Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Following UFC 146 Loss, Jason 'Mayhem' Miller 'Done' in UFC

BARELY KNEW HER!

 

 

In what can only be the greatest day in the history of calling up backup catchers, we learned late last night that the Athletics optioned catcher Landon Powell to the AAA Sacramento Rivercats.

 

The story was broken by our beloved Susan Slusser, who first released the news on twitter:

 

Susan Slusser
Landon Powell tells The Chronicle he has been demoted to Triple-A Sacramento.

 

Slusser then went on to let us know that Powell's replacement would be Anthony Recker:

I am hearing indications that it will, indeed, be Anthony Recker taking Powell's spot, though he is not on the 40-man roster. #Athletics

 

The 27 year old Recker is hitting .287/.388/.501 in 99 games for Sacramento with 16 home runs and 24 doubles.  His non-adjusted wRC+ is 117.

 

Ok, so obvious MikeV/LoneStranger jokes aside, why does the backup catcher matter really on a team that's 15 games out?  How much will Recker actually play?  Are Kurt Suzuki's days numbered in Oakland?  Did the A's really send Powell down because of service time issues in order to avoid arbitration with him?  According to the reasonably well informed Cots' Contracts, Landon had 1.153 years of service time before the start of the season.  He could potentially avoid Super-Two status by missing the last month+ of the year. 

 

I'm not very well versed in issue like this, but would the MLBPA not have the ability to file a grievance on Powell's behalf if that was truly the case?  Powell's quote was that he was thankful to the A's and would love to come back next year.

 

In the long run I don't think this has much of an effect on the team.  Powell was a backup, Recker will be a backup, Kurt Suzuki is going to continue to be the starter.  Anybody have any clue why this was done?  The only real reason I can think of is the service time/super two issue.

 

Also, Recker was not on the 40 man roster.  We haven't learned of a corresponding move to free up a spot yet.  I can't help but wonder if someone like Figueroa will be removed.  I'd think if there was something like a Rich Harden or Hideki Matsui waiver trade we'd have heard something by now.

 

But, yeah.  Anyway...  RECKER?????

Comment 146 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Too bad he wasn't up for Saturday's game.

I’ve enjoyed watching/listening to Recker’s play this year.

"The Mrs. and I are moving to San Jose"- dwishinsky

"Oh, so Bud Selig gave you territorial rights? How long did you have to wait for that?"- LoneStranger

by Gaijin_Suketto on Aug 22, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

Someone mentioned that Barton could be placed on the 60-day DL for the corresponding roster move

I find it hard to believe that Powell really needs ABs. Regardless of the reason, I’m excited for the non-stop Recker jokes and seeing how he hits MLB pitching.

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 11:23 AM PDT reply actions  

I totally forgot about him (sorry MO)

that would be the easiest way to get him on the roster without a DFA or a trade.

by Copenhagen on Aug 22, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sigh.

Someday her tombstone will read,
"Here Lies MissOakland Barton. Hot baseball wife, beloved friend, defender of aprons." --Kyli

by MissOakland on Aug 23, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

so… does DL’ing magnuson prove even the A’s forgot about barton?

by AV on Aug 23, 2011 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not like there haven't been fans calling for this.

Those fans are saying, more or less, Powell is meh so give the new guy a chance and see what he’s got. Is it not possible that this is exactly what the A’s are doing? Or even if deep down it’s not, is it not a perfectly plausible answer to any official or unofficial accusation that it was done for the service time reasons? Calling up Recker may or may not be a good move, but it isn’t blatantly unwarranted, so I don’t see how any charge that this is service-time-inspired roster manipulation could stick.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 11:24 AM PDT reply actions  

Sure.

If Recker plays. If he’s called up and sits the bench, like pretty much everybody else they bring up with the exception of Weeks and Allen, I think they have a case.

Especially if Powell actually does miss being a super two and is brought back next year at league minimum.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 22, 2011 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

My hope is that they are sending him down so he can get some regular playing time

and then he’ll get traded to a team that will actually let him play more than once every week or two….

