A's should sign Manny Ramirez & Roy Oswalt

by dougald1 on Jan 5, 2012 4:37 PM PST

The A's should think about signing Manny Ramirez and Roy Oswalt.

Let us start with Manny. While most of you would think signing Manny is not a good idea, I will try to put to you a plan that would make it worthwhile for the A's. Manny has been suspended by MLB for 50 games. He is looking to come back to majors. It is likely that many teams would not be interest in waiting and dealing with the whole "Manny" thing. So if the A's were to sign Manny to a major league deal that pays him the minimum, but has a bonus system built in, so that when he is activated (after the 50 games is served) he could make more.

The A's would then keep him "locked away" for the 50 games and then trade him. If there is no interest, they could always just cut him. The basic idea is based around, $150,000 bet. You pay Manny for 50 days and then hope that you can sell him off. Likely the A's would have no interest in keeping him, but if they can trade him.

Manny would be interest, because he just wants to get the 50 games done and should understand that he is getting moved soon after the 50 games are up and likely to a team in the hunt. The question becomes, is it worth the cash to try to get more cash or a prospect in the future? Would the A's risk the $150K?

Signing Roy Oswalt is also a bet. If the A's were to sign Roy, for between 8 and 12 million of which 2 to 4 million was a signing bonus the A's would get a few positive points. First, it puts more on the payroll, and if MLB is hot and bothered, about getting the A's to a 40-50 million payroll. this signing gets the A's there. While the A's are getting near that amount, with the Coco signing, they might not stay there, if they trade away Balfour or Fuentes. Second, the A's get a veteran pitcher that gives them one more arm, early in the season to keep a Parker, Peacock or Milone in AAA. And third, and best of all, he is a great chip to trade in June. With the Red Sox rolling out Silva and the Yanks guys like Garcia and Colon, it is very likely that one or two teams would kill to get an Oswalt come June or July.

Problems...well first and formost....is Roy healthy? Sure there is risk. But not my call, but if the A's think he is they should get him.

I guess this comes down to, if the A's would risk money to buy a guy they want to flip. I would think they would be happy paying a few million just to keep Parker and Co down. How much is a B or B+ prospect you might get in a deal? This idea is like what the A's were going to do with Sheets, but he got hurt and screwed up that.

There has been much talk about signing a Ross or a Ludwick. The problem with signing those guys if the A's want to flip them, is that they are still just Ludwick and Ross. They will not get much for them. Add to the idea that hitters come to the Oakland Colisum to die, why bother with hitters you want to flip (Manny is different, because he is not playing). The nice thing about Roy, is that the upside is big. Cost is more but the win is much more. Playing in the Colisum will help Roy.

Anyway, that is it. Hope you enjoy.

Tweet Comment 43 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Roy probably has zero interest in playing in Oakland

Manny would 1st have to show he can hit again, but he would be worth a gamble if league min and I would expect once he starts playing, he would put fans in the seats…..but so would Barry Bonds

Lance "you sunk my" Blankenship

by ryanmoser on Jan 5, 2012 7:51 PM PST reply actions

He might be interested if it pays millions more

Especially if it comes with an assurance that if the A’s are out of it they will make a sincere effort to flip him to a contender.

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 6, 2012 11:37 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah I think Oswalt would def have interest on a 1-yr

Pump up your numbers playing in a pitcher-friendly park with a near 100% assurance to be traded to a team in a pennant race. Sounds good to me.

Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!

by dwishinsky on Jan 6, 2012 5:10 PM PST up reply actions

We're rebuilding...

Why Roy Oswalt…or even Manny for that matter? Get the young guns in there!

Wade Hines

by Wader on Jan 6, 2012 12:05 AM PST reply actions

6 month

In 6 months both would be gone, traded for more young guns

by dougald1 on Jan 6, 2012 2:05 AM PST up reply actions

I think he answered this question in the post

Ideally both would be used to amass prospects to help the rebuilding. If not, Manny would at least provide entertainment and Oswalt would delay service time of young pitchers.

If we sign Oswalt to a reasonable 2 year deal then the potential to cash out is good, teams will know they’ll have him not just for a couple months, but the following year as well. Plus it would be nice to watch him pitch for the couple months he would be here.

