Four reasons to applaud signing Emil Brown, and a prediction
by notsellingjeans on Jan 11, 2008 8:52 PM PST
Email
Print1 year, 1.45 million? This signing is all positive, and here's why:
a.) It means that Ryan Sweeney, Carlos Gonzalez, and Danny Putnam can all stay in the minor leagues, at least until someone until gets hurt. You want them there for three reasons: a.) They haven't proved yet that they belong, b.) They probably aren't ready, and c.) it makes financial sense, because it preserves their service time for an extra peak year in their late 20s, rather than a wasted year in their early 20s. In essence, $1.45 million on Emil Brown could save the A's several million more in that it gives those three the time they need to develop and ensures they'll be reaching arbitration one year later than otherwise.
b.) It's a nice price, with no long-term commitment. Veterans seldom sign for under a million dollars - even Darin Erstad got a million bucks from the Astros.
c.) He can play right or left field, which makes our OF that much more versatile. Denorfia in CF with the occasional start from Buck, Buck in left, Brown in right, with Cust getting the occasional start out there, too, perhaps when Dan Johnson DHs. Keep in mind Hannahan can get left-field at-bats too, and the team will be looking to find ABs for him if Chavy is healthy.
This one's a bit controversial, but I do think it's a factor that enters the front office's roster-contruction calculus. How can I say this properly? It's a sensitive issue, and it needs to be addressed carefully.
d.) It is important, and valuable, in my opinion, for major league teams to maintain a racially diverse clubhouse. As it stood, the A's weren't going to have any African-American players on their entire major league roster - and this, for a team that has a rich tradition of terrific African-American players and calls Oakland its home. It's important that future prospective free agents and draftees - of all races - always believe that Oakland is a cohesive clubhouse, and an easy environment to play in. One way to ensure that is to try and create a racially diverse clubhouse.
The flipside of that is, I think it can be damaging to have a team that is, for lack of a better way of putting it, "all white." Even if it is created completely by coincidence, it can have the effect of creating the perception that the team or even it's fan base is less supportive of minority players than other organizations. (Perhaps the Red Sox have dealt with this perception at times?) Especially in light of last year's Milton Bradley incident - ridiculous and perhaps unfair to Billy as it was - there is reason for Billy to actively avoid this perception throughout the game. When it comes to courting future players, the perception could be as important or even more so than the reality.
And a prediction...
I think the A's really like every player on their current 40-man roster, at least enough that they don't want to DFA anyone. Thus, since their adding Emil Brown and apparently trading Mark Kotsay, I think it's a good bet that Kotsay is being traded for a non-40-man roster player. My guess?
Diory Hernandez, who was, in my opinion, the best middle infielder available in the Rule 5 draft this year. He wasn't taken, and he does have upside, but he's less valuable to the Braves, because they already have a cheap shortstop at the ML level in Yunel Escobar and a better prospect at SS than Hernandez in Brent Lillibridge.
I'd guess the A's send 6 million and Kotsay to the Braves for Diory Hernandez.
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Translation:
You're recommending the diary and you're short.
I knew it.
I'm like 5'11''
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM PST up reply actions
Dude
no WAY your 5" 11'
(sorry couldn't resist)
by Brian in 317 on Jan 12, 2008 7:43 AM PST up reply actions
I'm like 5'11" too
(I happen to be 11'5").
The A's are DFAing someone
Putnam's being waived to make room. Personally, I don't think this was a great loss. I can't think of a single trait in which he could reasonably be projected to be above average.
I'm putting my bets for the "minor prospect" on Tyler Flowers. Catcher with some upside (especially power-wise) a year and a half out of JuCo-- so he's still quite young.
Shit
Putnam DFA???
I hope this means Barry Bonds looms, too.