There's no crying in baseball!

by gigglingone on Aug 22, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

Powell was quoted as saying he was told that.

if he actually starts most of the time at AAA then maybe this is part of the reason.

But knowning the A’s, his super-two status played at least some part in the decision.

by OaklandSi on Aug 22, 2011 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

Donaldson had a brief cup of coffee with the A's a while back

not saying that he couldn’t use another cup of coffee. Recker, on the other hand, has not yet been up to MLB. It seems to me that he’s started more games at catcher this season than Donaldson has. Perhaps he’s considered better at the catcher part than Donaldson. In any event, they clearly want to get a look at Recker.

by OaklandSi on Aug 22, 2011 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't get the clamoring for Recker over Donaldson

Career wise they are very similar except Donaldson is a superior defender. Also Recker is going to 28 in a week, very good chance he just turns out to be Matt Carson behind the plate.

by Copenhagen on Aug 22, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

it's just that this year Recker has looked better.

But yes, it could be just an illusory mastery of AAA. Which will get exposed at the big league level…

by Billy Frijoles on Aug 22, 2011 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Doug Fister was traded to the Tigers.

Any chance Recker will face Fister some time?

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 11:25 AM PDT reply actions  

Sept 15-18

I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min

by WaddellCanseco on Aug 22, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think Kurt will need a day off by then.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Doolittle maybe if he can do anything baseball related in the offseason

To the quesion above, I still am certain he nor Figueroa can be DFA’d until they are activated from their respective DL’s.

by Copenhagen on Aug 22, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you can DFA guys who are injured

Am I wrong on this? You can’t option them, or trade them w/o consent. But can’t you DFA them and place them on release waivers?

by dwishinsky on Aug 22, 2011 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

This came up on McC when Rowand was on the DL and they were looking

for a 40 man spot and there too the conclusion was while on the DL you cannot be released, which somewhat confirmed my original suspicion. Though I’ve never seen it written anywhere, it just doesn’t seem to happen.

by Copenhagen on Aug 22, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nope

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/10/3068517/royals-release-kyle-davies-to.html

You can be released.

“Players can be released while on the disabled list. If claimed by another club, they remain on the disabled list for that club.”

by dwishinsky on Aug 22, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

So unless the rule has changed in the past few days...

Haha. But yeah, otherwise a guy could really hamstring someone’s roster especially for guys who if healthy would be sort of borderline as is.

by dwishinsky on Aug 22, 2011 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well it is two different things too, I think what the Giants brass

was saying is a MLBer on the DL cannot be DFA’d while on the DL, but they can be released (since DFA and release are slightly different moves). Also and I misspoke when I referred to Doolitle and DFA since he can’t be DFA’d since he is in the minors (where would he be designated?) but yes it seems a release is possible.

by Copenhagen on Aug 22, 2011 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, well Doolittle

Being in the minors doesnt preclude him from being DFA’d, you can DFA’ing a guy just gets him off the 40-man roster.

by dwishinsky on Aug 22, 2011 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can't see the MLBPA complaining once someone points to his batting average.

Super-Two status is for players who are performing well enough to be on the ML roster with the “big boys.” He’s obviously not cutting it with the bat.

by LoneStranger on Aug 22, 2011 11:35 AM PDT reply actions  

The Super 2 status

Here is how a player acquires it:

[…]To qualify, a player must:
    have at least 2 years of service, but less than 3, and;
    have accumulated at least 86 days of service in the previous year, and;
    rank in the top 17% of all 2-year players in service time.
 
The cutoff point generally falls between 2 years, 128 days of service and 2 years, 140 days.
And, as Mike said:
According to the reasonably well informed Cots’ Contracts, Landon had 1.153 years of service time before the start of the season.
(For those of you who don’t know it, the number behind the point is not a decimal fraction, it’s the number of days above a full service year).