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 6, 2012 11:39 AM PST up reply actions

Also, Playing with Manny >> Any hitting coach.

I’d venture to say that simply watching Manny in action would contribute more to developing young hitters than any hitting coach.

Most arguments are really about context.

by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 12, 2012 3:42 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, no

Manny would have zero value under this scenario, and Oswalt wouldn’t be much higher.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Jan 6, 2012 10:08 AM PST reply actions

You can't really say Oswalt's value would be low

If he pitches well, his value will be high. It just depends on his performance. Especially if you get him on a 2 year deal. Last year Mike Adams netted a good haul, one of the main reasons is because he wasn’t just a 2 month rental.

Oswalt is an established, successful, SP, if he performs at a good level, then it will be easy to send him to a team that needs pitching to stay in the hunt. Injuries to SPs happen a lot, and depending on when there will always be suitors out there for a guy like Oswalt if he has proven to be healthy.

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 6, 2012 11:42 AM PST up reply actions

Oswalt, sure

But the Manny thing is completely unrealistic, especially if the thought is to send him somewhere else just after his suspension is over.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Jan 6, 2012 11:55 AM PST up reply actions

agreed.

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 6, 2012 2:09 PM PST up reply actions

Manny

I guess the Manny question comes down to this, is 150K a low enough amount to gamble that he might have trade value after the 50 games are up. Not sure how the 50 game suspention works. If he is just working out on his own, and come the end of the suspention the A’s send him to Sacramento for two week. Do teams come looking if he is hitting in AAA. If he sucks, then cut him. The A’s maybe be paying Powell 750K this year to be down in AAA. Even if the A’s trade many for a C grade prospect, that is worth 150K, I would think.

by dougald1 on Jan 6, 2012 5:24 PM PST up reply actions

I think Manny with his years of service time can refuse a minor league assignment

And he would.

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 6, 2012 5:56 PM PST up reply actions

Can Manny play in minor league games

While Manny serves his 50 games, can he play in the minors? If he can not play down there, he would have to play someplace to get back facing live pitching. No team will sign him cold and add him to their 25 man right away. The A’s would likely sign him to a deal that says he does “his time” and then he goes to AA or AAA for no more than 30 games. If not called up after the 30 day window, he can become a free agent. Players offen sign deals like this.

Manny will have to play some games in the minor, just to get ready. If he does not want to be in the minors, he will never play in the majors again.

by dougald1 on Jan 6, 2012 7:43 PM PST up reply actions

A suspension is a suspension. He's not allowed to go playing in other leagues while he's serving it.

Last of the Ninth - Photography

by Flashfire on Jan 6, 2012 8:16 PM PST up reply actions

I suppose you could structure a deal that way with the window

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 7, 2012 7:51 AM PST up reply actions

do not

I do not see any team making a deal with Manny, that does not have him playing in the minors for a few weeks.

In fact it is better if he is not even allowed near the team until his 50 games are up. The best case scenario is he stays home, and works out, then goes to Sac. for two weeks and is traded even before he is called up. It costs $150 to $200 K and a spot on the 40 man for 70 days. By June 15 maybe A Rod or Ortiz or Morneau are hurt and off goes Manny.

Do not get me wrong, I have no interest in Manny playing for the A’s, do not want him hanging around the young players and giving them bad habits. As I recall, Manny is a flake, but he works very hard on his hitting, so the young kids thing might not be an issue. This Manny and/or Roy plan is based on cash, that may have to be spent into the best pospects the A’s can get.

by dougald1 on Jan 7, 2012 11:19 AM PST up reply actions

That's what I meant, basically after the suspension you could sign him to a minor league deal

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 9, 2012 4:19 PM PST up reply actions

suspention

I believe he needs to be signed by someone to be able to serve the suspention. Not sure just missing the the first 50 games counts.

by dougald1 on Jan 9, 2012 5:58 PM PST up reply actions

I think

it can be called a “rehab” assignment, or something like that, and he could be sent down for up to 10 games. He could certainly refuse an actual minor league assignment, but if he is not in playing shape, I think the team can send him down for a limited about of time, to get ready to play.

by RayJEdd on Jan 12, 2012 7:27 AM PST up reply actions

30

As I recall, rehab assignments can be up to 30 day.

