Loaiza The Windows To The Soul

I don't know exactly why

but I just have a good feeling about the signing. That's not exactly the stats-backed position I usually take, but I'm going to go with it. We'll see how much crow I'll have to eat at this time next year...

Go A's -- Nebraska

by Ryan Armbrust on Dec 10, 2005 12:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

No way

Makes way too much sense, not nearly a byzantine enough plot for our GM :)

Okay, maybe you're right.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 10, 2005 12:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

didn't you post this a few days ago

INNINGS PITCHED >= 600
STRIKEOUTS/WALKS >= 2.5
STRIKEOUTS/9 IP >= 6.5

ERA IP SO/BB SO/9 IP
1 Johan Santana 2.83 618 4.60 9.79
2 Roger Clemens 2.92 637.1 2.98 8.37
3 Pedro Martinez 3.02 620.2 4.14 9.29
4 Roy Oswalt 3.16 606 3.58 7.40
5 Jason Schmidt 3.24 604.2 3.00 9.29
6 Ben Sheets 3.49 614.1 5.62 8.23
7 Esteban Loaiza 4.02 626.1 2.73 7.14
8 Bartolo Colon 4.09 673 2.70 6.53
9 Javier Vazquez 4.15 644.1 3.58 8.14
10 John Lackey 4.24 611.1 2.51 7.27

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Dec 10, 2005 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

must've been another salb918

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 10, 2005 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mediocrity

This table ignores the first nine mediocre years of his career, and also doesn't take into account that he's 34.

All of this looking backward stuff is exactly what gets GMs into trouble when they sign over-the-hill free agents to big contracts, forgetting that "the last three years of performance" almost never equals "the next three years."

by doctawojo on Dec 11, 2005 6:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

the CW is that Loaiza has been a different pitcher since the end of 2002, when he developed his cutter.

Your post implies that the first nine mediocre years of his career are more predictive than the last three years of performance. Is this really what you mean?

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 11, 2005 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily, but ...

Not that they're necessarily more predictive than the last three years, but that they shouldn't just be thrown out the window, either. People seem very willing to dismiss 2004 as an aberration from the 2003-05 part of his career, rather than dismissing '03 and '05 as aberrations from the whole of his career.

Moreover, he's old. Even supposing he actually became a better pitcher with his cutter, he's at the point where he's likely to fall off a cliff as his cutter (and other pitches) stop being so sharp.

by doctawojo on Dec 12, 2005 5:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

On age and pitching quality

Roger Clemens
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz
Jose Contreras
Randy Johnson
Kenny Rogers
Tom Glavine
Paul Byrd

All of them are as old or older than Loaiza. All of them were amongst the most effective starting pitchers in the league.

Could it be that Beane actually knows how to assemble a team? Shouldn't we also be checking Beane's track record as well?

[/food for thought]

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 12, 2005 6:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Selective

Selectively choosing the good guys can make any group look good.

Clemens, Martinez, and Johnson are all time greats. Literally three of the best pitchers ever to live. There's simply no comparison to Loaiza there.

Smoltz and Glavine are just outside that group.

And Contreras? Half of a good season in '03, a mediocre/bad season in '04, and a good season in '05, after god-knows how many years of what kind of treatment in Cuba. Point? I wouldn't pay him $7M per for the next three years and hope any good would come of it.

Byrd's the only guy who really compares with Loaiza in any sense, except for this: Loaiza had a great year in '03 while Byrd was injured; meanwhile, in '01, '02, and '04, Loaiza was a below average pitcher by ERA+ while Byrd was above average. They had similar performance in '05.

If we should be checking Beane's track record, we should look at the last pitcher he signed up for a three-year deal at big bucks: Arthur Rhodes. Now, as it turns out, the A's probably just got a little unlucky because he bounced back and had a really good '05. Which is even more damning because Beane traded the chance to have a guy with a 197 ERA+ from the left side.

What'd he get in return? The 19th-best offensive catcher in baseball (by VORP).

Billy Beane is a very good GM. But he's not magic. I, for one, haven't yet bought in to the AN credo that whatever he touches turns to gold.

by doctawojo on Dec 12, 2005 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey,

you're the one that made the connection that getting older is a likely prelude to falling off the cliff. I'm just challenging your orthodoxy.

Aren't I allowed to be selective?

You do know, that there are younger pitchers out there that you could cite as being more effective, right? But, be careful as you do this. You see, a higher percentage of effective starting pitchers come from the 34+ crowd than does the over all representative population of starting pitchers. That, runs counter to this orthodxy of yours.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 13, 2005 4:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Beane signed him

to keep AN alive in the offseason. Can we call your theory Nico's razor?

Although I couldn't get Paul Maguire out of my head while reading that:

"Here's a guy no team wanted.
Here's a guy who can hit the mitt.
watch this, watch this,
BAM! He hit's the catcher RIGHT in the mitt!!!"

by homerozzieandthestraw on Dec 10, 2005 12:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Except

That'd be a good reason, except there's all the evidence in the world to show that he's not likely to be all that good in 2006, much less '07 and '08.

by doctawojo on Dec 10, 2005 12:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Precisely, doctawojo,

just as there was with Hatteberg, just as there was with Gil Heredia, just as there was with Bill Taylor, and so on. Other people's scrap heap is Billy Beane's gold mine.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 10, 2005 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Excuse me, Nico

Beane never paid $7 million annual for the scraps. The most he ever paid was a couple million to Hatty last year and well....