One year of service time is equal to 172 days of service time, although players who play a full year acquire a few days more. This year has 182 days, which means that Powell would have ended the year with 2.163 years of service time and been a sure Super 2 player. However if he spends the remaining 36 days in the minors, he will only have 2.127 years of service, which is historically just short of being a Super 2.

2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too

by elcroata on Aug 22, 2011 11:36 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

The projected cutoff date in April was 2.146

but that is subject to change with various roster moves around MLB, but a decent benchmark to start with.

by Copenhagen on Aug 22, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Anything between 2.128 and 2.162 means

that Powell loses his Super 2 with this move

2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too

by elcroata on Aug 22, 2011 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Very true

I did note it in the first comment, but forgot to point it out in this one. Thanks!

2011 Oakland Athletics: We have Cy Young pitchers and make yours look like it, too

by elcroata on Aug 22, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

thanks for the explanation.

I imagine he will get called back up when rosters expand and he will fall on the bubble for Super 2 status.

While it is kind of messed up to toy with someone’s service time, they have a legitimate reason to send him down. He isn’t hitting at all and we would like to have extended looks at both Donaldson and Recker, so the more time we have, the better.

by Billy Frijoles on Aug 22, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

I did not know this
(For those of you who don’t know it, the number behind the point is not a decimal fraction, it’s the number of days above a full service year).

Thanks Superman!

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

What would be the grounds of a grievance?

I’m not aware of any rule that says you can’t demote a guy just for his arby clock. Is there one?

I mean, suppose the A’s were to come right out and admit it. Something like, “Yes, that’s true. We do what we feel is best for the organization. In this case, either guy would mostly just sit on the bench, and on the few occasions that the back-up catcher actually plays Recker and Powell are about equally promising. That being the case, we decided to do it the way that probably preserves our control over Powell for one more year. Powell at ML-minimum salary is a valuable asset for us which we’d prefer to preserve into 2012.”

Of course I realize the A’s don’t want to say that, because it makes them look like shitheads, and they’ll want to instead spin it in some way that sounds more positive about Recker’s bat. But even if they did admit to that, what rule is there in the CBA or in general labor law that says they can’t do that?

Most of the MLBPA grievances I can remember have to do with injury or disciplinary suspensions where the team has to show cause and the MLBPA can argue that they failed to show sufficient cause. Does a team have to show cause for demoting someone, or can they just send down anyone they want as long as they meet the various service time and option years requirements? The CBA does have plenty of service-time-related rules saying who can be optioned down, but the A’s wouldn’t be violating those here. Indeed, they’d be following the natural consequences of them.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 12:03 PM PDT reply actions  

I think if the union or perhaps the player's agent feels a demotion is service time related

they could file one. My guess is if it was shown that it is related to service time said player would get his accrued time. There was talk about the Morrison demotion that a grievance could be filed and if won he would get his time restored but one was never filed. And they was an issue with JJ Hardy a few years back as well.

You are correct that under the grievance section of the CBA it does not list service time related issues at all but with all talk in the past about tinkering with players service time I guess it is an avenue that can be explored through the union.

by Copenhagen on Aug 22, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

This seems like one of those "mutually-assured hurt" situations

Yeah, the union could fight it as a service time issue, but with the CBA negotiations coming up, the union may not want to take this on for fear of the owners telling them to stick it for something else they might want if they won. (If the players got a win, every demotion where service time could be implicated might be implicated from then on.) Or, better yet, in the interest of preserving labor peace, both sides may just hang back until the new CBA is signed.

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

his weird butt

I’ve asked this before, but people say he has a weird looking butt: what’s so weird or unusual about it? I think he’s very cute.

by Cassi on Aug 22, 2011 12:23 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

When answering, provide illustrations.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

I've never heard "weird" in describing Powell's butt

one of my coworkers LOVES his behind…

There's no crying in baseball!

by gigglingone on Aug 22, 2011 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was referring to Recker

I’ve heard people describe his butt as weird, not Powell’s. Powell just looks kinda chubby and big boned to me.

by Cassi on Aug 22, 2011 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I just really, really wanted to use that headline.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 22, 2011 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well of course.

