SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick
Lee, Crawford, or Beltre - who would you "overpay"?
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 3:26 AM PST
Email
PrintBy non-tendering Cust and Encarnacion, and by failing to come to terms with Iwakuma, one could argue that the A's have staked their offseason to the hopes of making a powerful and wise investment of their remaining $20-25M. In this thread I would like you to think about making a gigantic financial commitment to one of the three elite Type A free agents that remain on the market - Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, or Adrian Beltre.
I am sticking to my guns from earlier this offseason of both hoping and predicting that the A's take advantage of their protected first-round pick by signing a "difference maker" - a potential 5-win player. I believe that the A's are on the upswing and that this season will be the last time that the team finishes in the bottom 15 in MLB (protected pick) for the foreseeable future. Indeed, they just barely qualified this year, finishing with the 16th best record.
Given that the compensation pick/sandwich round will probably end up being larger than ever this year, we can project that signing Crawford, Lee, or Beltre would come at the talent cost of about the No. ~70 overall draft pick, the A's second round selection. This is a pittance - although a No. 70 overall pick can certainly become a successful major leaguer, no one would bank on it.
What is most certainly not a pittance, however, is the financial commitment. When we discuss the A's offering a hypothetical contract for one of these players, it only makes sense to construct offers that would be significantly better than the second-best offer they receive. Almost four months ago, I advocated signing Carl Crawford to a frontloaded, eight-year contract for a total value of $140M, with the first year salary starting at $25M. Part of my argument was that this year's free agent class has more elite talent than the next two, which will be headlined by Prince Fielder (2011) and Zach Greinke (2012). It's interesting to look back at the comments of that post: some of the loudest critics of that proposal wrote phrases like this:
There's no way I'd give Crawford nine figures.
Crawford figures to get an offer of five years, $85M from Boston.
Five years, $85-90M should get it done. Maybe with a signing bonus, too.
Ironically, a few of those same loud voices are the ones who are most critical of Beane's progress thus far in free agency, which I find a bit hypocritical - if you, as a very educated fan, misread the FA market by that much, why are you upset that he might have done the same?
This brings us to the use of the word "overpay" in the title. I put it in quotes for a reason - in baseball contract terms, it's a loaded and nebulous term. Defining what represented an "overpay" for Carl Crawford four months ago was, as shown by the comments of that thread, an extremely difficult task, and one that forces people to pick sides rather than reach consensus. But I use that word in this thread to get everyone focused on the fact that it will require more money than you think an elite player is worth to get him to sign in Oakland.
One thing you have to give the Nationals credit for - they made an offer that was so aggressive (seven years, $126M) that they landed the exact player they had built their offseason around. They will not find themselves in January/February with a pile of cash, and only Ben Sheets to spend it on. Unlike two offseasons ago, when they actually had the largest bid for Mark Teixiera by a few million and still lost him to the Yankees, they made such an overwhelming offer this time that Scott Boras allegedly did not even check back with other suitors before accepting the deal.
This is the blueprint for how a non-marquee franchise signs an elite talent, and it's pretty darn close to exactly what I've been advocating for the A's for a long time. And the team, through a sequence of questionable actions, remains in position to make one of these investments.*
*Tangent: I don't agree with non-tendering Cust or Encarnacion. Despite their defensive limitations, they would've represented two of the team's better hitters, and given the explosion of their free agent market, their salaries in arbitration look even more reasonable. More important is the fact that no player picks Oakland as his first choice, and arbitration locks a player into that arrangement on a recurring one-year deal. A team in a desirable situation - even the Giants - can let a player like Cust or Encarnacion go in arbitration, because there's a free agent out there who wants to sign with the Giants for a discount (Pat Burrell). No such situation exists in Oakland. End tangent.*
By not signing Iwakuma, and by non-tendering Cust and Encarnacion, we can still assume that this team has enough money in the coffers to sign a truly elite talent. So, if you had to "overpay" one player from the trio above, whom would it be?
1. Would you offer Cliff Lee the game-changing seven-year deal he covets, and form the best starting rotation in baseball? This would have the added benefit of keeping him away from the Rangers, and giving them very meager compensation for losing him (No. ~70 overall pick, rather than the No. ~30 overall pick from the Yankees).
2. Would you offer Crawford a frontloaded eight-year deal at $140-150M? By frontloading the deal, you're making it very hard for the Yankees, Angels, or Red Sox to match, because their preference would be to backload the deal as much as possible to avoid luxury tax implications. You're also increasing the total value of the deal to Crawford by frontloading it, given inflation.
3. Or would you instead circle back to Beltre? If the best offer he gets is the A's at five years, $64M, that doesn't mean he takes it, necessarily. He might sign with the Angels for slightly less, similar to Teixiera with NYY in '08, for the opportunity to be near his family and to return to LA. He could instead sign a one-year deal again in a hitter's park, with the promise that the signing team can't offer him arbitration after 2011, and then re-enter the market next season, coming off two consecutive great years, when both the Dodgers and Angels will probably need 3b and he'll be the best overall offensive player on the free-agent market (assuming Pujols and Gonzalez sign extensions). Thus perhaps the A's do need to bid against themselves in order to sign him: If he'd sign for the Angels for less money than the A's have offered, how much more do they need to offer to overcome his preference for LA?
Please vote in the poll below.
317 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wouldn't be surprised to see Crawford get more than that
I really do think the Angels will make such a large bid that neither the A’s nor Red Sox would (correctly) find it wise to come over the top. I count see 8/160.
If the Angels do get Crawford, Beltre does make a lot of sense for the A’s. They shouldn’t change their bid until a bidding war starts. They could be right where they want to be.
Lee really intrigues me. I’ve never been entirely convinced signing Beltre is the biggest marginal upgrade. The A’s position players put up more WAR than their pitchers after all. A dominant pitcher could be a very interesting way of vastly improving the team. Then again, I’ve all but given him pinstripes.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Lee, in front of the A's defense and in their park, might be a sub 2.50 era
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 3:50 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, I agree that Lee's '11-'14 seasons could be pretty special...
…what troubles me are the ‘15-’18 seasons, when he will be in his late 30’s, still milking someone for @$23 mil, and either on the PermaDL (a la Chavez), a #5 innings eater type (a la Zito), or a grizzled, playoff-tested horse (a la Andy Pettite). Only one of those three options is appealing, and it is perhaps the least likely of the three. I understand that unless you offer these guys the security of big money into the twilight of their careers, they will not even consider us, but at the same time, our team cannot afford to splash that kind of money into one player and not get commensurate production. We flushed only about half that much money away on Chavez, and look how that debacle has hamstrung us. The Giants can commit a huge $126 mil blunder (Zito) and still be competitive, because they have the resources to keep signing additional useful players even though the Zito deal didn’t work out. Our team doesn’t operate like that.
I really couldn’t justify ANY of these proposed deals due to the high probability of ending up with some $20 mil dead wood on the roster for the last half of the contract. However, I agree with you that we need to get something done. We are in a very tough spot, and it just got tougher with the Nationals setting a grossly overinflated market by paying Werth about $50m more than he’s really “Werth” (heh heh).
You can't compare a Lee deal to a Zito deal
Zito wasn’t that good when he was signed. He benefited a lot from pitching in a pitchers’ paradise and in front of awesome defense. Lee’s a top 5 pitcher in baseball right now with little injury history. HUGE difference.
In any deal you’re signing, you’re banking on the player producing enough surplus value at the beginning of the contract, while the player’s actually elite, to offset a good portion of the losses when the player ages and . And, if market value this offseason is 5MM/win, since he’s getting more guaranteed years, the win values should be slightly less than 5MM/win in the FA contract (you trade off $/win for more guaranteed years and team absorbing more risk)
Of course, most contracts don’t work out that way, due to market forces and injury risks, and position players are almost always better risks than pitchers, but deals like the Todd Helton deal, JD Drew, first Derek Jeter deal, Mo Rivera, Torii Hunter, Johan Santana, CC Sabathia, Ichiro, whatever contract Albert Pujols signs next offseason, Adrian Gonzalez, Joe Mauer, etc. probably won’t be disaster deals.
The ridiculously stupid and horrendous contracts (A-Rod is the one exception) are the ones that give elite-caliber money to already-mediocre/injury prone players. The Zito, Vernon Wells, Ryan Howard (getting there), Alfonso Soriano, AJ Burnett, John Lackey, GMJ, Jason Schmidt, etc. deals.
MOAR SPARTACUST. NOW.
Todd Helton was pretty much a disaster
He mauled the payroll of the Rockies for about six years of non-elite production (basically when his power fell off in 2006), and eventually they had to give him a huge (~$10M) bonus payment (albeit deferred in years) just to restructure the contract so that the team wouldn’t be locked in stasis anymore.