I don't hate, I just respond aggressively to stupidity

by grover on Dec 10, 2005 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, but 7mil

used to be more, and Loaiza's track record is better than that of a third-string catcher, a journeyman who can't hit 90MPH on the radar gun or getting anybody out, and a rookie in his 30s.

When I used the term "scraps," I meant in the eyes of other teams, not in Beane's eyes. He saw something they didn't.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 10, 2005 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

But it's not like the A's were alone in pursuing Loaiza. At very least, the Giants were also interested. Whereas I don't think that John Jaha had too many suitors back in 1999 when Beane signed him. Ditto for Hatteberg, Tam, etc etc.

by spoiltvictorianchild on Dec 10, 2005 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, your theory doesn't contradict my theory

Your theory that the A's signed Loaiza because they liked him and thought he would pitch well for them is part of my making-a-Zito-trade-possible theory. For that matter, pretty much everyone adhering to any of the other theories you cite would, I think, agree with your whole post, except for its implication that that somehow contradicts the second part of the two-step theories.

You don't really think Beane got himself confused with Allard Baird or the Orioles' front office and just made this one move in isolation, withoug considering how it fits into a larger design for the offseason, do you?

By the way, that has to be about your most strained pun ever. I want you to take a time out and think about what you've done.

"Don't go getting all Alexander Haig on me." - Billy Beane to David Forst on leaving the winter meetings

by Faust on Dec 10, 2005 12:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like this signing because...

I like the name 'Esteban'. I like the way it sounds with a hispanic accent.
That was my favorite supporting role in Kill Bill.

"...as wrong as Tom Jones covering Prince tunes. ~Mychael Urban

by Elvez on Dec 10, 2005 12:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

nico

i think we both agree.

"If people don't know who he is, they'd better turn on the television and check him out."

by jacobo2u on Dec 10, 2005 12:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Remember when...

the A's signed Mike Moore? He turned out to be an incredible pitcher. Remember when we traded for Bob Welch? Storm Davis? Or the mother of all unknowns, Dave Stewart? I like that Loazia signing. I think that he is going to make a huge impact for the A's this year. So let's just believe.

by TheWhiteElephant on Dec 10, 2005 2:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Dave Stewart Was Very Well Known...

...when the A's acquired him.

It's just that what he was well known for wasn't pitching.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Dec 10, 2005 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oh my god

that Famous Dodger Meltdowns site was hi-larious!!

1972...1973...1974...1989...2006

by emperor nobody on Dec 10, 2005 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The first go round...

An interesting point, if during a prior era of A's management. But keep in mind that Davis and Stew both made return appearences with the A's that were far less successful, and that Loaiza is older than most of those A's were during their heydays.

Loaiza is entering his 12th MLB season. Here are some comparable stats for players in their 12th season:

Stew '92 A's 12-10 3.66 31 starts
Welch '89 A's 17-8 3.00 33 starts
Moore '93 Tigers 13-9 5.22 36 starts
Davis '93 A's 2-6 6.18 start & relief
'93 Tigers 0-2 3.06 24 relief apps
Sanderson '89 Cubs 11-9 3.94 start & relief
Darling '94 A's 10-11 4.50 25 starts

What happened next:

Stew - His last sub-4 ERA, followed by 3 years of decline and retirement.
Welch - Won the Cy Young the next year, but a down year in '91 and an injury in '92 marked the beginning of the end.
Moore - Had two more injury plagued years with the Tigers, with declining stats.
Davis - Did a nice job in relief for the Tigers in '94, but that was his last year in the majors.
Sanderson - Had two more good years (including his one with the A's) before starting a slow decline.
Darling - A rough '95 ended his career.

Of the 6, only Welch and Sanderson were above average after their 12th season. Stew was average for another two years, and the others were either below average or no longer starting.

Perhaps improved conditioning programs over the last 10-15 years buy Loaiza another year or two of productivity (see Clemens, Johnson, Wells, et al), but this is definitely the age when pitchers tend to decline.

All that said, I like the signing for this year, I just think the 3rd year of the deal is a pretty big risk. As we've seen repeatedly, you usually need 6 quality starters to make it through the season, and the A's now have that (I don't consider Kennedy to be a quality starter -- he pretty clearly belongs in the bullpen).

My guess is Loaiza will do well this year, and that Billy will then trade him while his value is at a peak.

by andyinfremont on Dec 10, 2005 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or somewhere in between,

like: Loaiza does well 2006, then is kept but slotted more as a "luxury #4-#5" starter in 2007 (with the emergence of Dan Meyer, or his likeness, helping to make this possible), then is not here come 2008.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 10, 2005 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the 7 mil a year

I dont know exact numbers but i believe that the signing was a big part of the initial 21mil. I think it effects our payroll 5mil in 06 6mil in 07 and 7mil in 08. SOemthing like that.

by Spidz34 on Dec 10, 2005 2:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

#'s of Loaiza's Contract:

Said it like 5 times now...

$5 M
$6 M
$7 M

Signing Bonus: $3 M prorated over the 3 years

by Alon on Dec 10, 2005 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Signing Bonus: $3 M prorated over the 3 years

so it's basically:

$6 M
$7 M
$8 M

That is, unless we trade him...then the signing bonues gets paid in full at that moment, I'm assuming.

