Why Cahill is the A's most valuable trade chip. He's not the only one we need to trade.
I think the A's need to trade two, not Just one, of our big four of Cahill, Anderson, Braden and Gio so the team can try and score many more runs. I think Cahill will bring the most back with Anderson's injury's last year. However, One trade will not be enough for the A's to make a serious run with Oakland's lack of being able to sign good free agents or develop talent from the minors at a good enough rate. Lets face it, no one really good is going to sign with us, if ands and butts notwithstanding. No one not good is going to suddenly break out after coming to the Coliseum (I don't want to hear about Frank Thomas so save it). No prospect in our minor leagues is going to make a big enough difference in the next few years by themself. (I personally thought it was going to be Father Desme and selfishly hope the higher calling suddenly tells him its going to be another ten years before he is needed)
We were 11th in the AL with around 660 runs scored. If we could add another 100 runs that would put us around 6th with 760 scored and give us the serious potential to gain us +/- 10 wins . you can say if we continue to build a super-staff and get even better D, we could have 100 less runs scored on us and get the 10 wins that way. Being as we already have the best ERA in the AL and a top D team that would seem to be a much harder road but still a choice the A's could make. (non park adjusted if someone wants to cruch where we stand with that)
More after the Jump
All the advanced stats say Cahill was "Lucky"
They (everyone who looks at advanced stats) expect him to become average next year (for an A’s pitcher that's an ERA of 3.5 instead of the 2.97 he put up last year). Since he pitches in a pitchers park with a great infield defense and 2 CF outfield D, in theory he would/could be a 4 ERA pitcher once he moved to a hitter park with an average to sucky D. since wins have little to do with performance he could win 12-13 for the A’s next year and who knows on another team depending on that teams offense and defense. Bill James has him projected at 3.67 and 12 wins next year. I will let others post his ERA+ and BABIP and other stats and why those matter particullary with Cahill. There are a few posts that already have.
His WAR of 2.2 was less than Gio (3.2) and Braden (3.0). Anderson (2.6 WAR in about half the innings) is considered (with good reason) better than those three. If Anderson was healthy he would hands down be the most desirable trade chip for another team and still could be.
This could be the most valuable Cahill is ever going to be and if we can get a valuable position player for our fourth best starting pitcher, we do it. Braden being older and more expensive with arb, Brett having injury's and Gio not having the "Wins" ,ERA and All-Star appearance would seem to make Cahill our most valuable trade chip. as well as the one we could most afford to lose.
However those numbers don't tell you that he's young and still learning how to pitch. Increasing his k/9 from 4.5 to 5.4 and lowering his BB/9 from 3.63 to 2.88 in one year do not seem "lucky" to me. From being the A’s sixth starter to all-star is an impressive accomplishment for anyone. It says something about his will to compete that stats can't begin to measure. He could improve enough to make up for his luck last year and be the same pitcher or better statiscally. All-Star is nothing to sneeze at.
He could in the next few years learn new pitches, learn how to spot his pitches better, mentally and physically get stronger and become a beast that one year of "lucky" metrics can't predict and few older pitchers could reasonably hope to match. Same could be said for Anderson and Gio as far as getting better over time. Though there K/9 haven't improved, it was much better than Cahill's to start with. Braden, being older, would seem to be settling in to exactly what we can expect out of him in the next few years baring a few more toes falling off. His years of being cost controlled are also soon enough to be over (2013), The rest of the big four are under team control till 2015 or later. This makes Braden the least desirable trade bait of the four for other teams by that fact alone. Cots Baseball Contracts
Greg Maddux went from 5.6 ERA, 4.3 BB/9, 5.8 K/9 at age 21 to
1.56 ERA, 1.4 BB/9, 7.0 K/9 at age 28,
generally progressing and getting a little bit better every year. Greg Maddux stats. We could be trading away the next Greg Maddux with one of these pitchers. Am I cherry picking with Maddux? absolutely.
It’s up the the A’s FO to figure out which one of there starters is the most overvalued by a particular team and how to get the best guy the A’s want. The A’s probably should trade two of these four pitchers separately with other minor prospects if needed and lock up Two young cheap stud position players with high upside and proven ability and replace them in-house or with FA like Billy seems to be trying now. One new hitter is not going to be enough. We need to go for it now and we have a lot of runs to make up in doing it. It stands to reason that the second pitcher traded would be Anderson or Gio. A combination of Mazzero and Braden could have value also. Knowing what the A's staff does medically about Anderson would seem to make that decision for the A's. They think he's going to be healthy, keep Anderson. If not, disclose it, trade him and keep Gio. Or trade Mazz/Braden together if they feel they just can not part with either Anderson or Gio.