In the process, you let the cat out of the bag.

I'm here to talk about the past.

by 67MARQUEZ on Aug 22, 2011 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hah.

This was like a 10 minute tossed together sack of crap fanpost.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 22, 2011 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Kurt Suzuki is batting .237/.298/.372 since the start of the 2010 season and hasn't been that good defensively.

I hope Anthony Recker starts five or six times a week just to see what we may have with him, but it won’t happen.

"You're all like big, fat failure turtles." - Edge

by Rated-R Superstar on Aug 22, 2011 12:26 PM PDT reply actions  

I wanted to start this thread

but deferred to its proper owner.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Aug 22, 2011 12:32 PM PDT reply actions  

I notice Rebuilding Season pulled back his as well.

I’m not usually big on deferring to seniority, but in this case I agree that mikev owns this.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

If the charge against the A's is money-grubbing roster dickery,

then calling up Recker instead of Donaldson would tend to argue against that.

Donaldson has been on a 25-man roster before, so his minimum salary status would remain unchanged. Recker has not, so by calling him up they would bump his minor league minimum salary from $32,500 to $65,000. (Those are pre-COLA 2010 figures; I believe it went up in 2011 but don’t have the numbers on hand.)

Note that’s his minimum for minor-league service. For as long as he’s in the majors, he gets the major-league minimum of $400,000 (again, pre-COLA). But as soon as he’s sent down again he’s now locked in to the $65K minimum instead of the $32.5K minimum.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 12:36 PM PDT reply actions  

But isn't that dwarfed by the money the A's would save if there indeed is a service time gambit going on with Powell?

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

I dunno.

I suppose you could calculate the expected difference between Powell at ML-minimum and what Powell could expect to get in arbitration, and say that the difference is how much the A’s save.

In reality, I don’t think Powell ever goes to arbitration. I think if they can save him from being Super Two they keep him one more year. If they can’t and he become arbitration-eligible, then they cut him loose and sign Donaldson or Recker to be the new ML-minimum backup.

If this is really being done for Super Two reasons, then it’s being done because the A’s want to keep Powell another year. More likely, they’re keeping their options open. Promoting Recker lets them get a look at him (as backup). If they like what they see, they can cut Powell loose and keep Recker as next year’s backup; if they don’t , they can stash Recker back in AAA for another year and Powell is still cheap for 2012.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd say 600-650k if he was a super two,

using Jesus Flores as an example he got 750k (avoiding arb) at 2.158 (rough guess off Cot’s data) and anywhere between 420k (current salary) and no more the 500k if not a super two.

by Copenhagen on Aug 22, 2011 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ok, so why is his salary even an issue then?

Does 200k really matter enough to the A’s that they would manipulate service time like this?

I’m willing to take their explanation at face value.

by thelincolndude on Aug 23, 2011 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Harden not going anywhere
@Buster_ESPN
Buster Olney
Rich Harden was pulled back from waivers after being claimed. Cleveland, the team awarded the claim, couldn’t work out a deal.
17 minutes ago via web

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 12:57 PM PDT reply actions  

wow

The A’s like Harden, it seems.

by DDroney on Aug 22, 2011 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or, "43rd best prospect" was offered

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, Boston tried to screw the A's and reneg on their initial deal.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 22, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Supposedly

Either way, they were scared off after seeing Harden’s physicals, which is absolute hilarity.

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

The report that came out later said

that what made Boston back down is finding out that Harden was taking a cortisone shot after every start this year. That is what prompted Boston to insist on making the PTBNL conditional on how many starts Harden made.

That’s according to Gammons in a pre-game interview on a Boston broadcast, a couple of days after the trade deadline.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Clarification.

Cortisone shot after every start is what I read from a commenter on the Red Sox SBN blog. He was reporting what he heard from Gammons on the pre-game show.