And I also hope Putnam clears waivers. Maybe he will - 2007 wasn't pretty for him - but I don't like the risk of just giving away a guy who was the 36th overall pick three years ago.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 11, 2008 9:14 PM PST up reply actions
Waivers
Doesn't this mean that if someone else doesn't claim him, he'll stay with the A's? He's not the world's hottest prospect.
by richwol on Jan 11, 2008 9:16 PM PST up reply actions
Not necessarily
If he clears waivers (and I'm guessing the odds are in the A's favor on that happening) then Oakland can offer him a spot in AAA. However, he might be able to reject a minor league assignment and become a FA. I'm not sure on the rules for guys with less then 6 years time.
I don't think he can
I'm 99% sure that a team can DFA a guy with less than five years of service time once, watch him pass through, and then still control him and send him to wherever level they want.
They still technically "own" his contract that first time through, I believe.
If they do that twice, though, he can choose to reject the assignment.
I'm almost certain of that Grover but I'd have to check Cot's Glossary to be sure. Jeff has that technicality in there, I've seen it.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 11, 2008 9:28 PM PST up reply actions
You're correct
He has to accept the minor league deal the 1st time.
Yes, it does
He has 10 days to be claimed by another organization, which has to add him to their 40-man roster. If those ten days pass, he return to the A's at the minor league level, probably AA.
But to me he's atractive, in part because he has two options left. In other words, he can spend all of '08 and '09 in the minors figuring it out. By the time he's 27 year old, he might look at heck of a lot more attractive than he does now. Let's say, albeit quite optimistically, that he's capable of being a .780 OPS corner outfielder by then. For 400K, that's a hell of a value in your fourth outfielder.
I don't like giving him up now. Not for one year of 33-year-old Emil Brown.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 11, 2008 9:25 PM PST up reply actions
So you applaud the Emil Brown signing
unless it costs the team Danny Putnam? Now that's making use of all 40 roster spots.
Totally agree on point d, there's many levels of value in having a diverse roster on a team in Oakland especially, or in Fremont, Boston, or anywhere in between. Small quibble though: a 40 man roster with a half-dozen or more Latinos (counting Chavvy) isn't in much danger of being all white.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 11, 2008 9:38 PM PST up reply actions
He Sounds Borderline
If his upside is as a late-blooming rookie with the potential for peaking at a .780 OPS in 2010 or thereafter, then he'd likely be taking the roster spot of someone younger with a greater upside. Doesn't mean it won't happen.
by richwol on Jan 11, 2008 9:47 PM PST up reply actions
You're underestimating Putnam's worth.
What you saw of him last season was a AA player being shoved into a struggling MLB outfit a season or two before he was ready because there wasn't anyone in AAA who could step into the spot.
If Putnam had been left to develop on his own clock, he'd likely be a strong AAA guy right now with no baggage. Instead, people look at him like he's a 'failed' prospect, simply because he hit exactly what you'd expect a AA prospect to hit in Major League ball.
He's 24
He's a college player. He would have been eligible for the Rule 5 draft in December. And he has yet to OPS .800 above A ball. He's never hit more than 15 home runs. He's played 160 games in two seasons.
I don't think being called up to MLB for a week somehow magically caused him to go from being a good prospect to being a failure. He's a guy who was drafted for a specific reason-- the power he showed in college. He's failed to translate it to the pros. I don't have a problem with the draft choice at the time, but there's no reason to throw good money after bad by hanging on to a guy who's clearly failed to develop.
He's 24.
How exactly is that 'failed to develop'?
If he hadn't had a cup of coffee, you'd look upon him as any other 'about to become everyday AAA' player.
I'd look at him
as I would any other college outfielder with no speed, average-at-best power and limited to playing a corner position who was still in the minors after his fourth season.
I.e., as a bust.
I wouldn't call him a bust ...
he's really only had three years in the system -- the third of a season after he was drafted isn't generally counted.
He's clearly not a great prospect and doesn't really profile to being more than a 4th outfielder -- but he's still got a very reasonable chance of becoming that.
Just cause he got his ass kicked by a grape
doesn't mean he's a bust.