When you have a staff like ours, blocking our minor leagues not just in AAA but all the way down, we probably have at least a few that will be good enough to replace them at a somewhat minimal loss. Which few we don't know yet but since there is so many choices, shear numbers should let two of them work out. Other teams like Baltimore, KC, Arizona and Pittsburgh might start our (next) 5 best starting prospects and have a better staff than they do now in a few years. Mazzero will probably be worth much more in trade bait next year with a full season under his belt and the improvement in numbers the A’s staff seems to invoke and we would be selling real low with him.
All I can say is the A's better not let the ones they trade become the next Greg Maddox if the position players they trade for do not work out one way or another. Or Billy’s (much needed) big gamble might be the last thing he does as the A’s GM. Unless the A's franchise moves to Brooklyn (my choice if they leave Northern Caliornia as they would have 100 million dollar payrolls) they have to go all in now to take advantage of there wealth of pitching and try and win it all.
Poll to follow. I would have liked to make more options on the poll if you agree on trading two of these guys but that's too many choices. Agree or disagree on two and which two in the comments.
Fangraphs Stats (lots of advanced stats and a glossary on how to understand them)
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
by OmahaHi on Nov 9, 2010 2:59 AM PST
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
omahi
why are you up so late worrying about Cahill’s perceived value? Get some sleep bro.
What did i tell you...didn't I say they would win? Yeah that's right I did didn't ? Wait.. what? They LOST?!?!?
If we keep everyone and sign Crawford and Magglio
Our team will score enough runs and prevent enough to keep “masking” the effectiveness of our pitching staff. Cahill is also extremely young, he hasnt hit his ceiling yet. He definitely was not as good as Gio, Anderson or Braden this year, but he wasnt bad as a 4th SP.
LF: Crawford
1B: Barton
RF: Magglio
DH: Cust
CF: Crisp
2B: Ellis
C: Suzuki
3B: Kouzmanoff
SS: Pennington
Bench: Sweeney, Donaldson, Rajai, Rosales
The above team can be used when our power guys are up, BA/Gio. Magglio can DH and Sweeney can be used in RF when Cahill/Iawkuma/Braden pitches and just like that, we keep our awesome defense.
When is the San Jose Announcement happening?
Crawford ain’t coming unless this announcement comes before Crawford picks a team.
I think thats a pipe dream.
I would agree with you that would be the best way to go. I just don’t think we are going to “outbid” the other teams enough for the top FA’s to want to screw there stats up at the colesium for the next four years or so. It would depress
there next contract by the same amount we outbid another team or more.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
How is Magglio any better than Sweeney?
I hate Bob Geren and his peanut brain so much -- lenscrafters
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 10, 2010 12:30 AM PST up reply actions
Why trade when...
Why trade a one of our young pitchers that will be a elite player? Then we’ll end up desperately looking for someone like him. We already did that with Carlos Gonzalez!!
by What Would Rickey Do on Nov 9, 2010 6:53 AM PST reply actions
Not CaHill
no injuries and has been a #1 starter. You just can’t replace a guy like that. He is worth a Haren type haul plus more.
Without even going into the subjective part of this,
Cahill started the 2010 season on the disabled list.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
If we know Cahill is over-valued...
…why wouldn’t other GMs know this as well?
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
This this this.
I mean, it’s likely that his ERA would be slightly overvalued, but I don’t think other teams don’t know about advanced metrics and are going to trade based solely on ERA.
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
Plus the fact that what you're saying is,
“He’s great for us but he’ll stink for you — so you want him?”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Cy Young voting results may be our best friend.
If he finishes say 5th, then some teams may be swayed by it. Not all teams are going to think he will regress that much either.
To play devil's advocate here
Braden is also more proven and he has the perfect game cache under his belt now. Now is the right time to trade him, because we already know the type of pitcher he’s going to be for the A’s: solid #4 starter and innings eater if he’s healthy. On another team, he steps into the #3 role quite easily.
Cahill learned how to throw an effective breaking ball last year, and there’s no reason to think he doesn’t learn to pitch to his strengths to partially offset his likely regression. He throws groundballs, we have a great infield defense, and he’s young. Why wouldn’t we keep this guy? If it was the opposite scenario (we wanted pitching) we would be salivating over a 22 year old pitcher with the success he had last season.
I have NO rooting interest. It simply become[s] a process of elimination of who I dislike less. - 67MARQUEZ
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Nov 9, 2010 8:34 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'd be in complete agreement with on Braden except for 1 thing...
He just sued the A’s former medical staff and said he was broken. I’m not sure how the lawsuit is going to affect his perceived value to other teams.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Do NOT Trade Cahill
He just had a career year. I don’t care what some people say about luck. He is a great groundball pitcher. There is a good defense behind him, and the infield can handle 95% of the balls hit. The outfield also does a decent job. Plus, even if the offense struggles, Cahill can compensate with some ace work.
by Oakland All-Star on Nov 9, 2010 9:26 AM PST up reply actions
If he just had a career year
That means he will never be as good as he was, right? So why wouldn’t we trade him?