Looking around, I see others elsewhere have referenced the Gammons interview, and they only specify that Harden took a cortisone shot for his first start back. Possibly the commenter I first saw misreported that as after every start.

In any case, Gammons definitely connected the Red Sox’s change of heart on the trade to at least one cortisone shot, not just reading the medical reports generally, as was spread around in all the pre-draft-deadline buzz.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

the question is, is that true

either way, dumb and possibly bad faith move by the red sox

We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley

by Future Ed on Aug 22, 2011 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

then the Gammons claim is dumb

We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley

by Future Ed on Aug 23, 2011 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

To help make this less speculative,

here are a few links. First, the comment I read on Over the Monster. He clearly says that Gammons said Harden was taking a shot after every start:

the PTBNL in the Harden trade was an A ball pitcher with a lot of potential. According to Gammons, the way the whole situation went down is they agreed on a trade, then, upon reviewing the medical records, they found that Harden was only pitching by taking a cortisone shot after every start. So Theo wanted to include a medical insurance clause where the A’s would only get the PTBNL if Harden remained healthy enough to make 8 more starts. Clearly, Beane had no faith in that.

No one else on the thread disputed that, but then no one else commented at all.

I have not found any other mention of the Gammons interview that corroborates that. Everything else suggests just one shot. For example, this comment on Sons of Sam Horn:

Gammons on MLB Network said that Harden had a cortisone shot after start #1 this year. Sox countered with Lars Anderson + PTBNL (an “A” pitching prospect) if Harden makes 8+ starts or makes playoff roster. Just Lars Anderson if Harden failed to meet those incentives. Beane balked.

(My googling on this also turned up stories, like this one on Fantasy Source Baseball, reminding us that Rich has had cortisone shots in years past, too.)

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 23, 2011 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure I believe that.

I don’t see any way a doctor would allow cortisone shots in the same area every 5 days.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 23, 2011 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

I remember Steve Young doing those shots for his ribs every game for a little while

But I could be remembering wrong. And 7 days is less frequent than 5 days too.

by Billy Frijoles on Aug 23, 2011 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

My guess is the first guy quoted

got it wrong, and there was really just the one shot.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 24, 2011 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

My Dr limits it to no more than 1 every 6 months.

 Which, since Rich wouldn’t need one in April, amounts to 1 per season.

"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."

by Tutu-late on Aug 24, 2011 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't care about the shot/shots

but Beane was stupid to not agree to the clause. You still get Lars Anderson either way.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Aug 23, 2011 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, he wasn't.

The clause came AFTER they had agreed upon a deal already. Look at the quote that iglew has up above:

They agreed to a trade
THEN
Boston looked at Harden’s medical records
THEN
Theo wanted to include the clause about the number of starts he made.

Nope. Fuck that. You agree to a deal, do your homework first. If Theo wanted a clause in the deal, that should have been a part of the deal, not an addendum after he already agreed.

That’s terrible bargaining on Theo’s part.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 23, 2011 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't really care about the sequence of events

Who knows exactly when the records were requested, and exactly how quickly the A’s delivered them? In any case, the bottom line is that you still get something of value for Harden, and if he starts eight times, you get something of GREAT value for him. That’s a chance well worth taking.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Aug 24, 2011 7:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not when it affects your ability to make deals down the line.

If Billy would have accepted the trade, it would have shown that he’s willing to let other GMs get over on him and change deals after they’ve been accepted.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 24, 2011 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'll have to agree to disagree, then

Even if the timeline happened exactly as supposed, I don’t see why changing a deal based on new information is a bad thing. And, I don’t see why the change made the deal itself any less palatable. It’s still better than what we’re going to get for Harden this offseason, which is nothing.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Aug 24, 2011 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Because the deal was already agreed to.

and then Boston tried to change it after the fact.

