The Case for Sending Travis Buck to AAA
by notsellingjeans on May 29, 2007 2:50 PM PDT
Email
PrintI know, I know, it's nutballs. Travis Buck has a .924 OPS, precocious plate discipline, and a flair for the dramatic, even as a rook.
But when, or if, Kotsay and Bradley return to action within the week, and we have Jay's aforementioned logjam in the OF - Swisher, Buck, Stewart, Kotsay, and Bradley, with Kielty and Snelling not too far behind, I'd recommend making Travis Buck of all people the odd man out.
Just hear me out.
The "con" - temporarily losing Buck's bat in the lineup - is obvious, but stay with me here for a second:
a.) Buck can't play even close to every day right now due to his wrists. Because of that, we can't maximize his value, the way we could when he is healthy.
b.) If he gets hurt at the MLB level and needs surgery on those wrists, he's burning service time throughout his D.L. stint - basically costing us up to a year of cost control on him. If that injury happens down on the farm, it doesn't burn MLB service time...and it costs the team less than 50K a year, instead of 400K - because he is paid simply as a 40-man roster member, not a Major Leaguer. (Remember HalseyGate?)
c.) If Buck spends the rest of his career as a big leaguer and never gets sent down, he becomes what Huston Street (and any other player who cracks the big leagues for the first time out of Spring Training and never gets sent down) eventually will be - a Free Agent after only SIX years. If Buck gets sent down for a while this year, even merely a few weeks, the team ensures that they'll own him for seven big league seasons, instead of six. (This has to do with MLB service time rules, which count a full season as 172 days on the MLB roster. Milton Bradley, for example, had 5 years, 169 days of service time entering the '07 season - he was 3 days shy of being an FA after the '06 season). For a potential future star like Buck, sending him down for a few weeks would delay his payday a full year - and give the A's cost control over a huge talent for one additional year.
((Tangent Time: This brings up a cruel and interesting point related to Huston Street. After making the big club out of ST in '05, Street entered the season with 2.000 years of ML service time. With no additional movement, he would become a free agent after the 2010 season, with 6.000 years of service time. But if the A's were to (and this is the cruel, cutthroat part) send him down for even two WEEKS this year, or sometime in the next few years, he'd have around 5.165 years of ML service time after 2010...and be one week shy of being a free agent. As such, the A's would own him for one more year. Would a team do something so transparently cheap/cutthroat with a player who is established and having plenty of success? Probably not. But I do believe it happens on a more subtle level, as discussed in my previous Ryan Braun column (who was called up this week, by the way - probably narrowly avoiding Super Two arbitration status for the BrewCrew after '09). And we may see it happen with Travis Buck for the same reason)).
d.) If Buck is sent down now, the team can wait until he's fully healthy - and he has a starting position all to himself - to bring him back up. Clearly, the starting LF job is his to lose next year, with Kielty/Bradley/Stewart all leaving in FA and more spots open.
e.) He's one of the few guys in that mix who CAN get sent down. A player with at least five years of ML service can't be sent down without his written consent. That rules out Stewart, Kotsay, and Kielty. I suppose Snelling could get sent down, but being older than Buck, and with more MLB experience, it would be considered more of an insult, and he'd probably have less to gain from the experience than Buck, as a younger, less experienced player, would. More importantly, the A's don't stand to gain nearly as much financially in sending down Snelling as they would by sending down Buck.
It would be shocking to see the entire A's outfield healthy. But if that happens this season, don't be shocked to see Travis Buck get sent down to AAA. Not all GMs think about these things when making roster decisions...but I'll bet Billy Beane does.
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Street....
I would rather have a happy and loyal Street through 2010 than a bitter (justifiably) and pissed off one through 2011.
Valid points
The upside to your idea is obvious, but the downside is where it gets tricky. Sending Buck down for a couple of weeks might cost us a game in the standings, because he is one of the best htters on our team. If we do end up fighting for a playoff spot, that one game may be the difference between playoffs and early October vacation. Second, there is the human factor to consider. Sending Buck down now could piss Buck off, could piss off other players who would figure out that Billy was trying to play coy with Buck's career in the interest of saving some money, or it could hurt Buck's confidence.