"You can't get any more 'Oakland' than the Coliseum. Get any more 'Oakland' and you're in San Leandro!" -Random Drunk Bum at Game

by rungood on Dec 11, 2005 1:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Run Support

If the A's can score 4 runs a game (enter slugging DH) or better, the pitching staff will respond with confidence. Just as the addition of a masher will juice up the offense, the youngsters and the question marks will rise to the production. Loaiza will give as much as he gets in '06.

"Cool it, brothers." Last words of Malcom X

by Bosnian on Dec 10, 2005 2:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Why couldn't BB have signed Esteban...

just so we can have another good pitcher in the rotation? No matter how he does, he will be at least one or two steps up from Saarloos, and thats not a slam on Saarloos at all. Plus, if anyone goes down this year, he won't have to go searching for someone during the season, when the price is too high to pay. Its just a very smart move, no matter what happens.

I've never really noticed BB doing things with a deeper plan in mind (i.e. over-thinking things). I don't think BB is very machiavellan, he just knows how to play the game better then most. He doesn't need to use all his brains to outsmart most of the GMs out there.

by ChickenStanley on Dec 10, 2005 2:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

"if anyone goes down"

I think the injuries are the key thing. I think that Beane doesn't want to have no one in reserve if (when?) pitching injuries occur. In the meantime, he has stockpiled a valuable commodity.

I didn't really like the deal, and I don't really like Loaiza, but I think it's an insurance-against-injuries kind of signing.

"Why do they call it the 'A's Replay'? It's always just 'The First Good Thing to Happen to the A's'". ~ArakSOT, 7/14/05

by rich on Dec 10, 2005 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Adjustment ...

The 4 runs per game number should read 5+.

"Cool it, brothers." Last words of Malcom X

by Bosnian on Dec 10, 2005 3:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Esteban may still be for sale

He was solid last year in a pitchers park, and again this year he will be in a pitchers park and he will have an amazing defense behind him. With his abilities, if he can keep it in the park then he will pitch great. And if he then pitches great, we can easily trade him for more than he is worth or just enjoy the greatness.

Also, I know player psychology from an outsiders perspective is foolish in general, but esteban has always struck me as a guy lacking confidence, and maybe he just needs to get the confidence going and he will have another great year. Speaking of which, he was quite dominant that year, and I doubted him throughout.

by SwisherSweet on Dec 10, 2005 3:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Loaiza...Spanish for Rorschach?

Perhaps one's view of this deal says more about the viewer than the acquisition. For instance:

View of Deal: It shows that Billy is a master manipulator of the baseball player commodities market as he prepares to deal Zito in January.
Viewer: Still holding on to that Webvan stock...it's gonna rebound soon!

View of Deal: Loaiza's hidden trend numbers show that 2006 is sure to be the year his inner Cy Young escapes from his outer Terry Mulholland.
Viewer: Last time the White Sox and Red Sox won consecutive World Series titles the world was devastated by a flu epidemic...uh oh.

View of Deal: It's further evidence of the truth that you can never have enough pitching.
Viewer: Has a stockpile of blank Betamax tapes in the garage, just in case.

View of Deal: Allows Beane the freedom to acquire Milton Bradley, Jose Guillen, Frank Thomas, and in a stunning return to the game, Albert Belle.
Viewer: Is never careful what he wishes for.

View of Deal: Signals that Wolff and Fisher are preparing to go up against Moreno dollar-for-dollar as they jointly create an AL West version of the Boston-New York axis of evil.
Viewer: Also believes Wolff secretly met at the Bohemian Club last week with Alan Greenspan and George Soros to map out a soft deflation of the housing bubble.

View of Deal: Sees a move made purely to allow Nico to set his fertile mind to elaborate pun-based humor.
Viewer: Actually knows Nico is far more Lo-older and Loaiza than that.

Beat the Angles (they're obtuse!)

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 10, 2005 3:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Ah...That explains why

when Billy calls me to discuss a possible acquisition, all he wants to know from me is "Would it be funny?"

Nico

by Nico on Dec 10, 2005 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

BB is not sitting pat

If we opened the season with the current piching fine, I we trade some starting or relief fine. If Loaiza goes to another team June 15th fine.

This is not the team we'll have on June 16th.

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 10, 2005 4:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think BB's just

back the frog Budweiser commercials. Lo-Ai-Za!

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore." - Yogi Berra

by vignette17 on Dec 10, 2005 5:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Dang it

I meant to say BB wants them back.

All I want for <insert holiday here> is an Edit function!

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore." - Yogi Berra

by vignette17 on Dec 10, 2005 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and a pony

but that goes without saying. And see if I had an edit function this could all be one post.

We now we return you to Nico's puns and our regular scheduled posts.

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore." - Yogi Berra

by vignette17 on Dec 10, 2005 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Remember:

You can't edit a post and you can't edit a pony, and you really can't edit something that has been postponyed.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 10, 2005 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

all your puns

are giving me night-mares.

by Apricot on Dec 10, 2005 6:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You two should

really stop horsing around like this.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 10, 2005 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Colt that out, NOW!