It’s not Billy’s fault that Theo didn’t know Harden was an injury risk. He should have done his homework BEFORE agreeing to Anderson and a PTBNL. That’s the entire point — it’s really got nothing to do with getting something for Harden, it’s on a more basic level. Don’t agree to a trade and then try to change the terms after agreeing. That’s horrible negotiation tactics and Beane was 100% correct in declining the deal when it happened.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 24, 2011 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

I just don't see it that way.

If new information becomes available to you, it would be stupid not to utilize it. Again, when were the records requested, and when were they received?

I see no reason to believe it fell through simply because Beane thought Anderson alone was not enough for Harden, in which case, he is mistaken.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Aug 24, 2011 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

not to believe, I mean.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Aug 24, 2011 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well

If I were Theo, I would not agree to a deal before receiving all the information I wanted. If he said he would do Anderson and a PTBNL before looking at medical records, how exactly is that Beane’s fault?

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 24, 2011 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

That isn't Beane's fault.

All I question is him rejecting the adjusted offer, which could have netted him the PBTNL anyway, and still nets something of value.

The way I look at it is like the process of buying a house. The buyer and the seller agree upon a price, but if the inspection turns up unexpected issues, surely they’ll negotiate an adjusted price. That’s no reflection on either party, just making changes based on new information.

I don’t see any reason why Beane needs to reject the adjusted deal in this case.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Aug 24, 2011 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe he thinks Harden is worth more.

You may not, but it is his call.

"Trying not to rec a "F**k the Giants" post is like trying not to look at boobs."

by Tutu-late on Aug 24, 2011 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah.

They pulled the PTBNL after reading the medical reports. It’s still shitty business. I can’t imagine Boston saying, “Oh, wow! It looks like Harden might be an injury risk!” Seems like they tried to pull a fast one. Fuck that.

by NateHST on Aug 22, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think that's about it.

however, the part that was more important was that Boston agreed to a deal and then tried to change the terms, and Billy rightly told Boston to fuck off

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 22, 2011 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

this

We yet enjoy little to be envied, but endure much to be pitied.-Thomas Dudley

by Future Ed on Aug 22, 2011 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

They were like

We have this Ubaldo guy… 9.00 ERA in the Majors…

Haha

by dwishinsky on Aug 22, 2011 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

LOL

Dude has gotten shelled. It was bound to happen going from facing the dangerous Giants, Dodgers, and Padres.

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Perhaps the Indians don't want them for themselves

but wanted to keep him from the Tigers?

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

I love you.

Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor - Pam liked my old sig better.
My thoughtful watermelon is easily mistook for an early American catapult.
DURRRR THEY’RE TOO OLD, BABIP IS TOO HIGH, TOO MANY Ks, DURRRRRR

by mikev on Aug 22, 2011 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Re: Harden and Crisp

I wonder what was offered. My guess is, garbage. If so…good for Beane not caving.

by guy incognito on Aug 22, 2011 4:02 PM PDT reply actions  

This is what I've always been confused about

What’s to stop teams from just claiming everyone and say “We offer (insert Rookie Ball DH with no future here)” and then "oops, we couldn’t get a deal done.

by Rebuilding Season on Aug 22, 2011 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

If they both don't sign extensions before the end of the year, what was the point of keeping them?

Didn’t Harden say he’d come back anyway if we did trade him now? Why not get a player back that we control for many years for what, 4 starts?

This is insane. Why are we keeping vets around when we are 5768 games out of 1st? I used to always just trust Beane and usually he rewarded me, but stuff like this is just plain stupid.

by PL78 on Aug 22, 2011 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

maybe Beane prefers to have a healthy Harden giving Melvin good starts

instead of trading him for useless non-prospects. In fact, Beane has said something along those lines about wanting Melvin to have some good players to work with for the duration of this season. i think his words were something like not wanting to “strip-mine” the club out of respect for Melvin.

by OaklandSi on Aug 22, 2011 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

you notice how fans are still going to games?