I think the only difference between the contracts in Group A and those in Group B are that most of the Group A ones haven’t gotten to the ugly years yet. (Or they were signed by the Yankees. The Jeter deal would have crippled 29 of 30 franchises.)
"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.
I can't seem to find it (it was on ESPN Insider),
but Szymborski’s projection of Lee over seven years was VERY favorable
Fantasy Sports Columnist for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 7, 2010 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
check this out, on the other side of the coin
Iknow, it’s SI, but the details of how other 32-yr-old pitchers fared on similar contracts vis-a-vis their WAR value is at least on the right track.
I lack the skill to evaluate his comparables, but the prospects of a 6 or 7 year contract working out for a 32-year-old pitchers are pretty low, so it appears to be an overpay in nearly every case.
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Dec 8, 2010 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
Unless you're Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
Or Cliff Lee
Fantasy Sports Columnist for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 8, 2010 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
He doesn't strike me as the same quality pitcher as the other two
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 9, 2010 8:43 AM PST up reply actions
Randy Ij'm fine with. Roger had PED's working for him. Unless you believe that doesn't matter now...
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Dec 10, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
Forgot to mention:
Sign Beltre = trade Kouz
Sign Craw = trade DeJesus
Any team that wanted Crawford should have some interest in DJJ.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
Why would we want to trade DDJ after signing Crawford?
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
Because neither is best suited to RF
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 5:19 AM PST up reply actions
But both are better than our current options in RF...
"Everybody in the building is standing except for people in a wheelchair." - Doug Woog
"It’s like the lost burrito of Atlantis." - jeepers
by Where's My Burrito? on Dec 7, 2010 8:14 AM PST up reply actions
Also, I'm not sure why everybody is so convinced that DeJesus is playing LF
Did the A’s say he was going to play LF? I think it was because he has a higher defensive WAR as a LF. But are those numbers really accurate enough to tell you that he should definitely be playing LF? He played the majority of his games last year in RF (started 67 in RF vs. 19 in CF and just 1 in LF). I really would not be surprised if he played RF and they put Carter in LF next year, and trade Sweeney/Jackson and use the other as a 4th outfielder.
"Everybody in the building is standing except for people in a wheelchair." - Doug Woog
"It’s like the lost burrito of Atlantis." - jeepers
by Where's My Burrito? on Dec 7, 2010 8:29 AM PST up reply actions
No, you're right, his defensive WAR alone isn't enough to tell us he should be in left.
Every player’s UZR should be slightly better in left, because the peer group is comprised of slightly worse defenders.
I’d argue that DeJesus should be in left because his only weakness as a defender is his arm.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
Meh
There’s no reason to think that any competent left fielder could not also be a competent right fielder. There are just not that many differences between the positions.
"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.
The only one that comes to mind is how a weak arm would really be exposed in RF
Last of the Ninth - Photography
How many arms are that weak, though?
I mean, if we’re talking Juan Pierre or Shannon Stewart, okay, I’d rather avoid putting those guys in right field if possible. But in general, it’s just not that big a deal. Left fielders don’t get any discount on plays at home plate, which are the most important in any event since the out/run swing is enormous.
"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.
Granted
And I don’t think there are that many with such a horrible arm that people are going to go first-to-third on them all over the place, but there it is.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
The outfield is good enough defensively in pretty much every other conceivable way that I could live with a sub standard arm in right field.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
yep
I’d rather have a couple guys that can really go and get it in the OF corners than Jermaine Dye or Jose Guillen, that is to say cannon arms with limited mobility.
I'm thinking the A's best chance is to get hitters by trade and pitchers by free agency
Hitters have all sorts of reasons NOT to come to Oakland – not just the environment and the poor condition of the field, but the size and shape of the field. Pitchers, on the other hand, come to a great pitcher’s park with an excellent defense.
I agree with your premise – they need to make overwhelming offers to succeed. And I still think they should make oBeltre and Crawford, because that is the greatest need. But the more likely outcome, should they choose to pursue it, is to sign Lee.
"I feel like my opinions and judgments are just too corrupted by the numbers." - thejd44
nice optimism and determination
I like your post and your outlook. The A’s may need to do something in the way of splashing the water out of the Giants’ World Series tub and getting back on track. Like everybody else, I am wating on the A’s stadium issue, which I believe will go a long way in resolving the on and off the field frustration. Nice work put in selling your points. You have really stitched together a nice argument.
Yes I like the realism and putting our feet to the fire
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 5:21 AM PST up reply actions
I voted Beltre since he and Crawford are both basically 4 WAR players and he's cheaper
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 5:20 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'd say Crawford is more likely to maintain a 4 WAR level over the next few seasons than Beltre
If we’re going to pay in the area of a 4 WAR player and might have to overpay to get him, that is.
As for Crawford, over the past six seasons his average WAR has been 4.6 – and that includes two years of 3.0 and 2.5 (that one was in 109 games). The rest? 4.8, 4.6, 4.6, 5.7 and 6.9 (the highest being the two most recent).
Beltre had a 10.1 WAR his final year in LA but since then he’s gone 2.5, 4.9, 3.0, 4.0 and 2.5 in Seattle (or 3.4 average) and 7.1 the one year in Boston. I’d expect Beltre in Oakland to start with more like 3.5 and decline.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I certainly like Crawford better as a player. But I think Beltre will do better in Oakland than
he would with a non-GB staff. It could add 3 runs to him annually.
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
Crawford seems excited about the A's in general,
and Beltre seems to view the A’s like the plague. And Crawford is three years younger.
I’ll take Crawford.
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 disagree
Crawford made positive comments about the A’s just a couple days before he also made positive comments about the Angels.
Plain and simple, he’s better at dealing with the media and upping his value than Beltre is…
All I can say about stats is…
SCOTT BROSIUS!!
by stranahanahan on Dec 7, 2010 8:31 PM PST up reply actions
True, but at least he seemed aware of the
“glass half full” side of the A’s rather than the “glass half empty” side. Yes, it was in his best interest to say it but I have no reason to believe Adrian Beltre is as open to signing here as Crawford is. That may say more about Beltre than Crawford, but still.
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
Beltre has never said anything that approaches making that statement true.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 11:30 PM PST up reply actions
He's not exactly effusive about his desire to become an Oakland Athletic
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
by cuppingmaster on Dec 8, 2010 6:45 AM PST up reply actions
Beltre has never said anything
People read way too much into last year when he made a wise decision to take a 1 year deal and spurn the A’s AND the Phillies.
This year he just refused to sign early… which is common for a Boras client and is not a direct shot at the A’s. I see no reason to believe a deal with Beltre isn’t possible. Though if he is a normal human being he would probably prefer to sign with Angels or the Red Sox or a number of other teams if the money is the same. That isn’t Beltre being a dick though… that is him being like every other player in the league.
by DrDoom on Dec 8, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I'm not saying he's being a dick
But he hasn’t said anything like Matsui or Crawford: “Playing for the A’s would be kinda sorta cool.” That’s all I’m saying.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
by cuppingmaster on Dec 8, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
this should be green.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 8, 2010 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
More like efflusive about it
"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.
Reality check
Its a nice read on the fan boards but which FAs would want to come to Oakland? I read Beltre has already spurned our offers multiple times and some hitters consider the Coli a career killer. Welcome, Hideki Matsui.
Yep... we'll sign Matsui and some pitcher off the scrap heap.
And that pitcher will get about $10-12 million.
by Brett Narloch on Dec 7, 2010 6:33 AM PST up reply actions
The only reason Jayson Werth wants to play for the Nationals is 7 years/$126M
The Nationals are still going to be bad until Harper comes up and Strasburg returns. Money talks, man. Indeed, the rumor this morning is that they may go after Lee
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
by cuppingmaster on Dec 7, 2010 7:16 AM PST up reply actions
If they have Lee, Werth and Zimmerman they may not be that bad
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 7:31 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I realize the irony of that
Still don’t think they make the playoffs, though with those three. Phillies are too stacked.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
by cuppingmaster on Dec 7, 2010 7:37 AM PST up reply actions
But the NL wild card, unlike the AL wild-card,
is perennially up for grabs. That incentivizes NL teams to go for it, whereas AL teams probably have to make a more conscious decision to systematically strip down and rebuild.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:13 PM PST up reply actions
I'd take Beltre, simply because the contract is shorter...
Crawford relies on his speed so much and he might not be so fast in years 6-8. I guess he could be like Kenny Lofton and just keep going… but I’d take the smaller contract. And Beltre fills a more immediate need. The only thing that would change my mind would be the A’s getting a really good player by trading DeJesus.