Just fragile.
Will Putnam clear waivers???
Well, here's something worth studying as a comparison:
On January 2, the Orioles DFA'd Jeff Fiorentino, who's an interesting comp for Putnam. Fiorentino turns 25 just after opening day, was drafted in the 3rd round in '04, and OPS'd a .791 in AA last year.
On January 4, Fiorentino was claimed by the Reds.
What does that tell us?
*If Fiorentino passed through the entire AL just a week ago (along with the Marlins/Pirates/Giants), I have a hunch that Putnam will too.
*It tells us that the NL is shitty enough that AL castoffs are worthy of being picked up there. Wait, we already knew that.
Now it's just a matter of, "Is Jeff Fiorentino a better prospect than Danny Putnam?"
We'll see. I hope we don't lose him. Then again, I am practically fetishistic about the margins of the 40-man roster. I'm like Zonis with a lineup, Monkeyball with Poetic Interludes, and Nico with puns. Or OakToon with logic.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 11, 2008 9:42 PM PST reply actions
On the plus side ...
it means there is one fewer 40 man spot available for him to be claimed with.
Off-topic
Who are our last three arby-eligible guys?
Street, Blanton, and...
I can't remember. Help? Even better, can you guys (Sal, you too) throw out some hypothetical figures of what you expect them to get? Thanks.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 11, 2008 9:48 PM PST reply actions
Thank you sir
by notsellingjeans on Jan 11, 2008 10:01 PM PST up reply actions
From looking at similar guys
I'm estimating $2.5 million for Gaudin, $3.5 million for Street, and $4 million for Blanton.
For Street there's an easy comp (K-Rod) who got basically 3.5/7/?. The others are a little less clear, but I'm extrapolating from hunches about similar players (e.g. Noah Lowry at $2.25M next year).
Another reason to like Emil Brown
Brown has managed to stay healthy the last 3 years.
Name another A's OFer who could say the same.
It's easier to stay healthy
when you're stationary.
Arguing the points
Lets start with D.
I disagree. I think purposfully making a "diverse" clubhouse by having a token black guy is, to put it mildly, stupid. Having diversity for the sake of diversity is not a good idea. Having diversity because because it just so happens that you have a bunch of good players that happen to be different "Colors", thats another story.
And you act as if we have an ALL white roster. When did Kiko Calero, Santiago Casilla, Eric Chavez, Fernando Hernandez, Ruddy Lugo, Kurt Suzuki, Gregorio Petit, Carlos Gonzalez and Richie Robnett become white?
For b), I am not really a fan of signing Veterans for their "presence", especially veterans that suck. (Sensing a pattern here?) If they are good, if they have a role on the team, if they serve a purpose, that is the only reason to sign someone. Signings for the sake of signings are stupid moves. Hell, any Erstad signing is a perfect example of such.
As for the belief that the A's will be saving a lot of money long term by signing Brown, I think you're both wrong and missing the point of the signing there. I think if Carlos Gonzalez was ready opening day, he would be on the team opening day.
But I don't think he will be, and he will be in Triple A to start the year. He'll likely be there till mid season, or maybe even until September, until he is ready. But Brown is not there just to keep CarGo, Sweeney and Putnam in the minors. For Putnam, if he was that important to the A's that they'd spend a million and a half to keep him in the minors a bit longer to stay cheap, they wouldn't be giving him away right now. Sweeney might be out of options (not quite sure, but it sounds as such) and if he is, he will likely be on the team. Even if he is out of options, he might be on the team for a reason I will cover below.
Emil Brown was signed for several simple, overt reasons, in my opinion.
First, Brown the last three years has had 2 years with an OPS over .800. Much of that comes because he can hit Left Handed pitching, but can't hit right handers that well.
The A's have a VERY lefty heavy lineup, even with Denorfia there instead of Kotsay. And to be honest, the Swisher trade makes this an even more glaring weakness, as the top of our projected order will feature at least 3 Lefties in a row, maybe even 5. The A's needed a righty off the bench, and have already severed ties with Bobby Kielty, and want someone who was marginally healthy.