In past moribund seasons I seem to remember attendance badly tailing off. This year people are still coming, and I think it is in part to the fact that they recognize the players on the field…

by Billy Frijoles on Aug 22, 2011 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Certainly folks want to root for Willingham and, now, Brandon Allen...even Matsui.

I know I pay more attention when they’re batting. It’s hard NOT to feel good about any of them.

Hey dad, I got this guy's autograph, Rollie
Fingers. Who's he?

by WhizDad on Aug 22, 2011 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agree with this, at least for Harden

Rich Harden is going to get hurt again, it’s just a matter of time. If the Indians wanted to give us ANYTHING for him, he should be gone.

"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico

by jeepers on Aug 23, 2011 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, nothing.

To a certain extent, teams do exactly that.

A few issues, though. Top priority goes to the lowest W-L record in the player’s league. Therefore, it’s the losing teams who have the opportunity to block the winning teams from getting guys. They do indeed use this blocking ability sometimes.

Ultimately the risk is that the waiving team will release the player. If so, then the team that claimed the player inherits the contract. Now if it’s a good contract, hey, no problem. If it’s a bad contract then a team that claims everyone in sight might suddenly end up with a gigantic payroll for a bunch of players they didn’t want.

That’s exactly why guys who are overpaid usually clear waivers, and guys who are underpaid usually don’t.

Another consideration is that hundreds of guys will be put through waivers in August. You could do your homework on every one and determine which you’re willing to claim, but that’s a lot of time spent that is 99% sure to be a waste of time, because the owning team knows the player better than you do, so if he really is a good deal they’ll pull him back and if he really is a lemon they’ll stick you with him, and besides that unless you’re at the bottom of the rankings a good deal is going to get nabbed by another team before it gets to you.

So more realistically, teams only respond to guys who are at least somewhat on their radar already and don’t take the trouble to examine every waiver.

But again, they really do claim a lot of them. It’s quite possible that Harden was claimed by several other teams downstream of Cleveland. Most August waivers are blocked, as Harden was. That’s why trades after July 31 are rare.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Here's a nice description of August waivers

from SBN’s Jeff Sullivan.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks, that's a great explanation

Any idea why the window for teams to work out a trade for a claimed player is 48 1/2 hours? That’s very odd.

by Glorious Mundy on Aug 22, 2011 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, the window to make the claim is 47 hours.

I’m guessing it was originally conceived as 48 hours for each, but they cut an hour out of the first period to give the league time to register the claims and announce the results and then later they cut that hour down to just a half hour.

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 22, 2011 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

There might be more going on than we know of.

It might also be that the A’s are ready to deal Powell and send him off.

We must remember that Powell does have a lot of health issues himself that will prevent him ever becoming a full time catcher (knee issues, and an auto immune disease).

Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

by Zonis on Aug 22, 2011 10:13 PM PDT reply actions  

Giants need a catcher, badly

They (and he) could do far worse.

Hey dad, I got this guy's autograph, Rollie
Fingers. Who's he?

by WhizDad on Aug 22, 2011 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

They can have Kurt and we can keep Powell

"Once you go Bed....everything else is dead." - Bed
"So you're saying we should skin the Rangers and wear them as uniforms? I’m down." - Kyli

by cuppingmaster on Aug 22, 2011 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

He's a San Franciscan 39!

Get out the time-fracture wickets, Hobbes! We're gonna play Calvinball!

by UrgentMirth on Aug 23, 2011 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Official move
Athletics
#Athletics select Anthony Recker from Sacramento; transfer Trystan Magnuson to the 60-day disabled list.

by Copenhagen on Aug 23, 2011 11:23 AM PDT reply actions  

Hi folks-- long time no see

Iglew told me there was a CBA-related question about Powell, so I figured (as the resident, if slumbering, labor law junkie) that I’d take a stab at an answer. Inevitable disclaimers: first, I am not a lawyer (yet, at least), and this is solely a personal guess, which is worth exactly as much as you’re paying me for it; second, it obviously does NOT reflect any kind of position of the Labor Board on this issue…

Here goes anyway.