That being said… I don’t think the A’s will get any of these three.
Kenny Lofton, Lou Brock, Rickey Henderson, Otis Nixon.....
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 6:41 AM PST up reply actions
Someone who's really fast is only going to be less really fast in 5 years or so
Not suddenly Molina-like.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
and Crawford, like Lofton, Brock, and Rickey,
is an incredible athlete – all around. We’re talking about a guy who had Division I scholarship offers in baseball, football, and basketball, and probably had pro potential in football as well.
Those guys typically age very well, excluding catastrophic injury.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:15 PM PST up reply actions
lee in a heartbeat
yea he cracked in the world series. but the guy is untouchable everywhere he goes – always a cy young candidate. he’s filthy. i’d take him over crawford or beltre anyday
Is there any chance the A's are the team who is prepared to offer 7 years?
Rosenthal reported Monday night that there was a team willing to do this, but then later said it wasn’t the Yankees. Is it possible the A’s re-grouped after seeing no resolution to Beltre, and 2 wiffs on Berkman and Iwakuma, and said, “We still have 25 million, let’s go all in on Lee?”
Anything's possible under the canopy of the sun. It could be the Pirates too.
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 7:31 AM PST up reply actions
I guess Crawford, but it's really a toss-up
Crawford I see as having the most all-around skill, but someone for whom the Coli might be a bad place for him. He can’t just wrist HRs out the Coli like he does at the Trop now. If some of his triples turn into doubles, some of his doubles turn into singles, and some of his HRs turn into fly balls, this is a different player and a less valuable one.
Beltre though, is older, and is less of an upgrade at 3B over an OF upgrade. Then again, it’s less years to get him.
If either case, I’m betting it’s none and we have Matsui and maybe Magglio if we’re lucky.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
Maybe these Steinbrenners aren't so bad
@mlbtraderumors
MLB Trade Rumors
RT @BloggingBombers: Source: Nationals to offer Cliff Lee a seven-year deal. Source says Yanks appear unwilling to go to a seventh year.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
The A's don't have a shot at Crwaford, Beltre, or Lee...
We have to come up with something else…
Every man for himself...
Because an "undesirable"/bad team hasn't lured in a major free agent in the last 3 years
Ever.
In other words, yeah, the A’s have a shot, just like anybody else does.
MOAR SPARTACUST. NOW.
We don't have a shot with Beltre because he's aleady shrugged us off, and we'll get out bid on the other two...
Every man for himself...
I don't fully buy the "shrug off"
Sure, the rumors are that he has turned down the A’s offer, but that happens in contract negotiations. I always thought it unlikely that he would take the first offer so early in the process, particularly when its below what he had said that he was looking for. Since his options are dwindling at this point, I think there is still a shot to get him. My guess is that if he was a top priority for the Angels there would have already been a deal – but they seem to have others in higher priority, so I just wonder if at some point, the fact that the A’s clearly want him more than any other team will actually change his mind some, and the fact that the A’s seem willing to pay more than others for him.
In terms of the 3 – based on the cost and the other teams interested – I really think that they ahve the best shot at Beltre.
by longtimeasfan on Dec 7, 2010 8:55 AM PST up reply actions
I'm agreeing with OP's *tanget from above;
“More important is the fact that no player picks Oakland as his first choice, and arbitration locks a player into that arrangement on a recurring one-year deal.
A team in a desirable situation – even the Giants – can let a player like Cust or Encarnacion go in arbitration, because there’s a free agent out there who wants to sign with the Giants for a discount (Pat Burrell). No such situation exists in Oakland. End tangent.*"
Every man for himself...
among these choices - Lee
Pitchers seem to be the only FA’s who aren’t afraid of the Coli. Our rotation would be sick. If the team could then sign a couple of complimentary players like Matsui, Manny, Maggs, Glaus, etc., then the A’s would have a definite shot at the play-offs.
One question though – back in the early 2000’s, Tejada, Giambi, Chavez, the various retal players like Justice – these guys could hit in the Coli. What’s changed since then? Since when has hitting in the Coli become a “career killer”?
they were elite hitters in the primes of their careers
I’m not sure if Beltre or Crawford are to their level offensively at this point in their careers.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
by cuppingmaster on Dec 7, 2010 8:01 AM PST up reply actions
Well, Beltre had that 10 WAR season and 7 WAR last year, and Crawford was 7 WAR las tyear
so yeah, they’re pretty damn good.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor
Pam liked my old sig better.
10 WAR in 2004
Nevertheless, I was talking about their hitting. Upon quick glance, Giambi was better than both of those guys in his prime by wRC+. Tejada and Chavez were at least as good and were younger at the time.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
by cuppingmaster on Dec 7, 2010 9:11 AM PST up reply actions
I have a request...
I’m of the opinion that if a team values Wins at a certain rate (be it $4 million a pop or $5 million or anywhere in between) and they pay a player $20 million a year and said player produces enough Wins to equal his salary then that’s a “fair” deal. I believe that getting what you pay for is an acceptable outcome when dealing with free agent signings.
NSJ, you talk about “overpaying” to land one of the Big 3 FAs remaining on the market. What dollar figure are you basing the average value of a Win and what kind of performance are you expecting from these players? Because from my perspective, if I’m expecting a 3 Win season (on average) from Adrian Beltre and you’re valuing a Win at $5 million a share than signing him to a $15 million AAV deal isn’t an over-pay.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I have a request as well
Perhaps those of you who are more statistically inclined can help.
It seems the general consensus is that the value of wins are linear. Or put another way a (3.0) win player is worth the same as two (1.5) win players. However, I intuitively feel a (3.0) win player should be worth slightly more than two (1.5) win players.
A team only has a finite number, 25, of player slots to fill. If the average team puts 25, (1.5) win players together, then their competition should be able to beat them if they can sprinkle their roster with 4 or 5 (3.0) win players. Those high win players therefore should come at a premium.
If that logic is reasonable, then as the number of wins a player can produce goes up linear his value should go up exponentially. This calculation would come into play when discussing what an overpay really is.
According to ...
this:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/replacement-value/
The value of a win in 2008 was: $4.5m / win
I think the point is that,
win number 92 cost more than win number 82, because you will have fewer places to upgrade, and few players available to fulfill that upgrade.
Is there any data on what win number 70 cost vs. win number 100?
This is part of the point ...
i.e. what is the marginal cost to increase from 70 wins to 100 wins. The other part is how it relates to individual player contributions. If a 2 win player costs $9M, it doesn’t automatically mean that a 3 win player should cost $13.5M. It may cost $6M to get that extra win.
by Flash G on Dec 7, 2010 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Plus a whole lot of 1 and 2 war players can be had at alot less that $4M-8M because they can be grown internally, and kept through arbitration. So a team can probably get their first 15 WAR (70 win team) for about 1M per (25M payroll), but then the cost quickly escalates. The number of 4-5 WAR players that are still cost controled can probably be counted on one hand, and if you don’t just happen to develop one, you will never be able to trade for one.
its looking closer to 5MM/win this offseason
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-early-deals-and-inflation/
after going down in 2009 slightly.
MOAR SPARTACUST. NOW.
Regardless, 4.5 or 5.0, what premium for a higher WAR?
It might be easy to calculate if all contracts were just one year. However, when you add in the additional component of multi year contracts it complicates the formula.
Yes, better players get the same $/WAR as crappy ones, but with more years it seems
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
I would say the players below the 3-2 WAR range are less likely to get the 5 mill per win.
They are more likely to get less than that.
Yes, look at Jon Garland
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Well, yes and no
Good teams DON’T pay market value for most of their 1.5 WAR players. Many are developed internally/traded for and are arb/pre-arb, some are on incentive-based deals or sub-market deals. Most teams pay market value for some, but not all. However, 1-1.5 WAR players are NOT freely available on the open market.
However, just because 1-1.5 WAR is “below average” doesn’t mean that you can get a 1-1.5 WAR player freely. If you think Vin Mazzaro (i wanted an A’s example) was a 1 WAR player going forward, you’re not going to get a guaranteed Mazzy’s replacement 1 WAR SP for league minimum + incentives or very cheap/freely available. e.×. Brian Bannister may give you 1 WAR, but he may very easily give you -1 WAR, same with most of the scrap heap. If you want a guaranteed 1 WAR pitcher, you’re paying market value for him.
You should never “plan” to pay above market value for a player, with the (debatable) exception of mid-season moves where the marginal value of a win is greatly increased by a pennant race (e.g. the deal that sent Lee to Texas). Planning to pay above market value on the market or on a multi-year deal (e.g. the Barry Zito/Vernon Wells deals) is stupid.