Emil Brown will serve as a stopgap till Carlos Gonzalez is ready to come up to the majors and claim the Right Field role. My guess is that if Chris Denorfia does not stick after this year, he will become the 4th or 5th outfielder with Aaron Cunningham taking the Centerfield job.
But my guess is that the A's will enter the season with Emil Brown and Ryan Sweeney on the 25 man roster, and go with 4 outfielders plus Cust, Hanahan and Murphy all capable of playing Left Field when needed. Dan Johnson probably won't make the team, but if he does, will start for 2 weeks, crush the ball, get dealt, and go back to sucking.
The A's will go with a platoon in Right Field with Emil Brown playing against LHP, and Sweeney playing against RHP.
Whoa!
That's quite a bastardization of my argument. Normally that wouldn't bother me much, but considering I took pains to carefully write what I wrote with care, I don't like that it appears that you're "disagreeing" with something that I wrote there. In actuality, I wrote something different.
In addition, I never wrote that the A's were "all-white" next year. If you'll re-read what I wrote, I discussed the benefit of a hypothetical team avoiding such a roster makeup (and used Red Sox teams of the past as a possible hypothetical).
Aside from attributing offensive comments that are your own back to me, you aren't really arguing the points at all.
Of course he was signed because he can lefties. That's obvious.
As for your second point, of course he's a stopgap to CarGon. Did you not get that from what I wrote? Delaying his service time is congruous with "waiting until he's ready" or "using Brown as a stopgap" or whatever other GMese cliche you prefer. They don't say "delaying the service time of a star prospect" because it makes them look bad.
Of course the A's would rather call up Gonzalez when he can OPS .800, rather than when he will OPS .650. You can call that delaying his arby clock, or investing in a stopgap instead, or waiting until he's ready. Your point isn't a "disagreement".
by notsellingjeans on Jan 12, 2008 12:10 AM PST up reply actions
Someone had to say it.
When did Kiko Calero, Santiago Casilla, Eric Chavez, Fernando Hernandez, Ruddy Lugo, Kurt Suzuki, Gregorio Petit, Carlos Gonzalez and Richie Robnett become white?
Chavvy isn't white?
I do not like the Emil Brown signing
I think if the A's really did want a stopgap outfielder, they could have found a Right Handed AAAA veteran, similar as they did Cust and Hanahan, with a pronounced split vs LHP that was languishing there.
Hell, we could have simply used Donnie Murphy in that role, potentially, and called up Gregorio Petit or Kevin Melillo to act as another infielder.
I understand the Brown signing, but I think it was unnecessary, and we could have gotten similar or better production from AAAA fodder, for much cheaper.
I couldn't find one in the IL
Didn't check the PCL.
Murphy is a red herring, because he should be platooning against lefties in the infield and isn't likely to be a particularly spectacular outfielder (might be okay in RF, probably would be below average in CF). Melillo is lefthanded himself, and Petit is a guy that (IMO) needs to be getting at-bats and developing his hitting, not sitting on the bench.
I have a hunch that it's much easier to find undervalued LHBs than RHBs. Teams tend to shy away from guys who get embarrassed by LHPs more than they should given their prevalence among the pitching population. As a result, quite a few guys whose performance-- taken as a whole-- is at MLB levels get passed over because they can't hit lefthanders well.
By contrast, most right-handed platoon bats are terrible hitters taken as a whole.
For much cheaper?
Who cares?
by methodrampage on Jan 12, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
But I don't understand ...
what's the downside? What's the problem with the move? How does this hurt the team in any way?
Because the division will probably be decided
by whose 5th OFer has the best VORP.