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 10, 2005 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Colt that out, NOW!

is not a pun.

by Alon on Dec 10, 2005 8:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's equus-tionable statement

Please, Billy, make it Hurt so good.

by As Man on Dec 10, 2005 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't

it have to be the same word? Else it's kind of like:
Colt is not a punHORSE.

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 7:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Where is Me ED-it , ...when you need him,

...W i l b u r r r r r r r ?

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 11, 2005 8:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Loaiza is just for continuity...

...since Zito is definitively not an A this time next year anyway, and so he doesn't have to go get another arm then. Combined with the fact that this year's pitchers market was weak enough that if he had waited, then he might have had to compete with another team. And I would assume that they have a list of probable free agent pitchers next year and they have rationalized that this is the best deal at the best price, etc. Besides if Loazia is consistent and healthy all year, then Zito leaving next winter (or possibly before) is much more acceptable.

On a side note: If Zito does stay with the A's all year, then will his contract situation be just like Miggy's?

by bjk15 on Dec 10, 2005 5:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes! Loaiza adds flexibility and the ability

for BB to trade pitching and/or watch Zito leave after the season. ('though Wolff may FISH-er Zito into 4 more).

Three things;

Loaiza's 3 year splits (ESPN player stats) lead one to believe he will have an excellent "Home record" at the Coliseum (Kenny Rogers anyone?). I expect the A's to exploit this and tilt his starts to mostly the coliseum.
Shooty intimated this; A's and Giants find themselves competing for the same player because he is (at the time) an economical pick up of a legit starter. Wolff/BB know A's cheap reputation gets underlined if Giants walk away with the player. Wolff IS defining our new ownership. He stared down the Giants by overpaying this time and it was important to do so or be roasted by local media everytime Loaiza took the mound for the Gnats. To me the overpayment amount is equal to the signing bonus, $3 million, big deal, that is Kennedy's salary so we trade K to a team that is starved for lefty relief/starts by mid June. Bye-Bye $ problem. (Ginter would have the same budgetary effect)

The Coliseum's size, the A's defense, and Kendall's true upside; his handling of the A's pitchers, so far has "showcased" all the A's regulars and added a pitch for a few of them. BB should squeeze all of Kendall's "trainer" value while he is still with us. Look for Kendall to be involved with evaluating/developing AAA closer Roney, #11-12 reliever Jason Karnuth, middle reliever/bottom starter Chad Gaudin, and minor leaguers already on staff such as Rheinecker, Meyer, Mabeus, ...
(OK, I lied about the "three things") ...you can't have too much pitching!

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 11, 2005 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK man

I'm about to start stalking your puns.

pun
n.

A play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words.

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Forgot to mention

I agree with you on Loaiza 100%

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A bright assessment, Nico.

Finally somebody is seeing things crisp 'n clear. Yes, Beane, the Dean of Major Dealings, sees that here's a pitcher that is actually UNDERVALUED and does not feel as if he's OVERPAYING because he knows he will get two, maybe three great seasons out of this arm. And, combined with our present staff, the A's have the most dominant pitching in their division, perhaps even their league. With that said, the bat is next. Ooo, the bat! You know the Beane will sink that shot, too. Bank on it.

Darn it, Bill, you just made Toledo even holier.

by Edwinwinwin on Dec 10, 2005 5:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

How boring. ;-)

I like the conspiracy theories, myself. I don't know, though. Have to wait to see him actually pitch.

Carpe Diem---Seize the Day

by Squeaky on Dec 10, 2005 8:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

okay, take this rumor with a grain of salt

but The Boston Herald and The Boston Globe, as well as some Baltimore and Washington DC-based newspapers have said that the Red Sox have offered to the O's Manny for Tejada. Here's the link on MLB.com

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051210&content_id=1280370&vkey=hotstove 2005&fext=.jsp

by HarenStyle on Dec 10, 2005 10:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

But

Does Manny want to go to Baltimore? He has full veto power.

I don't hate, I just respond aggressively to stupidity

by grover on Dec 10, 2005 10:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He wants to be west coast

I think it will still take a 3 team deal for Manny to be dealt... I say it involves sending Manny to the Angels, with maybe Kotchman and/or someone to the Orioles and Tejada to the Red Sox

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 7:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

where's the link dump??

i just came back from a looong day of shopping so i just found this news. not sure if it's posted somewhere already but ..

The Cardinals are expected to announce the signing of Ricardo Rincon within the next couple of days.

"you know it's way cooler to be an A's fan" - billy beane to larry krueger

by gotgreen on Dec 10, 2005 10:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wow!

On a monumentally slow baseball news day, this definitely qualifies as the 1A story. Unfortunately, it's breaking so late in the day that it can't be given its proper attention. Oh well ... there's always tomorrow. You should author the link dump; call it, "DLD 12/11--Ricardo Rincon leaves, and takes a piece of our hearts with him."

Honestly, I'll miss him a little--I think every team should have a certain number of roly-poly guys, just for variety's sake. Good baseball move, though; we certainly don't need him AND Kennedy.

by rubin sierra on Dec 10, 2005 11:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Best starting 5 in the AL: Zito, Hardin, Haren,

Blanton, Loisa (whatever). Outstanding closer: Street. Incredible bullpen--you fill in the names. What is wrong with this picture?

she was never able to watch me play because the games were too late back home, and now she's got front-row seats to every game.. Swish re: his grandmother

by alamedaman on Dec 10, 2005 11:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

enough runs to win enough games to get to October?

by OaklandSi on Dec 11, 2005 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Puzzling, to say the least

Well the deal makes sense, and it doesnt. Given the market, I think Loaiza got close to what he woulda gotten elsewhere. Paul Byrd just signed a deal similar to the one we gave Loaiza, and I personally feel Loaiza is a far better pitcher.