The Jayson Werth/Nationals deal wasn’t paying above market value for a player. It was guaranteeing the current market rate per win (5MM) for projected wins produced over the entire life of the contract, assuming inflation. Generally, teams should get a discount on projected market value when guaranteeing additional years, since they’re absorbing more risk of injuries and regression. The Nats didn’t get that discount, and thus the deal is an overpay.
I see this more as the type of overpay that NSJ is talking about, and not the “throw a mediocre player like Barry Zito a ton of money” type of overpay.
MOAR SPARTACUST. NOW.
This very recent BA posting supports just what you are saying.
Here: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/11/whats_a_free_ag.php
If you knew player X would produce 4 WAR for 5 years then sure a contract for $90 mil would be fair. 4 WAR x 4.5 mil/WAR x 5 years = 90.
But most contracts are discounted somewhat to hedge for injury or a natural decrease in performance as the player ages. As the chart shows so far this years free agents are signing for an average of 3.5 mil / WAR.
Yes Blicks, what you're referencing in the final line, exactly what I'm trying to say
I’m finally getting to read comments here after getting home from work. Grover asked a great question above that’s on the same topic and I’ll respond to that one as soon as I read through the rest of the comments and make sure it wasn’t already answered.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:22 PM PST up reply actions
If I had to overpay I'd do it for Crawford
Though with what Werth got I’ve seen speculation as high as about $22 million a season for Crawford. I don’t know about that.
If we’re talking the $18 million range, he’s sure as hell worth that more than Werth or Beltre going forward, I’d say. At the least, Crawford and Werth are probably a bit closer in general value given that they both play a corner OF spot and can bring it offensively. Werth gives you more power but also draws a good amount of walks, Crawford gives you more speed and still reaches base at a solid clip.
The guy I’d never give $18 million to at this point is Beltre. By all accounts he pretty much earned the contract he got with Seattle that averaged $12.8 million a year but looking at what he did with the bat I just wasn’t blown away. Maybe it was all right to be about league average with the bat considering the pitcher’s park Safeco is, but that was also while he was aged 26-30.
It took him needing to have a monster year in the hitter’s paradise that Boston is at $9 million just to drive his value back up for what will be his final big contract, and if he goes from Boston to a place like Oakland there’s no way in hell he duplicates what he did with the bat. For another 5-year deal that will mean he’s under contract from 32-36 in another stadium that generally ranges from neutral to a pitcher’s park (should he come here) and to double what he made in Boston and stretch it out over that long would be nuts. I wouldn’t go a penny over $70 million over 5 years in that case, if that. Certainly nowhere close to the $90 million over 5 years I’ve seen being tossed about as what they’d like.
The potential drawback for Crawford is a longer deal carries more risk, but since it looks like a player’s prime years are generally between 26-32 you’d still be getting Crawford for about four years of that (he was 28 this year). Werth and Beltre are 32 next season and should be expected to begin their declines relatively soon.
Lee, the A’s don’t really need as much by comparison. They need more offense.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Crawford or Beltre.
Preferably Beltre, at this point.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Dec 7, 2010 9:15 AM PST reply actions
Willingham could DH
And back up to the eventual injury to Sweeney. wRC+ of 138. I’ll take that. I bet he would play more games at DH, too.
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
by cuppingmaster on Dec 7, 2010 9:26 AM PST up reply actions
Not worth an overpay though.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Dec 7, 2010 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
I just like that 5 of the 11 comments on that page right now are about the A's uniforms
But please, please, don’t sign Vlad.
"Everybody in the building is standing except for people in a wheelchair." - Doug Woog
"It’s like the lost burrito of Atlantis." - jeepers
by Where's My Burrito? on Dec 7, 2010 9:30 AM PST up reply actions
I'm anti trading for Willingham
I live near DC, and follow both teams avidly, and think Willingham’s awesome, but I’d much rather not give up prospects for another 1 year rental.
It’s a disaster in 2012 waiting to happen.
MOAR SPARTACUST. NOW.
Man I see you everywhere
I swear whenever there’s a post somewhere else I like, you have 1500 comments on that blog.
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
me?
i was ridiculously web-active for a while b/c i had limited physical mobility (major car accident), and then had trouble finding a job until i was able to get back into school—-so most of my interwebs history is probably from then.
i’m a regular here and at the SBN nats blog, but those are the only two places i really comment regularly now. i lurk on minorleagueball some but rarely.
MOAR SPARTACUST. NOW.
I guess it was just when I went over and lurked the Werth thread that it struck me
and yeah, MiLB.
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
isn't it already though?
The following will be gone DeJesus, Crisp, Ellis, whoever you sign to DH on a one year deal. You think that the A’s are going to be able to replace 4 starters in one offseason when financially limited with little to no help coming from the farm.
Blow the team up.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
What if Taylor, Brown, Cardenas, and Carter have awesome seasons and are MLB ready for 2012.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor
Pam liked my old sig better.
The likelihood of that is minimal at best.
If two regulars to come from that group I will be ecstatic
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
of course, last season if someone said that every damn prospect in the top 10 list would be a huge letdown
nobody would believe that, either.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor
Pam liked my old sig better.
Shank you.....
too early to blow up the team again. here’s still some time to sort this out.
"By the end of the year, I'll have Dallas throwing right-handed'' -Ben Sheets
Why do you want to shank grover?
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
Good question
Note to self: Offer two packs of smokes for a yard hit on mrod.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Dec 7, 2010 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well played, g
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
this is true.
but just because you got heads 10 times in a row doesn’t change the odds that the next one is going to be tails.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
Resign Crisp, sign a DH etc.
Replace Ellis. You can swap in other players for about the same salary if none of the prospects make it. Team is built to compete for about 4 years until the pitching goes. We can fill holes until then and we have money to spend.
What does this mean?
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
This is incomprehensible
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
DFA said 2012 was going to be a disaster
Because we would lose DDJ, Crisp, Ellis and a DH. Maybe he was being sarcastic but I was merely pointing out that we can replace those guys pretty easily either with the same guy or a new guy. Why wasn’t that clear? (seriously tell me so I don’t do it again)
You cant fiat four positional signings.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions
I think the A's have a plausible shot at extending DeJesus and Crisp, assuming they're still needed
Ellis should be replaceable internally. The DH is obviously a revolving door position anyway.
"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.
DeJesus and if Crisp is healthy they are going to want real money, not 6m
if youre paying them Figgins money 4/40 they aren’t affordable, especially since next year the arbitration increases are really going to start.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 6:57 PM PST up reply actions
Crisp signed with the A's as a free agent as it was
He likes Oakland. I can’t see why they couldn’t get something done at like 2/$14M with an option year.
DeJesus, I’m seeing something like $2/17M with an option.
Neither of these guys is in high demand. They’re “typical nondescript Oakland players,” remember? I bet if you asked people on the street who they were, 99% of them couldn’t tell you.
I’ve thought, all along, that acquiring DeJesus was as much about getting him signed to an extension before he hits the open market as it was about 2011 (which is one reason I’ve been so dismissive of people’s attempts to count draft pick compensation in his nominal trade value).
"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.
"I bet if you asked people on the street who they were, 99% of them couldn’t tell you."
You’re correct. I went up to Telegraph Ave. and asked a bunch of people who they were, and 99% of them couldn’t tell 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
Either you asked 100 or more people,
or there are some weird fractional people up there.
Fantasy Sports Columnist for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 7, 2010 11:11 PM PST up reply actions
Both
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
Touche, salesman
Fantasy Sports Columnist for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 8, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
DeJesus is somewhat Mark Kotsay-like in that way, the "typical nondescript Oakland player" type – and they signed Kotsay to a similar extension to what you’re talking about. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen.
I dislike the philosophy behind both Kotsay and a DJJ extension. DFA and I strongly disagree on this.
DFA advocates diversification of WAR in free agent acquisitions.
I personally would prefer to throw a ton of eggs into one basket – the huge investment in one FA that is universally considered desirable (Crawford, Lee).
The way I see it is, if you spread 25 million around to four guys, you are banking on all four of them being successful, at least moderately so. If you gamble on one star, you only one guy to pan out.
It’s a bigger gamble, but at the A’s budget, you need to gamble to make the playoffs.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 9:27 PM PST up reply actions
well
I didn’t say I liked it either, but I think it’s likely considering the A’s history and their financial situation.
I don't think that describes my philosophy.
which is why I wanted to throw more years and money than anyone else around here at Beltre LAST offseason.
I didn’t like the Kotsay deal. I wanted to trade him to NYY.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 11:32 PM PST up reply actions
But at one point you advocated diversification of WAR, no?