It's a good thing, then ...
that Emil Brown will be the team's third outfielder ...
professor steve
I have read notsellingjeans thoroughly offensive notes verbatim here and I’d like to express that I do not share his colorful take on history.
purpose behind Emil Brown signing
He has a pulse, fills a spot in the OF and batting order, and allows BB to keep CarGo at Sacto to perhaps learn some plate discipline.
Concerning point (d), at the start of last year the Venezuelans (Scutaro and Calero) were the only true, Spanish-speaking latinos on the roster. They were joined later by "fringe" additions like Lugo and Casilla. Chavez is about as "Latino" as Ronald McDonald. Considering Scoot is gone and Calero will probably follow him as soon he establishes trade value, the '08 team looks pretty wonder bread too. Last year Uncle Milty was both the "token" African-American--and the token psychotic. Now that we've picked up Brown, I'm sure BB is combing the waiver wire for a psychotic---maybe a SS? lol
Several of the prospects the A's have acquired this off-season are Latino and will hopefully contribute to the next A's rebirth. I personally don't care if the players are brown, black, blue or polka-dotted, as long as they can play. However, it can't be a bad thing for the team to reflect the diversity of the area it represents...
As for the Hernandez prediction, why should the Braves be such restrained shoppers at Billy's Bargain Bin? I'm sure BB would extend them a volume discount if they wanted to gift-wrap not only Kotsay but any or all of our other trading chips--Blanton, Street, Embree...package them all for maybe 7 of the Bravos' top 12 prospects...I'm sure you Prospectus guys could come up with a nice wish list...lol
Rangers already raided them
There's not that much left in Atlanta.
BTW, depending on who you ask, Brown may be able to fill the "psychotic" role as well...
not really true at all
the braves system is really only about a notch or two below us if you can believe it. They have just about the same number of B range (using John Sickels scale) prospects as us. And they are just as deep after that. I guess that just says a lot about the state of our system before the Haren and Swish deals.
Don't forget the Renteria trade pumped them up a lil bit.
They're #6 out of 27 ...
teams ranked so far by Sickels, using GPA ...
Some of their young guys
had good seasons in 2007.
Jordan Schafer's 669 OPS in A at age 19 in 2006 was unimpressive, but in 2007, he had a 831 OPS in A+ at age 20. League average OPS in the CAR league was 731.
BPro gave him an "untranslated EQA", which is like OPS+ in that it adjusts for park and other hitters in the league, but not overall difficulty, of 288, average is 260.
Brandon Jones 816 OPS in AAA at age 23 seems unimpressive at first glance, but league average OPS in the INT league was 727. An also park effects.
BPro gave him an untranslated EQA of 291, 260 average.
For comparison, Joey Votto, at the same age and in the same league had and EQA of 293.
UGH, spelling and grammar all awry.
I'm tired of this racial stuff
If there were a team full of 25 black or hispanic players then nobody would bat an eyelash other than to applaud that team for being culturally diverse. But heavens forbid that a team should have too many white people and we've got ourselves a problem. I don't care if a player's green, blue, orange, or w/e, I just care if he can play above average. That may sound cliche, but trying to make sure your roster has some minorities sounds idiotic to me.
This was not mean to bash you in any way NSJ, I just don't suscribe to that rule of thought but that's just me.
I agree with this post.
Teams should build the best team that they can. Not worry about racial makeup. Color blindness is the best policy in baseball and in life in general. IMO.
I agree because
I've already been to games in the past where the only "Black A's" were Steve Sales and Wash. And they are more important than players, in a sense. So I think it fluctuates and a year-to-year lack of some ethnicity should not be a problem. It's been a fact in a previous episode in the Oakland history of the franchise.
After all, considering the worldwide profile of the human race...
Where are our Chinese players? And the Warriors, Celtics, etc. Where are their Chinese players (Yao Ming noted)? And Cal Bears student body? Percent Chinese ancestry versus players on the football and basketball teams?
Having said that, we all identify with players who "look like us". In fact, attendance of bald guys is up since some players shaved their heads!! Cause and effect?