One other legitimate argument for sending Buck down that you did not specifically state is that sending Buck down preserves our options in case we suffer more injuries. If the A's were to cut Stewart, Snelling, or Cust, those players would likely be lost permanently. If Buck was sent down for a few weeks, he could always be called back up.
If I were Billy I would not mess with Buck's success by sending him down, but that is me. If Buck continues to have injury concerns, however, I might very well use my temporary depth to place Buck on the 15 day DL to give him rest and delay the inevitable roster decision.
If Buck is healthy enough to play every day
and he's hitting, then you don't send him down. If he's struggling with the bat or he's missing days then you send him down.
What you propose is indeed devious but it's also transparent to every agent in the game and if they see the A's screw over one of their own then the agents are going to discourage their clients from taking the A's seriously in free agency. The agents could tell their clients the A's would rather save a few bucks than win games.
This could quickly become a case of penny wise and dollar foolish.
I disagree
The reason the A's want to save a few bucks is so they can afford more signings elsewhere, with the ultimate goal of fielding a better team year after year. So while it may be true that the A's are willing to sacrifice a couple of games now in order to save money for later, that same agent would have to consider that the A's are husbanding their resources intelligently so that they can win more games next year. If the A's send Buck down for a few weeks now in order to get six full years out of him, that's a benefit to the future free agent who will sign with the team for 2012.
Always using maximum resources for the here and now is not practical. This is wise management of limited resources. I don't see how it's any different from questions of playing the starters every day in order to win games in spring at the cost the guys on the bench sucking because they didn't get enough ABs. Or using the best arms over and over at the cost of them wearing out for late in the season. Or sinking all your payroll into a shot at the world series this year at the cost of holding a fire sale and having a crappy team for the next three years.
2012?
Too bad the A's reputation will have been damaged as soon as the 2007/2008 offseason.
We disagree on this
I don't buy the "reputation" argument at all.
Beane has absolutely nothing to hide here. There's no reason to get all shifty and disingenuous about it. If he's ever asked the question he should come right out and say it: "That's right. When sending Buck[/Street] down to AAA for two weeks will save the team $3 million that can be spent elsewhere, of course that's going to be a consideration. It's not the only consideration, but we'd be stupid to ignore it. If you want to argue that the rules are stupid, go ahead, but we don't write the rules; we just play by 'em. Travis[/Huston] understands this. He knows we're just following the logic of the contract, and he understands it's the same logic that led to us to bringing him up to the big leagues early in the first place."
By 2008 all the teams will be taking advantage of the rosters this way. Half of them already are. The only reputation is going to be smart teams vs stupid teams. Are agents going to steer their clients toward stupid teams like Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and Seattle, because they have a reputation for pissing away roster money? Maybe, but if so, I still don't want us to waste $3 million just so we can share in that reputation.
Cliff Floyd didn't want to get traded to Oakland
because he didn't want to pay for his sodas.
What the Brewers did with Braun is different from what NSJ is proposing. Milwaukee wanted Braun to work on his defense in the minors so they didn't give him a job in the bigs. Buck is one of the 3 best outfielders on the Oakland roster but NSJ wants to send him down just because. I'm picking on NSJ, I think the A's could find a legitamite reason for sending Buck down. Street? Who are you kidding? Huston is the best bullpen arm we currently have when he's healthy. He'll do his re-hab stint and then expect to get his ticket back to the bigs. Demoting him after he's proven to be healthy, especially with the Oakland bullpen in shambles, screams cheap.
You can be smart and frugal, but once you're cheap you have to over-pay somewhere down the line to "prove" that you're not all about the dollars. A lot of players want to go someplace where they have a chance to win. If you give up wins to save some bucks (which is exactly what we'd be doing if Street got demoted to the minors) then you won't be taken seriously as a contender.
Besides, I'm sure the Players' Union would go ape shit over such a move.
Well, how about this
How do you justify sending down Street or Buck when you still consider yourself in contention?
An oft repeated refrain from the players is that "Billy knows what he's doing. He's always trying to win." Etc etc etc.
Sending Buck down while he's playing well sends the exact opposite message. Keeping Street in the minors in lieu of Flores and Lewis and Rameriz sends the exact opposite message.