I know its awkward to think about trading our best pitcher from last year, but look at the deal we got for Haren, and Cahill has a lot of team control left on him. I think it would be silly to not even entertain offers for him considering all the evidence mentioned in the post (luck, defense dependency, etc.)
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Nov 9, 2010 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
If you can get a haren type deal anyone on this team should be available.
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Nov 9, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
but don't trade to a team that will eventually trade Cahill to a division rival
for Joe Saunders
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
No doubt. But Cahill doesn't have the established track record Haren did, so...
…I seriously doubt we could get a Haren-like deal.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Stop Changing The Team
We could get Iwakuma, we could get a free agent slugger, we could trade Mazzaro, Braden, etc for a good hitter.
But right now the squad is looking its best since 2006. Should we really trade the guy who was amongst the best AL despite missing a month of the season? I think not. Change, but don’t completely re-shuffle. We have something here.
by Oakland All-Star on Nov 9, 2010 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
Looking its best since 2006 doesn't mean shit.
We don’t have anything here because LAA and Texas are continuing to get better.
AN: Where you will be an A's fan or Dallas Braden will show you the repercussions of your actions.
by stranahanahan on Nov 9, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
How is trading Braden not "changing the team"?
I hate Bob Geren and his peanut brain so much -- lenscrafters
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 10, 2010 12:29 AM PST up reply actions
Different Situations
I don’t know that a Haren-type deal is really what the A’s should be looking for right now if looking to trade Cahill or Anderson. That deal was done at a time where Beane knew we were looking at 2 or 3 years until being really competitive and was a move looking generally towards the future – the only players that were somewhat “MLB-ready” at the time were really the throw-ins of the deal – Smith and Eveland.
I would prefer that the A’s not trade Cahill, but if they do, I think, at this point it HAS to be for a big-time bat that is going to make a big-difference in the lineup right now. I am not interested in another three years of having great prospects ready to contribute in a few years. It is time to make a run now – and to me that has to be based on having a very good young starting rotation. I am ok with trading a part of that to get better offensively, but for right now – and I think that would have to be one big bat ready to produce right now.
by longtimeasfan on Nov 9, 2010 11:17 AM PST up reply actions
If they're not going to fix the outfield, they'll have to rebuild anyway
I hate Bob Geren and his peanut brain so much -- lenscrafters
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 10, 2010 12:29 AM PST up reply actions
Cahill might have more future value than number suggest
Now I’m going to step out on some very thin ice here. I like all the future stat projections and predictions that Cahill may never be as good as he was in 2010. But he does have some intangibles which may have been overlooked in the stats world. He is a big guy, and his motion looks good as far as staying away from serious arm trouble. Now this is a very subjective observation by a casual fan, and certainly should be weighed against all the stats we can put together, but I remember looking at specifically Harden and Hudson and saying, “those guys look like they are throwing their arms off.” Hudson had a bad injury but is pitching well again. Harden has never been as good after being an A than he was on the A’s. The other intangible which is probably quantifiable although I have never seen it quantified, is that Cahill throws all his pitches with a lot of movement. Again, subjective, take it with a grain of salt, but pitchers with movement seem to succeed in the bigs. Greg Maddox comes to mind. Based on the movement argument, maybe Gio is a better pitcher to trade, his velocity is a little higher and his curveball motion looks a little more violent. Basically I would say Gio succeeds a little more with changing speeds and with speed than Cahill does. That being said, I really don’t want to trade any of the starters. I have this problem that once a guy is on the A’s I usually grow too attached to him. I guess I would like to see what kind of unpolished gem of a hitter we could get from Mazarro.
by barryzitoforever on Nov 10, 2010 2:38 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If you want to trade two of the four pitchers, I'd auction all four of them and pick the two best offers
The trouble is that you probably won’t get the two “stud” position players you seek unless you take guys at least a year away from the majors
I hate Bob Geren and his peanut brain so much -- lenscrafters
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 10, 2010 12:34 AM PST reply actions
if these advanced metrics and WAR and other crap is so effective
how come I didnt read Bill James predicting 18 wins for Cahill in 2010? Last year all I ever read was Cahill needs to be in AAA, he;s not ready, and here he’s a damn all star in 2010. Now all I read is Cahill will regress, he got lucky, where is this crap coming from? Next year when Cahill has another great season, I’m sure I’ll read oh he made a faustian bargain, he’ll regress when it expires. Come on, why cant fans just enjoy the fact that they have good pitching staff?