I do agree that the fact that Emil Brown is an identifiable "looks kinda like me" player for a significant part of Oakland's population is a noteworthy "plus" to this signing. Just a "plus", not a deciding issue.
by One won lost won on Jan 12, 2008 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
This is why I stopped watching baseball.
Where are the short, unathletic guys of south asian descent?
Kurt Suzuki isn't Chinese, but he is
of Asian descent (Japanese-Hawaiian, specifically).
Berkeley actually has a Chinese guy on the team now (Max Zhang) but he's redshirting. There's also Thomas Fang, but he's a walk-on.
There are plenty of quality black players in MLB
There aren't many quality Chinese players in MLB or the NBA.
There's a HUUUUUUUUGE difference between considering race a bonus when more or less breaking a tie between comparable players in order to create a more representative team (common and often encouraged in all parts of our society) than there is between using race as a reason for signing someone unqualified.
By bringing up Chinese players, you're implying that NSJ is advocating the latter, which is both inflammatory and completely untrue.
Furthermore, he wasn't saying, in any way, that race was a reason this went down. He said it was a positive.
Let me guess ...
you're white, right?
Me too.
There's no real reason for folks in the dominant majority to feel slighted on the rare occasion more or less random distributions do appear to favor them.
It doesn't stop plenty of folks from doing so, but ...
you're white, devo?
Well, I guess that's it for Sal reading any more of your stuff.
Oh please.
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 12, 2008 5:34 PM PST up reply actions
White people are generally okay ...
with letting blacks have the NBA ... we have absolutely everything else ... except prisons ...
That's the point. You don't have to worry about whites as a whole -- we're the majority -- as a whole, we're going to get ours. (Which is not to say that individuals and subsets of whites don't need help -- they do.)
right on devo!
the racial makeup up the team does matter to some people (like me!).
by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Jan 12, 2008 7:04 PM PST up reply actions
Is that you..
Monte Poole? :X
by ST on Jan 12, 2008 7:47 PM PST up reply actions
Well
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 12, 2008 8:21 PM PST up reply actions
If Billy Beane said that ...
he'd be liable to get lynched ... and while it probably wouldn't happen literally, it would certainly happen figuratively.
A lot of white folks think that since overt, aggressive, hateful racism has largely been eliminated from our country race doesn't much matter any more.
Not many black folks, Hispanic folks or Asian folks think that.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you're racist or a bad person or anything like that. We'd all like to believe that race doesn't play that big of a role in the world. Most of us white folks won't experience much to challenge that belief. You're pretty much normal.
As an African-American male, or a black male, or
whatever the PC term for us is nowadays. I don't care what color the players are, as long as they are good players. I have been called the N-Word, I have had friends kicked out of there OWN house because I stepped in it. I have had people walk to the other side of the street just to avoid me, AND I WAS WEARING A BUSINESS SUIT. This is all within the last 20 years. If I think Billy is not signing good players because they are black, I will have more problem than with him signing crappy players because they are black. Racism does exist, but you also have to try and tise above it.
by theblackpearl on Jan 13, 2008 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Heck with the "all white" team
Maybe Billy is preparing to field an all-Brown squad.
Emil Brown, Jeremy Brown, Corey Brown. And Andrew Brown on the mound.
Argument D
I agree, NSJ, with your argument as presented. Yes, I can see why people object to it, longing for a colorblind ideal. Nevertheless, it is indeed a good thing to have at least one black person on the team, so that's an added bonus of the signing.
That said, I wonder: Was it your intention to imply that Santiago Casilla isn't going to make the big-league roster, or was that simply an oversight?
In light of the Putnam DFA,
Ken Arneson has a different take.
The A's have signed free agent outfielder Emil Brown to a one-year deal to play the Bobby Kielty role of right-handed platoon bat. Danny Putnam was designated for assignment to make room for Brown on the 40-man roster. Which suggests something else: the player the A's will get back for Kotsay is probably on the Braves 40-man roster. Because if the A's were getting a player back for Kotsay who wasn't on the 40-man roster, the A's would probably just wait to finalize the Brown deal after the Kotsay trade goes through, give Kotsay's roster spot to Brown, and not have to risk losing Putnam on waivers.