The grievance procedure in the CBA is pretty broad. Here’s the relevant language:

"Grievance" shall mean a complaint which involves the
existence or interpretation of, or compliance with, any agreement,
or any provision of any agreement, between the Association and the
Clubs or any of them, or between a Player and a Club.

And then there are some (for our purposes) irrelevant provisos about benefit plans, publicity rights, and a bunch of other crap no one here cares about. In plain English, what this means is that any time there’s a dispute over either the meaning of a player’s contract, or the breach of one, there can be a grievance over it.

However, as far as I can tell from the MLB rules, the CBA, and the uniform player contract, the grounds on which a player can object to assignment to the minors are pretty limited: there are restrictions on assigning players with a lot of major league service time (irrelevant to Super Twos), restrictions on assigning injured players, and that’s about it. There’s no general provision that an assignment can only be made for good cause, very unlike the termination provision (which can only be invoked for certain specific causes like insufficient skill, or misconduct).

I suppose the player could, in theory, argue to the arbitrator that the team had breached the implied covenant of good faith by making an assignment to the minors. However, that argument generally only applies when one party acts to frustrate legitimate but un-vested expectations of the other party (classic example: terminating a salesperson just before he is going to receive a huge commission on a sale). This would be a better argument if Powell’s salary was performance-incentive based and the team demoted him to avoid the incentive. (I’m not even sure that would work— I dimly remember a provision which extinguishes any claim to incentive clauses under some circumstances, though my sleep-deprived brain could be inventing that one.) Since he’s still going to get paid his contractual salary in the minors, it’s hard to argue that any legitimate expectations are being frustrated by team action.

Precedent-wise, I’ve yet to see a grievance filed solely on grounds that the team demoted a player who was better than his replacement. The examples cited above (Morrison, who was demoted nominally for ducking a team function, and Hardy, who didn’t file because he concluded it was probably hopeless) aren’t really comparable. Other service-time related grievance situations that a quick Google search turned up, like Francisco Liriano and Glen Perkins, always related to injury (as did the infamous Brad Halsey situation).

[On the bright side, that search also led me to Aaron Gleeman’s site, and in turn to several galleries worth of previously unseen-by-me Mila Kunis pictures, so this search wasn’t a complete waste of time.]

Frankly, if Hardy didn’t grieve what happened to him, I can’t see this argument ever being a winner. That was as cut-and-dried a case as you’ll ever find, short of some kind of smoking-gun admission by a GM.

"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 Aug 24, 2011 9:21 PM PDT reply actions  

Pee Tee!!!!!!!

Hope law school is treating you well, and verse vice-a.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Aug 24, 2011 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks, Paul

Being wrong about something you’ve worked on is a blessing, not a curse, and people are so invested in being right that that gets lost. —Graham MacAree

by iglew on Aug 25, 2011 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Whoa, PT!

Excellent summary.
Thanks and best of luck.

by harensheir15 on Aug 25, 2011 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks Paul

Congrats on finishing the bar.

by Glorious Mundy on Aug 25, 2011 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

is your beer super cold? duuude! you just passed the bar exam!

by AV on Aug 25, 2011 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
A's relocation option from a legal expert on the issue
Oakland_athletics_team_logo_photofile_small
Prospects 1Q Report

Recent FanPosts

100_1536_small
My new smarts on the Fanpost, and Mr. Offseason is born, and getting to know me
Small
GOG 2012 #18: The Twins have a shiny new park, and not much else
Small
Gotta Be Their Pitching
Hardly-boys_small
Minor League notes on Major League Day Off
Small
Cespedes Upate?
Small
The SF Warriors, the LA Raiders and the Oakland A's
Photo__11__small
COG #17 - Yankees vs. Athletics or Spank me! Spank me!
100_1536_small
What to do? What to do?
Small
Fans Should Buy the A's
Reg3_small
Tom Milone's Nickname

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Sb_nation1_small ahhall

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late