My concerns though is that for us, it is overpaying for a position we are not desperately in need of. Granted, if Zito is gone after this season or before then, then Loaiza will represent an equal proportion of the kind of money Zito is currently recieving (only difference: Zito is younger, much better, and much more reliable). Obviously if we get Loaiza ala. 2003, then we are getting one hell of a bargain. However, lightning striking twice is unlikely, and we'll be lucky if he has the kind of solid year he had last year with the Nats. Maybe not worth $7 million/year, but a more than acceptable performance.

But I do like Beane's strategic risks, because you need to make them in this game. Sometimes they work and we get a steal (Keith Foulke) and sometimes they turn into serious headscratchers (Jason Kendall). Anyways, Loaiza at least affords us a solid starter and innings eater with the potential to be great and an adaquate immediate replacement for Zito should we trade him either before the season, during the season, or see him leave after this year.

Having said that though, I applaud Billy's tenacity, but that doesn't mean Athletic will be having a conniption fit if by July, Loaiza has a 5.00 ERA. People like Keith Ginter can afford to do shitty cause we don't have much riding on him, but if you're getting $7 mill, you better be showing us something.

by InBeaneiTrust on Dec 11, 2005 1:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Now It Can Be Told!

The motives behind the signing of Esteban Loiaza are extremely easy to determine, once you crack the code.

ESTEBAN
5 + 19 + 20 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 14 = 66

LOIAZA
12 + 15 + 9 + 1 + 26 + 1 = 64

TOTAL: 130

AVERAGE VALUE: 130 / 13 = 10

10 is, of course, the base unit for all measuremtns in the metric system.

DON'T YOU SEE IT YET, PEOPLE... WE'RE THROUGH THE MEASURING GLASS HERE.

Billy Beane, in conjunction with his minions throughout MLB front offices, is going to change all baseball measurements from english to metric.

By doing so, he'll gain a critical 12-year advantage on the rest of the game, as it will take the rest of them that long to figure out the metric equivalent of a 90-mph fastball. The fact that this won't change ERA will screw up everyone but Billy. It's genius -- evil genius, perhaps, but genius nonetheless.

Plus, it will have the extra benefit of making Joe Morgan's head explode.

I, for one, am ready to accept the rule of our metric overlords, and to give our new starting pitcher the proper nickname of "10-Fingered Loiaza."

Watch the skies!

by DMtShooter on Dec 11, 2005 1:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wait

where did the 13 come from???

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 7:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

13 letters

There are 13 letters in the name Esteban Loaiza...

by LoveDemAs on Dec 11, 2005 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Impressive.

I'll bet the sign of the beast (666) is involved in there somehow as well

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Durazo?!

Does this place ever talk about obviousness??
Why is Durazo the next "loser" Canseco? You %&$#'s talk about all this good "ju-ju" with Loaiza, but not a soul pipes up that Durazo both kicked ass and could again kick AT LEAST YOUR ASS next year, and not a peep from the crowd.

Billy, listen to Baseballbill and, who can most likely ski faster (at 40) than the rest of this peanut gallery, and go find Durazo's Mom, give her a kiss, a pinata, and sign him for a track home in Turlock!!!

by baseballbill on Dec 11, 2005 3:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

mayber they're not signing him

because they're going to sign FT instead. Would you want Durazo if you already had FT?

Please, Billy, make it Hurt so good.

by As Man on Dec 11, 2005 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

Frank is NOT a 162 game DH

...great bench but someone's eating mushrooms again if you think Frank's legs & feet have 162 in them.

Frank would probably need a break the day Durazo comes off the DL -- late May?

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 11, 2005 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree, Nico

Also.

Many of the complaints about this signing seem to stem from the fear that it means the A's will have less payroll flexibility for other players. But maybe the simple fact is that its time for us budget-minded fans to get used to the idea of having a little more money to play with.

Considering the pitchers market---a guy thats had two very good years out of the last three, and has a lot of experience--didn't go for all that much. It doesn't sound like its going to handicap the A's payroll until the messiah comes---or even for a few years--so who cares about the money.

by Alien on Dec 11, 2005 9:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Can we just

all be very thankful that the David Wells rumors had no truth to them???

Someone hold my hand.

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 11:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It is time now to add a major league bat

"1st round and out" in the playoffs isn't enough with this team's pitching & defense.

A's seriously have to get major league.

Nipping at heels sucks

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 11, 2005 11:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Lest we forget;

Postseason Results
SEASON ROUND WINNER LOSER SERIES
2005 N/A
2004 N/A
2003 LDS Boston Red Sox Oakland Athletics 3-2
2002 LDS Minnesota Twins Oakland Athletics 3-2
2001 LDS New York Yankees Oakland Athletics 3-2
2000 LDS New York Yankees Oakland Athletics 3-2
1999 N/A
1998 N/A
1997 N/A
1996 N/A
1995 N/A
1994 N/A
1993 N/A

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 11, 2005 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The A's

should get Roger Clemens. This guy can do anything... put him in there at the #4 slot in the lineup and I'm bettin on a 50 homer-50 steal- .500 OBP season.