The only players who are both on the 40-man roster and on John Sickels' top 20 Braves prospect list are #3 Brandon Jones, #5 Joey Devine, and #9 Jair Jurjjens. Any of those sound too good to be true, so it's probably not a top-20 prospect coming back.
That doesn't make a lot of sense
Brown signed a big league deal, he has to be on the 40-man. The 40-man was at 40, therefore someone had to be moved... Putnam got tagged. You can't sign a guy and wait a couple days before putting him on your 40-man roster. What happens with the Kots trade has nothing to do with Putnam/Brown.
It's much more likely the A's signed Brown yesterday because the market insisted upon it. If Brown had other suitors (and he probably did) the A's risked seeing him sign elsewhere over the weekend if they waited until after the Kots deal to bring him on board.
What's strange about that, then,
is that the possibility of not getting Emil Brown was more terrifying to the A's than the possibility of losing Putnam on waivers.
I think there's a good chance Putnam clears
He's been pretty beat up the last couple years and hasn't been able to post eye catching numbers. There's a real risk of losing him, but it's a pretty low grade risk.
meh
I'm not thrilled either way about an Emil Brown signing. The financial argument seems a bit light since you're paying $1.5MM (and probably losing Putnam) now for a chance to save $2-3MM in six years (plus maybe a C prospect at the trading deadline). I don't think that adds up.
But, I'm willing to listen to the other arguments about veteran presence (does it matter if the veteran has played on bad teams his whole career?), RH OF bat, and that maybe the OF we got in the trades just aren't ready.
As long as he's not getting more than a start a week by July, I'll be happy with this signing.
Emil Brown = Warm Body
...w/ an outside chance of have trade value before the trade deadline.
The only real reason for the Emil Brown signing is Beane doesn't want to "Pull another Buck" w/ Carlos Gonzalez, i.e., starting the Arby Clock way too soon.
Current OF Depth:
Buck
Denorfia
Brown
Sweeney
Kotsay (Look at the Braves 40-Man Roster - I think we'll get an OF in return)
Gonzalez
Robnett
Herrera
You forgot Cust
Right now my best guess has Cust DHing against lefties and playing RF against righties while DJ is the DH.
Of course, I'm expecting DJ to get traded as well, which suggests that the A's may not (coughbondscough) be done signing outfield/DH types this offseason.
I disagree with just about everything
... for pretty much the same reasons that other objectors have lodged.
What I don't think has yet been addressed is point (c): just how, exactly, does Brown make the OF more "versatile"? He's not a CF, which is our one point of significant weakness -- especially if/when Kotsay is shipped to the ATL. We're down to counting on Denorfia to be healthy and productive. I know, I don't really care about '08 and neither should anyone else; but signing Brown is "caring about '08" in the most marginal way, and he doesn't address any real shortcomings -- and the RH "Kielty role" is nonsense, since when have the A's during Beane's tenure ever really used a traditional platoon?
I'll only bite on the "sign Brown to flip at the deadline for a prospect" argument. "Saves us service time on our OF prospects" doesn't make any sense when we could have had Warm Body Putnam fill the same role for 1/5 the cost. And, of course, there's the counter-argument to the "flip" justification: that if Brown had any value to other ML teams, he'd have been signed already.
Don't get me wrong -- signing Brown is a minor move, for chump change, in preparation for a season in which the on-field product isn't really going to matter at all. It's just that it's kinda ... dumb.
There's major flaw that needs to be addresses
Danny Putnam has played in 160 games over the past two seasons. Saying that Putnam could have filled the Warm Body role assumes that Putnam would actually be available to do the job.