And most importantly, you don't screw over your people.
justification
sending buck down i think is an easy arguement. the a's simply will not have room for him. and after only 35 or so games with about 100 ABs i'm not quite ready to hand over a starting position to him over stewart, kotsay or milton. plus you have snelling returning i guess sometime. what? you want buck sitting around on his ass in OAK or playing in The Sac?
as for street i see this as more of a philosophy discussion then a reality. i sometimes find it difficult when people believe MLB teams should treat MLB players "fairly" but when it comes to the players they look out for themselves...which is fair but then it should go both ways. and to be perfectly honest, both player or team could really care less about how you and i feel about this.
if the a's ever tried to send street down for the purpose we are suggesting the union would go ape shit.
Kotsay and Bradley
Are not exactly durable, Kots has been splitting time in AAA between DH and the OF. Expecting him in CF every day seems extreme. The 4th OFer is going to see lots of time whomever he may be.
BigE, you know I've got nothing but love for you... but comparing Snelling to Buck? C'mon. In the last two months Travis Buck has at the very least matched if not surpassed the entire quantity of Snelling's entire big league career.
Chris Snelling has 3 years, 27 days of big league service time. He's managed to play 59 MLB games in that time frame. I think we can live without him.
but
Kotsay is going to make a difference...Nico says so!
l'll agree Buck has made Beane's life a bit more difficult with his play. But this wrist issue is a bit concerning and I don't see Beane taking the rookie (Buck) over the vet (Snellng, relative speaking)...he never does. So i'm not really "comparing" the two but rather looking at numbers and the history of our beloved kool-aid dispenser.
Buck goes down, 1st called up.
If the wrist causes Buck to miss time
than I agree, he can get sent down. If he's day-to-day for whatever reason you can send him down. If he's struggling you can send him down.
If Buck is playing and playing well, then one of Kielty or Snelling or Stewart has got to go.
beane never takes a rookie over a vet?
if that's the case, how come so many rookies have gotten a chance over the last decade?
if snelling can be sent down to sacto, he will be. if kotsay looks good, stewart will probably be traded. kielty isn't even worth discussing. but buck isn't going anywhere.
this whole diary is interesting but useless, street and buck aren't going anywhere as long as this team is still trying to win the AL west this year.
vet over rook
how many rookies have had great ST only to be sent to Sac over a vet. plus the very fuckin' fact The Clown is still on this roster is testament of this logic. Beane usually prefers the cheap Vet over the rook to postpone arbie/FA yrs. snelling stays-buck goes. plus, why trade/get rid of stew? He is heatin' up and @ 1 mil he'ii be a steal.
i'ii agree with "X" on one thing-"this whole diary is interesting but useless..."
the clown
had a .965 ops against lhp last year, .866 the year before. so he serves a purpose, there's a reason he's been the #5 of (not saying he was necessarily used properly by macha).
how many rookies? barton this year because he wasn't ready. not buck this year.
how many rookies have kept their starting jobs despite early struggles?
and not all rookies are equal. buck is not mark kiger, he's a top prospect who is ready for the big leagues, similar to street, crosby, swisher, blanton, etc.
u might be right re: buc staying, but i doubt it.
if not for all the injuries Buck would still be in Sac right now...waiting for Sept. i'm not saying buck won't have a very good career. i certainly like the cut of his jib. he reminds me of alex rios and rios is TOR's best player right now.
A big difference between Spring Training
and the regular season.
Where is the evidence that by 2008 ALL
teams will be taking advantage of the rosters this way?
Good point mdl
Along those lines...
This decision on Buck may become more of a no-brainer if (I don't want to say this, and I surely don't believe it) the A's are out of contention later this year.
You "punt" on '07 rather than going for broke, and set yourself up for a good '08, '09, etc. The extension of that thought is preserving another year of Travis Buck, in 2013 - when you may be just one stud player away from a playoff berth.
by notsellingjeans on May 29, 2007 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Very true
I think the challenge is to find a way to do it that isn't as transparent, like the Brewers did with Braun - "we're very concerned about his defense, that's why he's staying down despite our black hole at 3b and his mind-boggling offensive camp."