Or, barring that, let's get Koby and see what he's got... (Kobe Clemens... Koby Clemens?? Kob something Clemens...)

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 12:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Zito is more important than Loaiza

If Billy were really intent on keeping Zito, he woulda never done this deal. I'm not saying hes gonna trade Barry, but it certainly shows that he'd rather spend $7 mill a year on keeping Loaiza, then putting an additional $7 mill a year into possibly keeping Zito.

To me, the equation is interesting:
$14.5 million for Zito and Loaiza for 2006, $7 mill for Loaiza alone + whoever takes over a spot past 2006.

or

$13-14 mill per year for keeping Zito alone for years to come.

I understand that after this year, Loaiza represents a cheaper alternative than Zito, but what I don't understand is, why would you want Loaiza and some cheap fill in, in 2007 for roughly $8 million, when you could possibly have Zito and some fill in for around $14 mill? Am I the only one who believe that the extra $6 mill/year for keeping Zito long term is worth more than keeping Loaiza long term?

Granted, $6 mill isn't chunk change, but when it comes down to it, if i'm gonna spend an excess of $7 mill on a starter, I'd rather pay double that on a guy who you know is gonna be dependable, durable, and in the prime of his career, rather than paying half that for a guy who is inconcistent, older, and less durable.

Plus, after 2007, we can dump Kendall's salary (his salary actually decreases to $8 mill in 2007 because Pitt picks up a $5 mill tab) leaving us with a lot more money in 2007 and beyond. So with Kendall's decreased salary plus not signing Loaiza, we would have $13 mill extra in 2007 to offer Zito. Anyone willing to tell me how $13 mill on Loaiza and Kendall is money better spend than an extra $7 mill on Zito, I'm all ears.

by InBeaneiTrust on Dec 11, 2005 3:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

"Welcome to PORN VALLEY"

Is the ad title to this box's left.

Anyway, I was just curious as to where you were getting your "Loaiza is less durable" than Zito?

They both consistently log 200+ innings, which reminds me that Loaiza is also pretty consistent, K-BB wise... PLUS, $7 M IS chunk change, whereas it is NOT chump change

Just a few random thoughts while looking at the neon ad discussing sex sales and MSNBC...

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Realistically,

Loaiza's presence in the rotation - displacing Saarloos - might account for a three to seven win improvement in the standings depending on what kind of year he has. I really do not believe that it would be any more or any less than that. [sorry, nothing statistical to back this up but I did look at the Quality Start percentage as a half-assed gauge].

Now, if the Athletics were in position to be replacing Zito in the rotation with Loaiza, then Loaiza is probably accountable for a difference of anywhere between two losses in the standings to a one win improvement in the standings over Zito.

If you believe those assumptions above, like I do [and why wouldn't I since I thought & wrote them] then you have to ask whether or not Loaiza's signing at $7 million-a-season, on average, is a worthy expenditure. Then, when you ask yourself whether it was worth the money, you then also have to ask the next questions: who could Oakland have used that $7 million on and would that expenditure make up those three to seven wins that Loaiza would now be providing above his replacement, Saarloos. That would be a topic of great debate I'm sure; however, let's shift focus.

Now assume that Beane does not sign Loaiza to the three year deal and further assume that Zito signs another deal to stay in Oakland and that the average cost, per year, on this hypothetical Zito contract is $13 million, as you've suggested.

Now answer this question: is Zito's contract at $6 million over the Loaiza contact worth that extra potential two wins (or maybe even one loss) in the standings? Got the answer? Okay then, listen up because this part is very important...what could the 'extra' $6 million, now going to Zito, have been spent on and how many marginal wins in the standings may be missed (opportunity costs) because that `extra' $6 million is locked up on just one player - who, as it seems, was, from a standings point-of-view, nearly equal to the guy (Loaiza) who could have been had for cheaper?

It's these types of thought exercises that really have to be fully looked at when making decisions with real money and real profits at stake and on the line. I believe that Zito's popularity and his manic performances in the post season go a long way in explaining why fans come to these judgments without fully considering the opportunity costs versus the marginal benefits those costs produce.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 11, 2005 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Just a point but

3-7 wins extra for $7 m (personally I think 10 extra wins is a possibility but whatever)

Seems too much, right?

Then again...

How much $$ to get into the playoffs? To at least have a chance at the WS? Rotations win in the playoffs.
If the A's are willing to spend an extra couple mil ($6 mil this year w/ signing bonus) to at least get their ticket to the playoffs, which Loaiza's extra win potential at least gives the A's a better chance of doing this year, why not get in? It's impossible to know who will win in the crapshoot anyway, but it's equally impossible to win if you're not in it.

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

For clarification purposes

I am very much in favor of the Loaiza signing.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 11, 2005 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yah!

I know, that's why I said it was just an added point

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The saber CW

is that a win is worth roughly 2-3 million dollars. In Oakland's case, the number is closer to 3 MM since we are close to the playoffs. The closer you are to the playoffs, the more money you should spend to get extra wins since a playoff berth = $$$$.