IIRC, it led to tongue-in-cheek non-sequitur about marriage vs. “playing the field,” with our positions being ideologically consistent in both areas.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 12:22 AM PST up reply actions
I hate diversification of WAR. I want one 52 WAR player
Failing that 4 10 WAR players
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
I have a feeling that might actually break the linearity of offense if you got out to that extreme a level
A 52 WAR player is essentially a guy who hits a home run every time he’s at bat, surrounded by a complete team of replacement level players. I don’t think that’s going to the postseason.
"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.
I know it's a crazy example you listed
However, THAT player, batting leadoff, makes four runs per game by himself no matter what the surrounding cast does in the lineup. I would think that That team [with replacement level pitching, as well] absolutely goes to the postseason.
"It boils down to this. You guys aren’t fans of our management and look through that prism." ~ DrDoom
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 8, 2010 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
Replacement level pitching is really, really terrible
It’s like 5.5 runs a game. You’re counting on enough offense from the rest of your crap roster to make up that difference.
"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.
In the Hudson trade yes.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 8, 2010 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
If Cater isn't ready by 2012
to:
1) play a position;
2) DH; or
3) get value back in a trade
the A’s are hopeless
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
random question for board
CC is 29 years old so he has significant years remaining in his career.
If you were Crawford’s agent, what average annual value would you recommend CC accept, if the A’s (or any other team) offered him a 3 year contract? 30M / season? 33M?
A 3 year / $90 million (or insert whatever) would allow him again to hit free agency at 32, and then could get his 6 to 8 year deal to retire after, while still maximizing his payments over the next few years.
Obviously, the additional compensation needs to outweigh the risk of injury or subpar performance, causing his later contracts to be lesser in value. What factors are you considering and what value do you settle on?
Well if he can get 8/$160M then I'd want at least 3/$90M
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
Very good conversation topic Cherry.
I think this is a far more plausible option with Crawford (29) than with Beltre (32).
Crawford can do this and still get another huge contract. No one is going to give Beltre another huge contract at age 35.
(That said, I’d rather sign Crawford to eight years than three, because his WAR breakdown will end up being “jagged”, and we want to get three of those “good jagged” years: 6.5 WAR, 3.5, 5.5, 7, 4, 5.5, 3, etc.).
A star player – great defender who can hit – will have have a few awesome seasons where his performance is worth $30-40M. If you sign a star to a long term deal, you’re likely to get a few of these types of seasons, which help “cover” for the years when his performance is merely average or above-average.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:31 PM PST up reply actions
Assuming any of these guys would come here...
I would rank my preference: Beltre, Lee, Crawford
The A’s would seem to have about $25M to spend based on the following offers made:
Beltre $13M
Berkman $12M
Iwakuma $4M
Beltre is my top choice because a RH cleanup hitter makes this lineup flow a lot better than another LH number 2 hitter. Also a good 3B is A LOT harder to find than a good LF. If Crawford could play RF I might reevaluate. LFs are a dime a dozen it seems… even though Crawford is elite. I also think Crawford’s best asset is also the one most likely to diminish with age. He simply does not fit with where this team is at and what this team needs, like Beltre does.
I like Lee because, while we have 4 strong pitchers, I don’t see any of them as an ace just yet. Anderson might get there if he stays healthy. I actually think our pitching could disappoint next year if we don’t get some quality starts out of whoever is the 5th member of the rotation. I would make a serious run at Lee if it didn’t involve retaining him til he is nearly 40… and it looks like it will.
We have a 4 year window here with our young players. We will likely be rebuilding by the 5th year if not earlier. So any contract length beyond 4 years is going to be for naught, but that is the price we must pay.
Additionally we probably need to sign 1 or 2 players after we make any huge signing and Lee and Crawford do not leave much room to do so… Matsui might not even be an option.
Beltre makes so much sense… shorter contract, less money, right-handed power hitter etc etc. I understand why he was our focus from the beginning and I still think he is the best and likely only big name for us.
I'd rank Beltre first as he fills the biggest need
Crawford is a terrific player but it’s going to take 150+ million to sign him and that seems too much to me.
I don’t see the need for Lee and I think it’s crazy to give a 32 year old pitcher a 7 year deal unless he promises to start using PED’s right away.
But seriously, folks....
Crawford and Lee actually fill bigger needs
Kouzmanoff is much better than Bobby Cramer or whoever plays right field after Sweeney and Jackson drop dead of mange or myxomatosis.
"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.
Agreed
3B is not their biggest need at this point. Kouzmanoff isn’t great but he plays solid D and can be a decent contributor if you aren’t expecting him to bat 4th or 5th.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Yep. To me the biggest need the A's have right now is at DH.
I can’t think of anybody on the roster right now who I would put at DH. I’m really interested to see who they get. There are a bunch of options: Matsui, Vlad, Beltran, Lee, Nick Johnson, Manny, hell it could even be Cust again.
"Everybody in the building is standing except for people in a wheelchair." - Doug Woog
"It’s like the lost burrito of Atlantis." - jeepers
by Where's My Burrito? on Dec 7, 2010 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
Everidge!
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 1:28 PM PST up reply actions
If they signed The Craw, they'd have five legitimate major league OFs.
Crawford/Crisp/DeJesus/Sweeney/Jackson (ducks as PT throws his laptop at my head).
Four of those five guys could play every day, with one of them DHing.
Or sign Nick Johnson/Russ Branyan.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
Not really thats only 3 legitimate OFers
1 for Craw/ .5 for Crisp / 1 for DDJ / .5 for Sweeney / 0 for Jackson.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 6:59 PM PST up reply actions
Sure would be nice if that zero was replaced with a one for Jack Cust, wouldn't it?
God, what a dumbass decision that was.
"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.
choir.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 11:33 PM PST up reply actions
Boy did you hit the nail on the head w/your prediction of Cust to a division rival
I don’t want to watch him play against us as a Mariner……
I liked The Craw
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
Matsui or Manny?
Who would you all rather have at DH? I am really starting to like the idea of Manny since I think we need a RH bat in the 4th spot to break up all the lefties (even though Barton has a reverse split). And Manny still seems to be the superior hitter.
We offered 2/16 to Berkman, does that get us Manny instead? I feel like with Matsui we would platoon him with someone like E5 which may be as costly as just signing one better guy to play there all the time.
Both guys would bring some media attention which would also be nice.
Manny.
If all the A’s are going to be able to do is add a DH, I want upside. If he can come in and hit anything close to what he did last season he will be quite a bit better then Matsui IMO. I expect .270/.350/.430 out of Matsui in Oakland. Manny, if healthy, could easily come in and put up a .280/.390/.440 season with a chance at much better. I can’t recall the exact numbers, but I recall looking up Manny’s career numbers at the coliseum at the end of last season and seem to remember them being very good. Plus, he hit well in L.A. which is no easy task.
Manny
I really don’t like Matsui. I view him as a strictly worse than Cust option.
Then again, it sure is nice that Matsui has said nice things about Oakland and he could provide some Japanese fan support. Normally, I would think that the extra fan support might be just as easy to get from Manny, but I’m worried about the A’s demonizing themselves in Japan. They could very well be the least popular team there after the Iwakuma deal.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
I prefer Matsui, solely for non-baseball reasons
Far better locker room presence, and a potential liason to Yu Darvish if he were to be posted and the team bid on him next year.
Having a player with Yu Darvish’s ethnic background playing in the Bay Area would be very special.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:40 PM PST up reply actions
Does Darvish, by any chance, have a weakness for porn?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yeah, I'm thinking if the A's didn't put up the money for Iwakuma, they're sure not going to be offering what Darvish is going to demand
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Well, maybe the Iwakuma gaffe was just about blocking him.
Didn’t cost the A’s a thing in the end.
It’s not easy filling the shoes of fan favorite Bobby Crosby, but Cliff Pennington says he’s up to the challenge.
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 8, 2010 4:48 AM PST up reply actions
With each international FA we miss we can save that money for Darvish
Chapman and Iwakuma didn’t work out so we have some funds available. For Darvish, Matsuzaka is a good comp right? So something like 50 posting and 50+ contract is likely? Or is he even better than that?
He's going to be a free agent -- no posting fee required.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor
Pam liked my old sig better.
Darvish isn't an FA for like 3 years
I think he’ll be posted before that. And his posting fee will be higher than Matsusaka’s for sure.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
Weird. I could have sworn I read that somewhere.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor
Pam liked my old sig better.
Manny times a million
He will bring such hilarity and production not seen in this clubhouse since Swisher.
(calculates feverishly)
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I also want him for the hijinks
We should play him in left once a week for fun too. We can give discount hot dogs for every error or boneheaded play.