It might have changed, I think there was a idea about teams putting “injured” rule 5 picks down in the minors to hide them, and not have to give them back.

by dougald1 on Jan 12, 2012 11:36 AM PST up reply actions

I don't think this would work

Anyone who wants Manny can just sign him now. There’s no way a team gives up anything of value for him without seeing him hit. I guess they could take the gamble and see if there’s room to squeeze him in for a month or two showcase, but that seems like a long shot. There would have to be a lot of injuries, because young players should take precedence.

Also, what’s in it for Oswalt? I can envision a scenario where he’s worth a lot at the deadline, but I can’t envision one where he signs with Oakland knowing they’re just going to try to trade him in a few months.

by laserbeams on Jan 6, 2012 10:40 AM PST reply actions

If he's traded in a few months

it’d be to someone who needs an extra starting pitcher. The only teams that are looking to add a starter at the deadline are contenders. Re-establish value by pitching in a pitcher-friendly park. Having a shot at the postseason for half the year. Most players want to go to a contender. This would be a round about way of doing it, but I could see a smart pitcher wanting to do that.

That said, I think if we do pick up a starter it’d more likely be Harden. He likes pitching in Oakland, he doesn’t seem to mind being flipped to a contender. He’d probably be cheaper. He does have trade value as last season proved. He could maybe net us a C+ prospect.

by Maverick10126 on Jan 6, 2012 11:03 AM PST up reply actions

Harden

The problem with Harden, is he is always hurt or about to be hurt. While he costs less, the A’s likely get little for him, even if he is pitching great.

Oswalt is much more healthy. If he has a dozen starts to begin the season, teams looking at him will think, “ok, he is back and ready to pitch my team to the playoffs”. If Hardern starts a dozen games, the say “ok, when was the last time he went this many starts? I am not sure he will last….”

by dougald1 on Jan 6, 2012 5:16 PM PST up reply actions

Agreed on Manny, I don't see any team wanting him, but it's not a terrible idea even if we keep him (purely for entertainment value)

You can always cut him. Also, I can imagine a scenario 50 games in where nearly everyone in the 1B/DH/OF mix are hitting in the low .200s or worse, and then we can at least be entertained by Manny coming into the picture as the DH. I doubt any team will take him though, for a contender he is likely more of a headache than he is worth, even if he is hitting well on the league minimum.

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 6, 2012 11:47 AM PST up reply actions

The problem is....

that by its very definition, any free agent you sign will not contain any excess value above the cost of their contract at the contract signing. So you are basically betting that a FA can increase their value enough in a few months to convince someone to pay more than what they are already obligated for (the remaider of the contract.).

If you want to argue that some player is ripe to out perform whatever contract they sign, then maybe there would be some value to capture, but that is normally a risky bet, because if it was really that likely, then someone else would just sign them for a larger contract.

Another way to do it would be through contract structure, but again, you are basically agreeing to over pay someone early, so that they can be under paid later, and have some excess value later. Of course the same could be accomplished by just including $$ in the trade towards the players future salary.

I guess you could argue that access to unique park dimensions or unusually gifted coaches could increase someone’s value, but an aquireing team would likely be able to decipher this with some park neutral stats.

Perhaps simply from a supply/demand standpoint a particular talent set would be worth more to some other team in the future, after they experiance an injury or identiy how many additional WAR they may need to catch a playoff spot. But you are still betting that the particular talent set that you signed in expectation of this event is indeed the talent set they are looking for. (and that the player you signed is not the one that ended up injured.)

In general, I would probably not target 34-38 year old big name players, to out perform their contract..

by RayJEdd on Jan 6, 2012 12:08 PM PST reply actions

well we care more about prospects than money

Hell we can even eat salary when trading if it helps get us the guy we want, so outperforming the contract isn’t the analysis.