As for your FA point...I wouldn't mind that much if FAs looked down upon signing with the A's. In the A's Utopia I envision, this team drafts, develops and decides so well that it nearly completely forgoes the FA market altogether.
My dream roster is entirely filled with 0-5 service year players, an entirely fluid roster where the hot player gets the start, the cold player gets sent down, and the extra money a.) gets pumped into signing draft picks with signability concerns, b.) extending every good homegrown guy with a pre-arb contract through his first FA year or two, and c.) international scouting. The only FA's we'd sign in that model are the Shannon Stewarts and Frank Thomas' - guys who wanted to play, that no one else gave a chance to, for 2 million or less and only one year of commitment. There's always 40-man roster space to take a flier on two Rule 5ers, and a Gaudin, and a Donnie Murphy, and Lenny DiNardo every year.
Everybody is in a dogfight for playing time, the politics of a guy keeping his job because he makes 13M annually are removed, and the frustration of slumps and DL stints by 8-9 million-a-year players like Kotsay and Loaiza is removed.
In the post-PED era, when guys are declining in their 30s faster than before, I'd like to forgo that market almost entirely. I don't mind if those players look down on the A's. I'd like the A's to always be the place where the great players are discovered and play for cheap, before getting paid during their decline elsewhere.
by notsellingjeans on May 29, 2007 3:33 PM PDT reply actions
NSJ - I like the way you think.
I'm sure I missed it but has there been any discussion of turning Buck into a center fielder? He seems to be athletic enough even if he doesn't have the great arm in the world. I could see him being more valuable as a CF'er than as a LF'er. That would be a good reason to send him to AAA, i.e. learn a new position to make him more valuable throughout his career.
And as you described FA's, I'd be willing for BB to re-sign Kendall next year for $1-2M to be the back-up/mentor for Suzuki. Would he be willing to take the reduced role to stay on the team?
No one's that good
It's a radical idea to be sure, but you'd be dependent on hitting with virtually every draft. Not only would you have to target the right guys, you'd have to keep them healthy.
I'm sorry, but your visions of Utopia will be crushed by the reality of Larry Davis and his minions.
sig line!
So Barry Bonds, Tom Glavine
Greg Maddux, Jamie Moyer, John Smoltz, are all declining faster than old players in previous times?
Finding five players in history
who defy a general point is not a cogent argument.
And it won't be any better if someone rattles off several more. They still will be players who represent outliers.
Four of those people you named are SPs, who of course are going to decline at a slower rate than position players because what they do isn't reactive; they initiate the action. That's why it's less likely for a 40-year-old hitter to be elite than it is a pitcher.
The fifth player named is one of the biggest statistical anomalys in the history of baseball. He's not a good person to use when we are trying to find a trend about typical major league baseball players.
The previous point stands: Players in their 30s are still being paid like players of a similar age/performance history were during the late 90s/early 2000s, but the reality is that without amphetamines or steroids, more and more of those guys have and will get hurt and/or see their skills erode at a younger age. (They are a FAR worse investment than they were even five years ago, but the market hasn't corrected for that yet).
If you look around the league, it's already happening...and the league (at least the elite players) is getting younger, as a new generation of elite players in their 20s takes over.
That's the reason to fully embrace the paradigm shift to almost all 0-5 year players. In the absence of steroids/amphetamines, more and more players will play all of their best baseball before age 31/32 - during that first cost-controlled contract.
by notsellingjeans on May 30, 2007 4:13 AM PDT up reply actions
You are the one positing that players will
decline faster; the onus is on you to show proof that this is the case.
I look around the league and I do NOT see this happening. That is the issue.
Your utopia
not only assumes that the A's are much better than other teams at selecting / drafting players, but also at developing them and keeping them healthy. So far, the A's have shown no such ability to keep their players healthy and productive.
Let's assume that your utopia comes true. The A's are the best team at drafting players. They make every GM of every other team look like an idiot. They have the best coaches in baseball. They have the best training and medical staff in professional sports in the world. What's to prevent some big market team from hiring away those world class coaches, those world class trainers and doctors?