I'm abstaining for the following reason
Can I choose new stadium? Seriously. Looking at the idea of a back loaded contract on Carl Crawford, I’d prefer to put that money into a new stadium which will more quickly woo free agents to Oakland (if Wolff is to be believed.) Is this at all feasible? Are my fears at all legitimate that such a contract might, at all, hinder our stadium efforts?
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 9:45 AM PST reply actions
I think that concern can be reduced with a front loaded deal.
Pay Crawford 25M now while he is actually worth it, and then by the time he is 34, he will be making 14M. Hopefully, he will still be worth that, and even if he is not, it is a must less onerous contract to move if the team starts a rebuild. (and it is less onerous to stadium building cost.)
If I could pick new stadium/compensation to the Giants,
Instead of one of these players, I would absolutely do it. Nothing more important than that.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
Isn't the luxury tax based on AAV?
Would you offer Crawford a frontloaded eight-year deal at $140-150M? By frontloading the deal, you’re making it very hard for the Yankees, Angels, or Red Sox to match, because their preference would be to backload the deal as much as possible to avoid luxury tax implications. You’re also increasing the total value of the deal to Crawford by frontloading it, given inflation.
I thought the luxury tax was based on AAV, so frontloading a deal would be no different than a backloaded deal for luxury tax purposes. I think the only way around it is through the creative use of options.
You're probably right but...
I don’t think jacking up the payroll into the low-70’s isn’t going to push the A’s out of the receiving end of revenue sharing.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Doesn't revenue sharing depend on revenues, rather than salaries?
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
Danny is saying that the Red Sox/Yankees...
wouldn’t be prevented from front-loading their offer due to fears of the luxury tax. He’s right, I hadn’t thought about that.
Danny is the ANer that secretly works in a major league front office and stops by every once in a while and gives me a new education every time.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
I thought he was an environmental consultant or something
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:37 AM PST up reply actions
Are there more of us
environmental consultants on here? I thought I was the only one. . .
I could be wrong of course
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
We'll just have to wait
for Danny to come forward with his true profession. Or not.
OT - brandon mccarthy
Buster_ESPN: Heard this: Brandon McCarthy is considering a serious proposal from the Oakland Athletics
I didn’t even know who this guy was till I looked him up. What do you guys think? Is this someone we should be excited about?
He doesn't put the A's over the top for a WS berth...
So how excited are you looking to get?
The monster at the end of this blog.
EXCITING!
Yeah, not so much.
I can’t wait till our MLB minimum offer gets rejected because he would rather sign a minor
league deal with a team that has better facilities.
And then Yusebio can start another thread.
by Billy Frijoles on Dec 7, 2010 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
Shoulder issues and hasn't pitched in awhile. Woo.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor
Pam liked my old sig better.
Is he now, or has he ever been, a member of the Communist party?
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
Flagged for politics!
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
Isn't the "p" in party capitalized
Or would you just be talking about communist folks who are (or have been) members in attendance at a party for like-mided thinkers? And at such a party, how does one bring their own bottle?
"It boils down to this. You guys aren’t fans of our management and look through that prism." ~ DrDoom
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 8, 2010 6:50 PM PST up reply actions
You can BYOB, you just have to share it when you get there
Oh, and five times during the evening, the person who’s talking the loudest gets taken out back and shot.
"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.
One of those guys whose minor league K/9 didn't translate to the bigs
Like Jeff Francis or Dallas Braden.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Or Trevor Cahill...
"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.
....who we should really be trying to trade right now
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Braden or Cahill?
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
Cahill. Big sell-high opportunity
Braden is worth 1000x more to us then to other teams.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Reimold for Bartlett brewing
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/12/bartlett-for-reimold-talk-heating-up.html
Could we beat this? I feel like Bartlett is a low price, but I’m not sure we could afford to give up Pennington. I’d love me some Reimold.
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 10:17 AM PST reply actions
LOLrioles
Come on. More one year rentals? You’ve got to be kidding me if you think you’re challenging the division with that roster.
"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.
It's not like they're challenging it anyway
But yeah, dumb for them
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
needs moar bacon
by cuppingmaster on Dec 7, 2010 1:14 PM PST up reply actions
They need a SS really badly though. Right now it's Pedro Florimon
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
Ok, so play Pedro Florimon
"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.
Who the hell is Pedro Florimon?
I’ve played fantasy baseball for 10 years; it’s pretty bad when you name a team’s current starter and I’ve honestly never heard of him.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
What about Beltran?
If I read it right on Cot’s website, Beltran is owed $18.5 million in 2011. Granted he has a no trade clause, but since the A’s are whiffing on their free agent targets so far would Beltran be a more reasonable option with all the money we still have available?
What if we paid $16 of his 2011 contract? Would that help limit the quality of prospect we’d have to give up?
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
SuSlu from an hour ago
“susanslusser: Suggestions out of NY that the #Athletics have interest in #Mets OF Carlos Beltran but A's preference is to add a hitter thru free agency.”
Ya, I figured it had to be somewhat out there for Beltran
as I posted in a previous thread. The big hang up is his full NTC and he’s super risky because of knee injuries….but if it turned out he is healthy and bounces back at even 80 percent of his best then I think it could be worth it. He could play RF and the A’s would still have the cash to sign a DH, and then again have money to spend next year in the off season.
"By the end of the year, I'll have Dallas throwing right-handed'' -Ben Sheets
This would almost be best case scenario at this point IMO
If Beltran would agree to a trade and we don’t have to give up a ‘good’ prospect package to get him (due to paying about $16 million of his salary). It’s getting desperate now, so even though I would have never wanted an attitude like Manny Ramirez on the A’s, I’d say f**k it and offer him the DH job at this point.
With how terrible this offseason has gone, I think I’d find some semblance of hope (or at least interest) in watching this lineup…
CF Coco Crisp
LF David Dejesus
1B Daric Barton
DH Manny Ramirez
RF Carlos Beltran
3B Kevin Kouzmanoff
C Kurt Suzuki
2B Mark Ellis
SS Cliff Pennington
What do you guys think?
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
by bakerbeachboy on Dec 7, 2010 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
It is about the best we can hope for, I agree. But Crawford hasn't signed yet...or Beltre!
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
We wouldn't have to give up a good prospect package at all.
All we’d have to do is throw money at them, plus a few meh prospects. The huge contract he has minimizes his value quite a bit.
dan, do you know if Beltran is expected to be 100% healthy at the beginning of Spring Training?
I know he came back last year, but I wasn’t sure if he was still showing ‘signs’ of his injury or not.
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
by bakerbeachboy on Dec 7, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
Don't get Beltran until forced
by either someone else making an offer that Alderson likes, or by Beltre and Crawford signing somewhere. I think you can wait a pretty long time on a Beltran trade.
If the A’s could sign Beltre and Matsui/Manny/Cust/Ordonez, and trade for Beltran…they would be spending too much money, wouldn’t they? That won’t happen. Darn.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Dec 7, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
I think they should trade for Beltran
and play him as a RF/DH. DHing would require less wear and tear on his body, which would hopefully lead to a full, healthy season. I said it in another thread, but I think Wright is the guy we should target. We could absorb his full contract for the next 3 seasons, whereas I would imagine the Mets having to eat some of Beltran’s contract if we acquired him. I know Wright would cost more in terms of trade chips, but he is a bonafide bat. Although he is not as solid with the glove as Kouz, his OBP consistently hovers around .400, which is a huge upgrade of KK.
I would take Wright over Beltre
I just don’t know if I’d want to give up what’d it cost to get him.
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
by bakerbeachboy on Dec 7, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed. According to NY Daily News,
a GM was quoted as saying the Mets would want “a combination of top prospects and major league talent.” Kouz, Taylor, Ross, Krol? I am probably valuing our own guys WAY too high in this.
Possibly
I would do that deal in a heart beat if I was the A’s.
Krol is the only one I wouldn’t want to give up as he seems to be one of the only pitching prospect’s in the A’s system with some promise. But if he had to be in the deal to get Wright, sign me up.
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
by bakerbeachboy on Dec 7, 2010 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
I would be very happy if we made this trade.
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
that is laughably one sided.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
dfa, let us dream of such an easy/lopsided transaction for the A's
We need something to hope for :)
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
by bakerbeachboy on Dec 7, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
By the way...
From what I’ve found Wright does not have a no-trade clause. His contract pans out this way over the next few years…
2011:$14M
2012:$15M
2013:$16M club option ($1M buyout)
We’d have him for his age 28, 29, and 30 seasons. Right in his prime. I’m down.
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
by bakerbeachboy on Dec 7, 2010 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Think more along the lines of Gio/Carter/Ross/Kouz
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
And Cahill, Anderson et al wondering,
“Why am I giving up so many hits all of a sudden?”