I think the real point is that if Oswalt is healthy and pitching decently, there will be demand for him from contenders. Injuries and just general lack of good starting pitching will contribute to the demand. Doesn’t really matter if he is outperforming the contract, more if he is outperforming a team’s current #4 SP.

by Billy Frijoles on Jan 6, 2012 2:13 PM PST up reply actions

Money

If MLB want the A’s to spend 40 to 50 million, then signing Oswalt works.

The Cubs just sent 15.5 million with Zambrano to get a young pitcher back. They had already spent the money, so why not send the cash and Zambrano and get something for the future. So if the MLB is making the A’s spend the money, getting Oswalt is a cost that the A’s are locked into anyway. Sure they could sign Ross or Ludwick, but they likely have no or little trade value.

by dougald1 on Jan 6, 2012 5:08 PM PST up reply actions

It's a nice idea

But distilling this idea down to its core, what you’re wanting to do is essentially buy prospects from other teams. In many senses, that’s where this idea, taken to the extreme, would go. We’re not competing, so here’s some money from us to you to buy more awesome free agents. In exchange, you give us your future talent.

It may not be all that plausible, but I for one would take this plan over watching Cody Ross block a youngster and perform maybe league average for us next year.

by Ciderbeck on Jan 6, 2012 4:40 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

yes

In effect the idea for both player is to spend money in an effort to get young players from other teams. In the June draft the A’s or any team will pay a few million or more to sign a first round pick. Signing a Oswalt to a 10 million dollar deal, then having him pitch for half the season then sending him to a team, is kinda like purchasing a prospect that is further along than the college kid and a bit more money. If the A’s need to spend the money anyway, why not get a player that other teams will want?

And as you say, Ross blocks young outfielders, which is bad. Oswalt blocks young pitchers, and that is good.

by dougald1 on Jan 6, 2012 5:00 PM PST up reply actions

I'd rather them just spend money to sign Jorge Soler.

Oswalt would be nice if we could get anything in return for him. Harden would be cheap and we almost got back a couple of good players last year from the Red Sox until that trade fell through.

I have no interest in bringing Manny in. I have no interest in Cody Ross. And neither is really about the money. I just don’t think they’re necessary pieces to add to the team. I just don’t think Manny would bring back enough value in a trade if anyone even wants him. I feel the same about Cody Ross.

by Cartwright on Jan 6, 2012 6:14 PM PST reply actions

Soler

I agree Solar would be better, but if that does not happen….Oswalt is a nice plan B.

by dougald1 on Jan 6, 2012 7:35 PM PST up reply actions

No They Should Not

rage

by elBONESAW on Jan 6, 2012 6:39 PM PST reply actions

Agreed

by Trainman on Jan 6, 2012 10:19 PM PST up reply actions

Manny being Manny

Manny wouldn’t be worth it for the discord and general madness.

It would never swing with Melvin, I don’t think. Too much of a distraction, and about as bad an example as you could find for all the younger guys. Clubhouse matters; look how the team started last year, and then there’s the whole Jeremy Giambi in “Moneyball” bit. Manny would be like a JeremyGiambi explosion in Melvin’s face every day.

Oswalt would be a good one to take a flyer on. Class act; will obviously rock in Oakland if his back holds up; trade value for a contender.

by LunaCI on Jan 6, 2012 11:45 PM PST reply actions

manny being manny

Very understandable

by dougald1 on Jan 7, 2012 5:42 AM PST reply actions

Mark Teahen

Will the A’s consider the former Moneyball first round pick from St. Mary’s as he was designated for assignment by the Bluejays? Could play both third and the OF.

by cowman on Jan 9, 2012 12:23 PM PST reply actions

Money

Teahen in the last year of his deal and gets 5.5 million, so guess that after he gets cut (in 10 days) maybe you can add him to the Ludwick and Ross list.

On a side note, seem like a missed deal. With the Jays signing Oliver for 4.5 million today, and cutting Teahen, they are spending 9.6 million on this move to add a lefty in the pen. Too bad, the A’s did not pull off a Fuentes for Teahen and a prospect deal. The Jays could have saved themselves 4.5 million at the cost of a prospect! Maybe that show how much prospects are worth?

by dougald1 on Jan 9, 2012 3:46 PM PST up reply actions