Furthermore, just because you decide to pump more money into signing picks or international players doesn't mean that you will get them. Let's say the A's valued, for example, Fernando Martinez at $1 million. Let's say this is the correct, accurate valuation. It still isn't going to prevent a big-money team like the Mets from signing him for $1.4 million. The Mets may well have overpayed, but the end result is that the A's still don't get the player.
Excellent analysis, NSJ. I'm on board with this.
I think the arguments about insulting the players, messing with their confidence, or "screwing them over" are way overstated.
Before this year Buck was in AA. What gripe does he have if he's put back in AAA for a while?
We're not talking about something unethical like welching on a contract or skimping on important medical care. We're talking about playing the rules as they are written in order to maximize our ability to put a good team on the field. I don't see how the players can object to that, and if they do I think they're being unrealistic.
Think of the consequences if there really is an "unwritten rule" that once you bring a guy up you aren't allowed to send him back down without dissing him. That would be a strong argument against ever bringing up a young guy like Buck or Street in the first place.
Remember how surprised everyone was when Buck made the team out of spring training? A big part of that surprise was that we knew it'd mean he'd cost a lot more if he stays. I'm sure part of the reason Billy did it is because he knew he could always send Buck back down for a while. If Beane felt like that wasn't going to be an option, I don't think he would have put Buck on the big league team in the first place. Is that what Buck, or another young guy in a similar situation, would want instead?
As for Point E
Andeux astutely pointed out in Jay's diary that Snelling, as well as Cust and DJ, are out of options - making it all the more likely that Travis Buck is the odd man out.
Which, in reality, gives the the A's the perfect excuse/cover, and makes this anything but a transparent financial move: "Travis Buck is doing so well...it's a shame we have to send him down - he's the only guy we really can. Shucks."*
*Oh, and it could very well save us millions in the long run, too.
by notsellingjeans on May 29, 2007 3:51 PM PDT reply actions
A lot of good points in this diary
A few random points:
I think you're slightly off in your calculation that the team could get another year from Street by sending him down for "even two WEEKS." Without looking it up right now, I believe the rule is that if a player is withing 20 days of a full year's MLB service in a given year, his service time for that year is rounded up to one full year -- a provision obviously intended to dissuade teams from just this type of roster finagling.
Doing that to Street would be too crass and obvious, and I don't think it's practical. I'd love to have some way to keep Buck an extra year (while saving costs), but I can't see him getting sent down if he can somehow keep his OPS above .900, and right now his perfomance seems to be solidifying.
But for what it's worth -- and I think it's largely to their credit -- the A's don't appear to want to play that game. Street, Blanton, and Buck were all kept up from Day One when it would have been simple to justify keeping them down till late April, at least. Same with Swisher, although his case was complicated by the service time accumulated with a September callup (which a truly calculating management could have refused to do). There may be a real goodwill value generated by treating players according to their merits rather than manipulating service time -- Swisher certainly signed a contract that is highly favorable, something that might not have happened had he felt the team was jerking him around to minimize his earning power.
Your point e) is a compelling one, and I'll be fascinated to see how the A's resolve it. Push comes to shove, I'd much rather have Snelling than Stewart, both short and long term, even accepting Snelling's fragility and frequent unavailability.
steward is probably our best lead off hitter and
has been doing a very good job of it lately, whoever you get to lead off for him would probably be new to the job shaky
by Hawaii FO on May 30, 2007 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd like to see him sent down and DLed...
..then brought back as soon as he's 100%.
If that gets us an extra year out of him, so be it. But I can't imagine him bitching too hard about it.
Oz
Every time I see your sig I laugh.
Think about the Mariners just lining up three guys around the pitcher's mound like it's PFP's when Kendall comes to the plate.
Sad...we're about two months away from that.
by notsellingjeans on May 29, 2007 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
you guys are crazy!
did you even watch the game last night? haha
by OAKobsession on May 29, 2007 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions
i always assumed buck was odd man out
when this team is healthy again (ha,ha,ha) buck is in AAAA where he hopefully can get healthy himself and get ready for the next injury or Sept call-ups. don't worry, buck will the starting RF in '08.
p.s. love the idea of sending street down for 2 weeks. considering street's current situation it makes perfect sense to make sure he is healthy. and if i'm the GM i could care less if he and/or agent get pissy. one more extra yr prior to FA could be an added bonus for beane to use when he tries to trade street to some unsuspecting GM who is willing to overspend on a closer.