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
yep
that’s a pretty little pipe dream there. I wish they’d slang Wright to us for a package like that. I can’t imagine they’d trade him without getting at least one of: Gio, Cahill, Carter, Weeks, or Green.
Swap in Bailey for Taylor
and you might be on to something.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Every day is edge-of-your-seat day
John Heyman of SI tweets:
Cliff Lee has at least one 7 year offer for $20-25 mil (not the nats). #yankees have been intending to stay at 6 yrs tops. We’ll see.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
Nationals!
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
um
the tweet was the 7 year offer was NOT the nationals.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
Stupid Tweet
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
Phillies aren't going over four years
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
Phillies really shouldn't even offer him anything
Considering how little money they have to spend already, they would really have to start trading guys once they get to arbitration…
All I can say about stats is…
SCOTT BROSIUS!!
by stranahanahan on Dec 7, 2010 8:47 PM PST up reply actions
Wow
Could you imagine a rotation with a first 4 of…
Roy Halladay
Cliff Lee
Roy Oswalt
Cole Hamels
…that’d be pretty awesome.
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
by bakerbeachboy on Dec 7, 2010 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
It's what they should have had in the playoffs last year
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
Seriously
The Phillies offseason last year was, uh…puzzling.
You know you are big-time when people chant your name while you pee. - 67MARQUEZ
by bakerbeachboy on Dec 7, 2010 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
They didn't give up Lee for Polanco...
They gave him up for some gimpy Seattle prospects.
"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.
Right, but they got rid of him to "clear payroll"
and they used that payroll to get Polanco of all people.
I hate them so much for doing that, they would have easily topped SF if they had Lee all year.
No, no, you are wrong
They signed Polanco on December 3rd and traded Lee on the 15th of that month.
All I can say about stats is…
SCOTT BROSIUS!!
by stranahanahan on Dec 7, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
Ruh roh...
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
If he throws his two World Series starts against the Giants,
there’s absolutely zero difference in the outcome of that series.
"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.
Also, Polanco was a great contract
It galls me that the A’s did not make a bigger effort to sign him. He would easily have been worth 50% more than he got from the Phillies— more than enough to overcome the Shithole Tax.
"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.
by PaulThomas on Dec 7, 2010 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I KNOW!
If any team should have irrationally — let alone rationally — coveted Placido Polanco, it’s the Oakland A’s.
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 wanted pollanco and had a draft proposing we plug him into third that I was working on when the phillies signed him.
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 7, 2010 11:35 PM PST up reply actions
Well if you hadn't been dawdling maybe the A's would have signed him!
"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe
unlikely... they never listen to me\
Taurus Apr 20-May 20
Honey or vinegar? That’s kind of the universal decision we have to make all the time, every day. Are we going to get what we want by being nice or being a dick? And you know what, Taurus? Every situation is different, there’s no one way to do things. Know what else? Honey and vinegar go together in a nice salad dressing.
by designatedforassignment on Dec 8, 2010 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not much of a Phillies fan, but that would be a gorgeous rotation to watch in a postseason series.
Their 2010 postseason rotation already put me in mind of the old Braves pitching in the 1990s…I fell in love with that team for their pitching, man.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Dec 7, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
I would overpay for Crawford.
He is the only player, of the 3 mentioned, that has not had an awful season (not including injuries). When healthy, he is a 5 tool player who would compliment the A’s lineup well.
Not much of a power tool or arm tool. More like a 3 tool player.
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
In a vacuum, yes,
but I was comparing him to Beltre (in my head at least). I think his power would be comparable to Beltre’s in Oakland and the 3 tools you mentioned are elite. He’s the guy I would overpay. His 6th tool (or 4th by your count) would have to be his age and that factors into the deal for me.
In that case I'd call Beltre a better fielder with more power and arm
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 7, 2010 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
Beltre?? No - Beltran
ESPN rumour page (don’t/wouldn’t subscribe) hints of Alderson-Bean discussion over Carlos Beltran.
Hmmm, sez I. Mets would have to pay most of the $18M salary, but could be innerestin’.
That whole japanese article about Iwakuma yesterday had it spelled "Bean."
I thought Flashfire was gonna explode.
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
Well, it's worse because Billy Bean is an actual, separate person who also played baseball
(And then came out of the closet, but I digress.)
"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 have to overpay, I don't want any of those three.
To spend a crazy amount that I am uncomfortable with…………..
I want a player who is probably going to age well, doesn’t totally rely on their leg speed (not Crawford)
I want a player that isn’t already 32 (not Beltre)
I want a player who isn’t a pitcher (not C.Lee)
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
So, in other words, you want A-Rod
Good luck with that.
"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.
A-Rod has accumulated over 100 WAR during his career. That's amazing.
the artist formerly known as inbillywetrust
I'm talking about if we're to hand out an insane overpay contract
None of those three guys do it for me.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Albert Pujols is available next offseason...
It’s not easy filling the shoes of fan favorite Bobby Crosby, but Cliff Pennington says he’s up to the challenge.
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 7, 2010 8:38 PM PST up reply actions
Albert Pujols is going to be a 32-year-old slugger with a hole in his elbow
The only one of those criteria that he arguably fits is not being a pitcher.
"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.
But when's the last time he's missed significant time?
His career looks similar to Hank Aaron, sans position. You’re right about the age, but I think Albert has proved the elbow to be a minor issue, if anything.
It’s not easy filling the shoes of fan favorite Bobby Crosby, but Cliff Pennington says he’s up to the challenge.
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 7, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, the Oakland A's, offensive empire,
really need to be quibbling about Albert Pujols’ weaknesses.
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
Think we could pick him up on the down low?
Say, Chris Carter, Barton, a cardboard stand-in, and a poster of Jessica Alba?
It’s not easy filling the shoes of fan favorite Bobby Crosby, but Cliff Pennington says he’s up to the challenge.
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 7, 2010 8:50 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm...Tell me more about this cardboard stand-in..
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I heard it stood in for Brad Pitt
After they sacked that other guy
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
I didn't make up the silly list of rigid reasons not to sign players to big contracts
"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.
Fast players sometimes actually age pretty well
Lofton
Rickey
Don’t worry about Crawford, though. It is not going to happen. We’ve already committed to overpaying for CoJack and the only partially-rebuilt Sweeney. We would not have traded Davis, signed Sweeney and tendered CoJack if we were going after Crawford.
"Feel so bad, feel like a ballgame on a rainy day"-Lightnin' Hopkins
by justANotherAsFan on Dec 8, 2010 7:54 AM PST up reply actions
CC kinda likes it
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:42 AM PST up reply actions
2012 free agents
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/2012-mlb-free-agents.html
At some point we are going to spend the money burning a hole in our pockets. If we push it off, some good names for next year include:
Michael Cuddyer (might be solid cheap fill in COF)
Prince Fielder (He will be the big name and be overpaid)
Nick Swisher (if his option isn’t picked up)
Aaron Hill/Kelly Johnson and a host of other 2B (bodes well for 2B market after we lose Ellis)
Jason Bartlett
Jose Reyes
Jimmy Rollins
Jose Bautista
Jose Lopez
Aramis Ramirez
Josh Willingham
JD Drew
Jason Kubel
Joel Pineiro
Wandy Rodriguez
CJ Wilson
A bunch of solid RP
Not real exciting but I think there are more names on that list that would work for the A’s than there are on this year’s list. Better DHs this year. We seem to be set up well to find a 2B in 2012, but we better retain Crisp to play CF. Some ok options at COF and 3B if need be. There is a lack of quality SPs available… I really would like us to get a better 5th starter than McCarthy.
Based on this I guess Beltre is less important, but I would want to research the defense of the 2012 3B options before getting too excited. I still rank my preference Beltre, Lee, Crawford but Lee is like 1a.
I'm not exactly seeing how this list of names works better for the A's needs than this year's.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Dec 7, 2010 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
More guys in their price range at the positions they need
COF, 3B, 2B etc. Names like Willingham, Drew and Bautista might be better suited than Crawford, Werth or Beltre. Or the market could be so thin that those guys get huge deals and we are left out in the cold again.
Draw your own conclusions. I merely wanted to post the names to see if it affected how we look at this year’s free agents. For me, it makes me really want one more solid starter and gives me pause when considering upping our offer to Beltre.
The point is that there are mid range FA options every offseason.