As a quick guess:

Saars VORP 2005: 28.3
Stayban VORP 2005: 42.1

Let's assume both pitchers repeat their 2005 performances in 2006 with Stayban replacing Saars in the rotation. Stayban keeps 14 extra runs off the board at an additional cost of 5.5 MM. A good rule of thumb is that 10 runs ~ 1 win. So Esteban represents an upgrade of 1.4 wins at $4 MM. As it stands, total ripoff.

But let's me more realistic. Saars is unlikely to reproduce last year's performance, and I have no idea what Loaiza will do.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 11, 2005 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

1.4 wins!?

One had 10 Quality Starts in 27 Games Started and the other had 24 Quality Starts in 34 Games Started. Let's be generous and assume that if Saarloos had seven more games to start that he'd get four additional Quality Starts [four out of seven is higher than his 37% Quality Start Pecentage]. My unscientific conclusion tells me that there's more than just 1.4 wins involved if one pitcher has 10 more Quality Starts. Because, doesn't the Quality Start eliminate much of the variability in the component statistics that make up the VORP?

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 11, 2005 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, consistency is important

If Loaiza keeps you in the game (the vaunted "QS") then, you have a higher chance of winning. Maybe Saars was racking up those VORP points in complete game shutouts. Maybe.

BP has a metric that helps show many of the things that QS is purported to show. It is called Flake, and it is defined as the standard deviation of the per-start Support Neutral Value Added (SNVA). In english, BP measures how much Value each pitcher's start accumulates, and then figures the standard deviation to get FLAKE. High FLAKE = inconsistent, low FLAKE = consistent.

Saars 2005
SNVA: 4.0 (baseline = replacement pitcher, adjusted for quality of opposing lineup)
FLAKE: .226

Stayban 2005
SNVA: 5.3
FLAKE: .211

SNVA is roughly measured as wins, so Stayban was about 1.3 wins better than Saars last year by this measure, agreeing with VORP. But both had roughly the same consistency last year.

(Aside: you should not be surprised that Saars had few QS last year, since he did not work bery deep into games. With a bullpen like Oakland's, that's not as much of a negative as you might think).

For the record, I agree with you (LCJ) that the signing was a good one. Since we're close to the playoffs, it makes sense to overpay a little for wins. Also, there is no way that Saars repeats this year's performance. I'm guessing that Loaiza posts a 35 VORP and Saars somewhere close to 10 VORP in 2006 - a difference of 2.5 wins and a $$/wins of about 2.2 MM - right in line with market value. Saar's uncertain health - remember how serious the shoulder injury was, and he never had surgery - and Loaiza's year-to-year consistency tilt the tables further. I just don't think Stayban will be worth 7-8 additional wins - that's MVP territory. But he will be an upgrade to the rotation and a fine addition to the pitching staff.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 11, 2005 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

EDIT

let me rephrase: based on the FLAKE scores, I do think the difference is significant, and that Loaiza was more consistent last year. Alas, I do not think there is extensive work with measuring the value of consistency when it comes to wins, although your point is a good one. You'd much reather have a consistent run prevention and run scoring unit.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 11, 2005 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What about my comments below?

Ests + improved hitting potentially making for 4-6 more wins....

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I get this impression or, rather, feeling

that Zito would register high on the FLAKEy side; don't you?

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 11, 2005 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel the same.

BP says:

Z: .232
Haren: . 233
Harden: .254 (I'm guessing the ANA game where he bombed counts a lot here)
Saar: .226
Cupcake: .205

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 11, 2005 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Way to go Cupcake

Too moist and cream-filled to be FLAKEy.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 11, 2005 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

[/edit]

waaaait a minute, that doesn't sound right coming from a straight guy. Please ignore.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 11, 2005 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

too late!

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 11, 2005 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus

I'd take Loaiza at $21 M over 3 years rather than Matt Morris at $27 M over 3 years 8 days a week, 48 hours a day.

Just out of curiosity, does a dif of ~14 runs in VORP really mean a ~14 run let in difference? I'd have though Value Over Replacement Player would not be so concrete, but I confess not to know the exact meaning of the stat other than it's a pretty accurate measure of, well, the value over the average replacement-level player.

Also, if the A's let in 14 less runs, that means just ~644 RA, and if the A's offense improves just 14 runs, that means 786 RS... Not sure how many wins this really translates to, but by your logic 10 runs ~= 1 win, so that's about 3 wins between the A's offense and Loaiza alone... not taking other pitcher's improvement into account, as well as another bat coming along... I can see the A's potentially scoring ~790-800 RS this year, and if other pitching improves, ~630-640 RA... This could mean as much as, by the 10 runs = 1 win logic, up to 3 more offensive wins, and up to 3 more pitching wins at a not-so-incredibly-generous level... unless, of course, my logic is somehow tragically flawed (perhaps the A's other pitching regresses, which would lead to about the same RA score of 658 should Loaiza remain consistent... Or, perhaps, the Big Bat we're waiting on only manages to offset or not quite offset a regression in the A's offense... Again, I'm making an assumption that, perhaps, Frank Thomas could produce 14 extra runs per year? Or so??? Is this way off base? I'm too tired to make a statistical analysis of it...)

Still, without too much generosity, it isn't too hard to see the Loaiza signing as half of a ~ 6 win improvement based on the 10 run = 1 win rule of thumb...

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 8:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree on Morris.

Morris has significant health concerns, and that awful beard.

VORP can be read roughly as runs, yes.