That's disgusting to me...
That's not how you treat people and I would stuggle to be a fan of an organization that would treat their player sin that fashion for only that purpose. It would guarantee FA's wouldnt come play here..who would play for an organization that operated like that?
by OaktownPower on May 29, 2007 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
OTP
let me go down the list:
Isringhausen
Damon
Giambi
Tejada
Zito
Foukle
Thomas
etc, etc, etc...
MLB baseball is a business. You know this because you too witnessed the defections of players over the yrs. But know you say it would be "disgusting" if a team (the a's in this case) made a personel decison that would see them send down a guy like street for 2 weeks to extend the time he could declare FA and thus make his millions elsewhere.
Stop using your heart and use your head. Teams do this all the time. Its all part of doing business for a small market team trying to win in an unfair business model. Plus, the arguement that this type of move would dissuade future FAs from signing with the a's is BS too. Money talks bullshit walks. Throw enough $$$ on the table and watch the scrabble.
It's MLB son-not recess at school.
I am using my head...
This would piss Street off to a huge extent and also put a huge black eye on the A's as a team that would send down their closer to save a year of contract 4 years from now. It goes against every ounce of making a team competitive to send you best bullpen pitcher down for a few weeks to save a year later. If I were Street, I would ensure EVERY single player knew the reason, would stress to the Union to make sure all FA's knew and would surely no longer want to pitch when not totally and utterly 100% healthy or rested and surely attempt to do anything to get traded.
If all that still makes you want to use your head to save a year, fine. I think it would poor decision head-wise, heart-wise and ethics-wise. I would be disgusted by the team with a move like this and had a hard time supporting a franchise that did that.
Buck I can see making a case for...rookie, lots of OF, etc. Street? Would just be a horrible personnel moves from every conceivable angle and would guarantee that we lose any ounce of loyalty Street ever had to pitch his heart out for the team no matter what.
by OaktownPower on May 29, 2007 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
And do this all the time?
When did an MLB team ever send down one of their best players 3 years into his career for 2 weeks to save a year on his contract later? A rookie maybe...but a 3 year veteran who has proven to be one of your 2 best pitchers in the bullpen, if not one of the better closer in the whole league? Ridiculous....all the time..haha, or never.
by OaktownPower on May 29, 2007 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Most of the guys you listed
were not FAs when they came to the A's.
Since money talks and bullshit walks, why the should a player ever play through injuries, even minor ones, at the risk to his career?
They never would...
the second you treated a star player like complete garbage like this would be on Street. You would lose every guy in the locker room....in an instant.
by OaktownPower on May 29, 2007 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
You're not considering
the Super 2 issue. It would have to be closer to 1.5 months down because the top % of the just under 3 yrs class get the sped up clock from what I recall.
On Street, that would have to be this year since after this year he will be out of options (since this is his 3rd year in the majors, each year counting as an option) unless I'm mistaken.
No, those two issues are different
You're right, sending Street down for only two weeks would still mean that he hit Super Two arbitration after this season. That is true. And it's also true that if you send him down for, say, 2-3 months that he would avoid Super 2 status.
However, that issue is separate entirely from when he becomes an FA. A player hits FA the year after he clears the 6.000 service time years, regardless of whether or not he was ever a Super 2 arby case.
So, hypothetically...Street could get sent down for two weeks, get brought back up, become a Super 2 arby guy after this year, and then follow this trajectory:
(after) 2007: Super 2 arby (2.165 years of service completed)
- 2nd year of arb (3.165 service years)
- 3rd year of arb (4.165)
- 4TH year of arb (5.165)
- FA
As you can see, he still becomes a free agent at the same time. The only thing that changes is, he earned a FOURTH year of arbitration by being a Super 2, instead of the typical three years. But you make a good point, if you wanted to be incredibly frugal, I guess you could send Street down for nearly the rest of the year. It just isn't very realistic.
by notsellingjeans on May 29, 2007 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions
More problems with this plan
You could get away with something like what the Brewers are doing to Braun, they didn't have him in their Opening Day line-up. But that wasn't the case for Street or Buck. Send them down now while they're performing well... it reads as cheap.