The A's are a fairly quiet team, and then there's Ben Sheets. Sheets, as a kid, must have been thrown out of every library in Baton Rouge. ~ Scott Ostler
Thank You
I don’t think it’s justified (and I mean no offense to anyone) for fans to always be pessimistic about our team. we have some good young players, and we need to appreciate that.
Huddy, Zito, and Mulder all had unremarkable rookie seasons. The next year they came out with excellent seasons. Luck? I think not.
by Oakland All-Star on Nov 10, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
No, thank you.
I was prepared to take a beating.
The A's are a fairly quiet team, and then there's Ben Sheets. Sheets, as a kid, must have been thrown out of every library in Baton Rouge. ~ Scott Ostler
I believe my post echos your sentiment
I believe there IS great value in predictive stats, but not a complete picture of how a player matures. I watched Kirby Puckett his first year hit all his hard balls into the gaps, he had 0 home runs. But in the offseason of that first year someone taught him how to pull, I think it was Tony Oliva. A hall of famer came out for year two. Some players get better some get worse, many don’t follow trajectories that are widely predicted.
by barryzitoforever on Nov 10, 2010 2:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
It's not pessimism, fellas.
Trevor Cahill’s old-timey stats look good because he’s a groundball pitcher in front of a very good defense, and because his BABIP is unsustainably low.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Nov 11, 2010 8:02 AM PST up reply actions
Hudson Was A Groundball Pitcher
And he was in front of a good defense.
by Oakland All-Star on Nov 11, 2010 8:29 AM PST up reply actions
BABIP is not necessarily unsustainably low
It bothers me when people always point to BABIP for both hitters and pitchers and suggest that they’re going to regress or breakout.
Cahill doesn’t pitch to strike guys out, rather he pitches to induce groundballs which he knows his field can handle. Because he is doing what he is trying to do at a good rate doesn’t mean he is going to regress.
It is not as if hitters have a high line drive% that fielders just happen to be there to catch.
Has anyone ever stopped to think, maybe he has a low BABIP because he pitches to contact?
For example, Gio had a .283 BABIP, however he is a strike-out pitcher, so when hitters make contact with his pitches, more often than for Cahil, that was not the intention and thus the pitch was not located/thrown as Gio had intended, thus the hitter took advantage and the odds of it resulting in a hit are higher. If Cahill is trying to induce groundballs, then the hitters will make more contact and if Trevor has thrown it and gotten the desired result, it will end up in an out 76.2% of the time.
I hate when people act like robots and say “He has low BABIP, must regress” or “He was unlucky with high BABIP, unsustainable”
Maybe the former just did his job better and the ladder was throwing meatballs.
Work as if everything depends on you and Pray knowing that everything depends on God. - Michael Taylor
by supermarc589 on Nov 11, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Wait....what?
Why would he have a low BABIP because he pitches to contact? Wouldn’t a guy who gets lots of swings and misses also get weaker contact?
FWIW, if Cahill sustained his BABIP from last year it’d be the best in baseball history. I’m open to the idea that he’s good at inducing weak contact, but I really, really doubt he’s the best in baseball history at it. Combined with the fact that groundballs usually yield higher BABIP’s and the fact that the lowest BABIP from a starter over a long period of time is in the .280’s or so…and I’m worried.
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
Does Bill James predict wins?
He despises the “statistic” (a very generous appraisal), so why would he bother to predict it? Wins are a meaningless number.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Nov 11, 2010 8:03 AM PST up reply actions
Wins are what determine who makes the playoffs
I wouldnt call that meaningless
Work as if everything depends on you and Pray knowing that everything depends on God. - Michael Taylor
by supermarc589 on Nov 11, 2010 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
I believe St Joe is talking about wins for a pitcher and SuperM is talking about wins for a team
So both could be true. A pitcher’s win loss record might not be indicative of his real worth AND the number of team wins does indeed determine who makes the playoffs. Unless I misunderstand too. Certainly the goal of a team is to maximize wins. Whether a pitcher really needs to maximize HIS wins is different. Interestingly I have never seen a starting pitcher in an interview say, “well I pitched well, and eventually we won the game and that matters a lot more than whether I got the win.” I hope to hear that from pitchers once in a while, because certainly it is true. Same goes for blown saves, if a closer gives up a tying run in the top of the 9th and the team eventually wins it in the bottom, I wonder about the importance of that blown save. I guess you still should report the blown save, but my point is the team’s W-L didn’t really suffer.
by barryzitoforever on Nov 12, 2010 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
Random Cahill thought...
Can Rock Crevice/ewok/whatever the official nickname is teach Cahill the shuuto? That’d be an epic GB pitcher if it somehow happened.

by 


























