t special.
That said, it wasn’t an awful deal. I just don’t think it’s a net plus in value for us.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
He's a starter isn't he? 14 starts in 20 games for the M's team. Did we convert him back to a reliever?
his W/9 is 2, real good. SO/9 is around 8, meh but not bad. Its his second year in Pro-ball and he had a 3.35 before the trade. And he throws hard? How hard? What kind of a pitcher would excite you for a AAAA 3B? (Souza has sucked so far since the trade I’ll give you that).
I think the team decided Hanny is not going to improve, and that he is holding up others from advancing that are going or have the potential to improve. The reward of finding a new better overall 3B to help get a team out of the cellar of offensive performance was well worth what little risk they have of not having him around. No one else was going to offer anything better than a Solid AA P prospect who has many years left before he needs to get on the 40-man.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
I really applaud your last statement. I write these things for that 10%
What I don’t get is even if Souza is a more valuable commodity than Hannahan he isn’t for the A’s. Even if you believe Cardenas or even Patterson, Everidge, or Donaldson is ready for the hot corner to start next year, it doesn’t make sense to trade a way the one person on the roster that you know is healthy and can give you 2-2.5 WAR for pitching depth when you have a bunch of pitching depth.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 18, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
We're in complete agreement on Hannahan-vs-Souza.
In terms of value, I think the trade just doesn’t make sense. That’s why I look for explanations other than value. (And other than “Beane is a moran!!”)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I don't like the Hannahan deal either.
Damnit Billy,
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
There is no reason to believe Escobar is availible... But their is with Brignac
If I am the Brewers I am using Escobar to trade for Halladay or as my starting SS after I trade Hardy, no way I am trading him for a bullpen asset.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Julio Lugo...
just DFA’s by the Red Sox. If the A’s don’t pick him up there should be a federal investigation, I don’t care if he can’t catch a cold, let alone a batted ball. Change for the sake of change is definitely in order for this team (I use that term loosely).
by Keystone State on Jul 17, 2009 10:08 AM PDT reply actions
reliever rumors
with hrod/gray/blevins/kilby/marshall/demel/carignan (when healthy) ready for a chance, A’s should be open to trading relievers at the mlb level
schroder/cameroin at worst are filler types
even duke is on rehab/devineand brown will be options next yr
so there is depth here
Olney mentioned Zeigler as someone teams may look at.With teams looking for bullpen help and one GM told him that market should develop in the next week . That the big name out there will probably be Betancourt. Imagine if wuertz/ziegler could get something good, depending on the return. Even springer has been good despite a horrible May.
Another possibility: Numerous teams are looking for set-up men, and the A’s are strong in relief pitching and they have Joey Devine comingback from Tommy John surgery next spring. If the right deal comes along- one that would net a good young third baseman or shortstop – the teamcould include set-up man Michael Wuertz and then put Duchscherer back in the role where he earned his first All-Star nod.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…L#ixzz0LV8CYGtk
The Toughest Pitches to Hit in Baseball
Really like the graphic.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jul 17, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
The conspiracy theorist in me just whispered to the other me...
What if Bailey was overhyped by Beane in the conversation he (or a proxy) had with Maddon so that his value would be upped just a little bit by the All-Star tag? Of course, if Maddon is one of your trade targets you would have to be sneaky about it, but it could have been a preliminary baiting of Maddon to ‘whet his appetite’ and get him thinking about Bailey. Then a couple phone calls later to the Rays GM, a good word by Maddon, and bam, a trade is made.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