The 10 runs ~ 1 win is based on the Pyth formula. Consider:

Team A: 700 RS, 750 RA --> 75.7 Pyth wins
Team B: 750 RS, 750 RS --> 81.0 Pyth wins
Team C: 750 RS, 700 RA --> 86.3 Pyth wins

It's a rough formula, but a good rule of thumb.

A healthy Frank Thomas for ~400 PA could be expected to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 VORP. Our DHs this year were hanging out in the 5.0 VORP range, indicating an extra 25 runs. You're not only off base with your 14 runs, you're off base in the good direction! :)

Cheers.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 11, 2005 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sweeeeeet.

If I could be wrong in the right direction every time, I'd be a happy man...

This is good, an extra 2.5 wins places the A's at potentially 6-9 extra games won should Thomas sign and produce... Which gives them 94-97 wins for the year, enough this past year to get them into the playoffs.

by Alon on Dec 12, 2005 4:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This Just In--

"Giants close to landing Matt Morris for 3 years $27 million"

ESPN.com article here
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2256032

Now who would you rather have -- Matt Morris or Esteban Loaiza?? Matt Morris for $2 M/yr more than Loaiza?

This makes the Loaiza signing look even better

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 4:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

re: Matt Morris

He is like the NL Saarloos. He throws nothing but junk. He has been winning for years but i would always take a guy with some giddyup.

"No. Well, sometimes I am. But I'm fun crazy." -- White Sox OF Carl Everett when asked if he is crazy in the July issue of Maxim

by haze on Dec 11, 2005 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This also just in

Lefty reliever Ricardo Rincon to sign 2 year, $2.9 M dollar deal w/ the Cards

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2256199

by Alon on Dec 11, 2005 6:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Woah, Woah, Woah

First off. Yes, Barry is more durable. Six season, hasn't missed ONE start. Loaiza, while durable in the past 3 years has had a number of stints on the DL. In addition, Zito is 27, Loaiza is 33. Thats a 6 year age difference (duh, but 6 years is huge in MLB talk).

Second. Being that they are at their respective ages and Barry is already a far more durable, consistant (2004 was a flake year), and just plain better, Zito is a pitcher easily worth 2 Esteban Loaiza's. Zito is a stud, I don't care what anybody says. 2004 was a poor year for him, but not a terrible year all-in-all. He broke even with wins and losses, and his WHIP was exceptable. You want break downs, look no further to Loaiza's 2004 campaign for a sorry year of pitching. Pea-Yew!

Third. What's this about Zito being a spastic playoff pitcher. If memory serves me right, he saved our asses and made a game 5 possible in 2000, pitched beautifully in 2001 only to have mini-Giambi blow it, won game 3 against the Twins in the homer dome in 2002, had a fantastic win in game 1 in 2003, and pitched a good game on 3-days rest on game 5 against an incredible Boston offense, only to lose cause he coughed one up to Manny Ramirez (Hall of Famer) and wound up outdueled by Pedro Martinez (Hall of Famer). Hey, if you lose, thats not a bad way to go. Let's try and remember history as it happened.

Is Barry a fan-favorite? Absolutely. Will I miss him terribly if he leaves? Of course. But I am also a baseball fan in general, and I know ace pitching when I see it. And when I see Barry Zito, I see poise, determination, and results. Sure he has a game every now and then where he gets shelled, but who doesn't? And he got an unreasonable amount of crap in 2004 for what people dubbed a "disaster year", only because they had come to expect the kind of games Zito is capable of, all the time. This past year, I saw a Barry Zito who was just as bit as good as the Barry Zito who won the Cy Young in 2002. The only difference was that he stumbled out of the gate having a couple of games like the one at Tampa Bay where his ERA was ballooned for the rest of the season for 2 or 3 poor starts mixed in with 31 great ones. And had Barry not been the hard luck loser (ala Tim Hudson in 2003), he woulda easily been a 18+ game winner.

Let's be honest. Zito is an incredible pitcher, a work horse, a team leader, a weathered vet with tons of postseason experience and success, a Cy Young winner, and yes, he's 27 years old. And you're telling me that Esteban Loaiza, a middle aged, innings eater, with one great year and 9 years of mediocrity is worth $7 mill a year extending till his 37th birthday, more than likely becoming suseptable to injuries and decline in performance as almost pitcher in their mid 30's goes through? When instead of paying $7 mill on an aging underachiever, we spend an extra $6 million a year we could have Barry Zito well into his prime? Come on, lets be realistic. For an extra $6 mill, Barry brings a whole lot more to the team than Loaiza ever could.

by InBeaneiTrust on Dec 12, 2005 2:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

If it came down to

Zito @ $13 million per season or Loaiza @ $7 million a season, right now, today, with the information I have, and it being an 'either/or' proposition, I take Loaiza. I'm not one to be sentimental and I do not believe age to be the detrimental factor that it once was.

by LowcountryJoe on Dec 12, 2005 5:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Loaiza Flipped

Barry is staying, at least through July anyway. When I first heard of the Loaiza signing I thought two things, Beane paid to much for an older pitcher and then the light bulb went on. Beane drove up the market in order to flip Loaiza at an increased value.

BB is going to trade Loaiza before spring training for a big bat or some young guns. BB likes young pitching and it is unlike him to pay top dollar for an older arm.