Ok, so what's wrong with sticking it to the players and their agents?
For one thing, you take away a lot of incentive for the players to agree to pre-arby deals. Do you really expect to be able to screw Street and then get him to sign a team friendly deal a month later? We're expecting good things from both Buck and Street, do you want to go to arbitration with them if they live up to your expectations? That could get awfully expensive real fast.
You're also risking your draft strategy. Signability takes precident over talent. Agents will take a hardline to maximize their client's signing bonus because they know you're going to try and screw their guy over in a couple years. You've foresaken FA, if you aren't drafting talent you're putting yourself in a hole. You're already putting yourself in a situation where you're planning total roster turnover every 5 or so years, you may not have the luxury of passing over a particular player. It's tough to find a big league 3B, you're trying to do it every half-decade and you want to piss in the agent's coffee cup while you're at it.
You want constant turnover? You could do it. But you've got to make sacrifices along the way. One of those will be to not screw your players by sending them down to AAA just to save a couple bucks.
We could take even more risk and sign rookies who
havent done much but who we think will be good to long term contracts through the arb years for at least half or less of what it will take to do this there second or third year. Didn't Cleavland used to do something like this?
by Hawaii FO on May 30, 2007 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Not even the A's
are this cheap. Billy would never do that I think. They would have done it along time ago if he had thought this was a good idea. This would cause a lot of damage to the A's inside and outside of the club house. For one I think it is very apparent that Buck is going to be a star. Two Buck is the type of player that the A's like to sign long term to avoid arbitration when it comes to that. As recently as Swisher’s extension they have gotten one or two free agent years in these extensions. If they did that to him Buck and his agent would gamble on arbitration and that might cost the A's a lot more if he lives up to his potential. Doing as you suggest could cost the A's way more than they would save. They have been able to get there players to sign over to them a fee agent year or two below market value in there extensions anyways. Why poison there relationship with a potential star. Also when the A's start taking ideas from the Brewers is when Billy officially jumps the shark.
by Athletics Fan In London on May 29, 2007 5:04 PM PDT reply actions
Clarification
MLB has a rule to prevent some of the stuff you suggest. Specifically, a player who is on optional assignment for 20 days or fewer continues to earn major league service time.
I think Buck should go down for at least a month and return to Oakland for September and (hopefully) the playoffs.
Also, the union would file (and likely win) a grievance against the A's if the tried to send Street down.
The latter being the reason
he or someone like Conner Robertson doesn't get sent down to AAA before being put on the DL, even though they could have easily done it in Robertson's case had they wanted to try to save themselves paying him ML wages.
Thanks Danny
As usual, you are right on point. My two-week send-down scenario was a bit too short. And I hadn't considered the grievance angle.
Danny, you don't know a website that lists a player's remaining option year status, do you? (Which players still have them, how many left, etc.) My current method of hunting them down is inefficient, and with some guys its hard to tell for sure if they earned that fourth option year.
by notsellingjeans on May 30, 2007 4:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Sadly,
I must say I agree that Buck would logically be sent down in this situation. I wish it didn't have to be so, but, well, it's not my decision. He's been great, but I doubt a rookie would be chosen over any other player with experience (albeit minimal in the case of Snelling). As for the whole send Street down thing, that's got to be a.)the most random idea I've heard in a while and b.) the dumbest idea I've heard in the past 24 hours. The question with Buck is, will EVERY SINGLE outfielder be completely healthy at the same time? Just on principal, I doubt this.
(I am aware that all these points have been made before. I just wanted to weigh in anyway =)
by CTAsGirl on May 30, 2007 9:04 AM PDT reply actions
Trade an outfielder for a reliever
that's what trades are for
by JR on May 31, 2007 12:13 AM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
- Jonathan Lucroy breaks hand after suitcase falls during search for sock
- The Juice: Long Adam Dunn homer punctuates Chris Sale’s 15 Ks, Mark Trumbo goes deep after Jered Weaver goes down for Angels
- Leyland begs media to make umpires ‘accountable’ for bad calls (VIDEO)
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