Guys like Willingham and Drew (and I’m counting Drew in this because he’ll be 36 in ‘12), 2-3 WAR pieces, are available every year. Unfortunately, the A’s in a position where they need 4-5 WAR pieces in order to compete. This is the year in which those pieces are available and are positions of need for the A’s and the team has a prime opportunity to compete, by adding those pieces.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Dec 7, 2010 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
agreed
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 6:50 PM PST up reply actions
I assume we can't/won't sign a 4-5 WAR guy
We never do…
And I see more 2-3 WAR guys that aren’t 1B/DHs next year.
Iwakuma will also presumably be on the market next offseason
and even if the A’s have burnt their bridges with him, he’ll still increase the overall supply of mid-level starters.
"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.
I am not sure he would be too broken up about it
if he doesn’t get injured, he is sure to make more money on a FA contract than the posted one. If i am him, I am happy I got my name out, got GMs excited, got a large posting fee commitment and got a less than competitive offer.
Bodes well for 2012
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
When does Darvish
become a free agent? Has he indicated that he’d be interested in leaving Japan for MLB? I love that Ham Fighter – would love to see him in the Green in Gold, though I don’t think we could afford him if it came down to a posting fee situation.
I think he's like 3 years away from FA, but rumored to be posted next year
It would be a record-breaking deal for a Japanese player if it happened next year.
I’d expect the posting fee to be $75M. Matsusaka was $51.1M.
This, unfortunately, incentivizes the Yankees and Red Sox to sign him, because that posting fee doesn’t count against lux tax. It’s way they can flex their financial muscle without being penalized, as they typically are if they make free-agent splurges beyond a $170M payroll.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
But isn't he an outright free agent next year?
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor
Pam liked my old sig better.
Iwakuma is. Darvish is not.
Darvish is like five years younger than Ewok.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
There is next to no one on this list that excites me
Considering Swisher’s option will be picked up unless he more than sucks this year, the only guys I would have any reason to cinsider would be Wilson and Wandy…
All I can say about stats is…
SCOTT BROSIUS!!
by stranahanahan on Dec 7, 2010 8:51 PM PST up reply actions
I prefer Cot's list:
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2001/04/potential-free-agents-for-2012.html
It shows other players whom their team has options on (like Aaron Hill.)
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Dec 7, 2010 4:29 PM PST reply actions
The other link does too
I just didn’t mention them all in my post… especially if they looked pricey. Hill’s is reasonable but there are a lot of 2Bs that will be available and he striggled so who knows.
So you made a list of cheap FA?
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
How about Konerko?
It looks like the White Sox blew him off with the Dunn signing.
He could DH and spell Barton at 1B. 4 years/$50 million?
Nobody expects some kind of obscure Monty Python allusion.
Sounds very Richie Sexsonesque
"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.
Would that be the worst thing?
Sexson hit 36 HR in Year 1 of his deal and 40 HR in Year 2.(Slumped to 21 HR in Year 3 and was out of baseball by the end of year 4, but still . . .
Nobody expects some kind of obscure Monty Python allusion.
by EddieVegas_NRAF on Dec 7, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions
Sexson was one of the worst FA contracts of the last generation.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 7, 2010 9:18 PM PST up reply actions
I dunno
it was bad, but I can think of a few that were equally if not far worse. Just off the top of my head:
Milton Bradley, Chicago Cubs
Carlos Silva, Seattle Mariners
Julio Lugo, Boston Red Sox
Edgar Renteria, Boston Red Sox
any SS signed in the last 6 years by the Boston Red Sox
Zito, SF Giants
I could go on. Sexson was what, 10 mil a year? Not that bad for nearly 100 HR’s over the course of his contract, even if he did have trouble cracking the Mendoza line more than a couple times….
Vernon Wells
Gary Matthews, Jr.
Fantasy Sports Columnist for Big Cat Country
Follow me on Twitter if you feel like it.
Formerly Gallagher's Watermelons and Player To Be Named Later
by CaliforniaJag on Dec 7, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
GMJ
The gift that keeps on giving. Well, at least until the end of next year.
Is he even in baseball any longer?
"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.
I remember when the signing was made public, I actually laughed out loud.
Here’s hoping for a similar as-yet-unforseen Angels transaction this winter.
"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe
Didn't Richie Sexson once go like the entire first month of the season without ever getting a single?
"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.
I truly hope
they do not consider signing Konerko – if anyone of the marquee free agents that posted career years statistically are due for significant regression, it’s Konerko. Big time.
The truthiness of it is
it’s either Beltre, trade, or bust. I’m not so sure the A’s are out of the Beltre sweepstakes if they up their offer. Pretty sure the A’s aren’t getting Crawford, and definitely not Lee.
It’s not easy filling the shoes of fan favorite Bobby Crosby, but Cliff Pennington says he’s up to the challenge.
Along with a gigantic financial investment, I still believe in selling high on arb-eligible guys.
If Suzuki has a great year next year, he’s clearly a great trade chip, because he will have established that his 2010 dip was an outlier, and he’ll be far and away the best available catcher (next FA class of catchers is much worse than this year’s was).
If Brett Anderson develops into a Cy Young winner in two years, and can fetch a Dan Haren/Mark Mulder package, I’m okay with dealing him too.
I think that the team can afford a $20-25M per year star and have long-term financial flexibility if it continues to trade away homegrown stars when a terrific opportunity presents itself – and by that I mean, an opportunity to raid another team’s minor league system for a package equal to the Haren/Mulder hauls.
This means that you don’t need to budget for Suzuki to ever make $8-12M, because he’s replaced with a $400K Donaldson and the system is supplemented with future cheap major leaguers from an eventual Suzuki deal. And you don’t need to budget for Anderson to ever make $10-15M, because he’s traded for future high-quality cheap ML talent before he ever makes that much.
In brief, the major-league team eventually consists of a $20M per year star (Crawford), tons of good cost-controlled homegrown or trade-acquired youth, and our typical FA signings – the bargain-bin value guys. That team still has a budget of $50M-$60M if you want it to.
The counter argument is, “No team invests 40% of its payroll in one player.”
And my rebuttal is, “That doesn’t it can’t be done successfully.”
A common theme in my “A’s philosophy” is that this franchise needs to do a better job of being different and innovative if it hopes to succeed at 1999-2002 levels.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
The question is whether Crawford's really good enough to be the best player on a championship team
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
WAR predictions/dollar values:
At a market rate of $5M per free agent win:
Beltre, six year deal:
4.0 WAR in 2011
3.5 in ’12
3.0 in ’13
2.5 in ’14
2.0 in ’15
1.5 in ’16
16.5 WAR at $5M = $82.5M over six years.
The Craw, 8 year deal:
5.5 WAR in ’11
5.0 in ’12
4.5 in ’13
4.0 in ’14
3.5 in ’15
3.0 in ’16
2.5 in ’17
2.0 in ’18
30.0 WAR over eight years = $140M.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
that in response to g's request.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
shoot, sorry
The Crawford dollar figure should be $150M.
30 WAR accumulated over 8 years x 5M per win.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 6:09 PM PST up reply actions
I know it's usual in these analyses to get an aging factor of about half a win
But should a player that hasn’t reached his prime or is just there start to get worse right at the beginning of the contract?
by Rio on Dec 8, 2010 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
You also have to account for risk
We can predict WAR reasonably well for next year. Two years from now is much harder. As such, later WAR is much less valuable.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Based on those numbers...
I’d go over the top on a deal for Crawford.
8 years/$160 million.
The monster at the end of this blog.
If I could re-do the poll over again...
I would’ve made the Crawford deal bigger, to see if the overwhelming majority still preferred him. I’m curious how much money is too much for him.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 7:34 PM PST up reply actions
Well...
8/160 almost becomes cost neutral if your performance projection holds and the market rate bumps to 5.5 million per by 2015. (Basically 155.5 WAR vs. $160 million spent.) If he has a slower rate of decline or an extra 4+ Win season in him you pretty much break even, again assuming inflation in the cost of WAR.
The monster at the end of this blog.
These Red Sox are going to be good. Very good.
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 8:39 PM PST up reply actions
They have to make up the 11 wins they lost with Beltre and Martinez leaving.
Honestly…I think they came out even.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
And Beltre to Anaheim I guess
It's because he derived his torque from the buttocks -- cityplANner
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 8, 2010 8:39 PM PST up reply actions
The A's could really screw Anaheim's offseason by landing Beltre now.
I would be pumped if Anaheim’s only offseason upgrade is a closer.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
Sign Vlad to DH, have Vlad recruit Beltre
They are two of the very best Dominican-born players of their generation, they must have some friendly past history, right?
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 8, 2010 8:59 PM PST up reply actions
Of their vicious enemies who have sworn to kill the other if they're ever in the same clubhouse
The monster at the end of this blog.
Isn't it simpler to just spread rumors that the Angels are all head-touchers?
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
Not on a per-year basis
"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.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