Emil Brown has stayed healthy the last 3 seasons, if you're looking for someone to be a Warm Body that you can plug in whenever the mood strikes it makes sense that you have someone who could actually be available on a daily basis. Forget pure talent for a moment, you want someone dependable to plug in the line-up. Brown has been more durable then Shannon Stewart was and the A's are getting him for almost the same price.
Warm Bodies/Proven Major Leaguers ...
I think BB needed to get Emil Brown (or someone similar) -- a player like Danny Putnam could not have filled that role.
As a "proven Major Leaguer" and the "big" free agent signee of the offseason, Emil Brown comes in with a certain amount of bona fides.
People -- both fans and AAAers will have a much easier time accepting (at least initially) that Emil Brown is the reason all of our new, exciting young prospects are still hanging out up here in Sacramento, instead of manning the outfield in Oakland.
Billy Beane can get away with keeping Emil Brown in the outfield, even if Carlos Gonzalez or Ryan Sweeney handily out performs him in spring training.
We all know the benefits of such a move. It keeps the player under team/cost control 2014 instead of 2013 and by delaying any call-ups late enough to avoid Super-2 status it could save the team as much as $15m or so (though most likely $6-10m) over the course of each player's team control years.
SuSlu quotes Forst
saying he plays all three outfield positions. I took that to mean he's at least tolerable in CF.
Off topic
But I dont think this deserves its own diary.
Baseball Musings (via Rosenthal) reporting Glaus was traded for Rolen. That's two overpriced, injury prone third basemen swapped for each other (granted, this looks like a change of scenery deal for both sides). I wonder what the market is for Chavvy. LA, Philly, and SF would all be solid fits, I think.
That could certainly deserve its own diary
Slap a link to the Rosenthal article and a judiciously small snippet of the relevant text, expand on your Chavez thoughts a bit ...
someone else want to do it?
I'm putting the final touches on my front-pager for today.
Glaus really must be on roids
for Toronto to do that swap straight up.
Rolen is not only more seriously injured, he's practically sworn a blood oath against his own manager. Ricciardi is really doing St. Louis a favor here.
I hope you are right, 'cause his resume
is totally unimpressive.
Where Is The Love?
The highest batting average on the A's last year was .290. Brown, depending on how deep his April slump is in 2008, will probably come very close to that. He hit .316 with runners in scoring position. He hit .317 against lefties last year. He's durable. He plays all three outfield positions.
As much as people on AN don't want to admit it, the Oakland Athletics actually must play a season in 2008 before the 2009 season begins. This signing gives them the flexibility to bring up players when ready, and to keep players in Sacramento when not ready. I guess I don't see why other people here don't see that.
by richwol on Jan 12, 2008 3:15 PM PST reply actions
2008 projections for Emil Brown
ZIPS has Brown at .268/.332/.392, while Bill James has Brown at .264/.328/.398. Those are terrible numbers for a corner outfielder (he's no more a centerfielder than Buck ), and his OPS+ was 68 last year. That is probably "where the love is."
As long as Brown is only used as an occasional platoon player he will likely exceed those projections, but just because the A's have to play games in 2008 does not mean they have to play them with known mediocrities like Emil Brown.
Overall, I think this deal has no real effect either on the A's present or future. It's pretty much the definition of "meh."
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 12, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
meh?
Emil Brown=The Wire of free-agent signings
Doesn't that also make him
the Jamie Kotsay of free-agent signings?
(By the way, I have no idea what you mean by "The Wire". I found the TV series on Wikipedia but I'm still no closer to understanding what it means in your context.)
He thinks it's overrated.
Running out of material?
Is this morsel of cleverness a hotkey on your laptop? You see "meh" in any context, hit F4, and "[person] = The Wire of [place/thing/action]" is automatically generated?
Not so much running out of material
seems more like a running gag.
I know.
Translated from sarcasm-speak, my post actually reads:
"I know this is a running gag, but for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, reading it a third time was kind of irritating. I am worried that if no one puts a stop to it, it will blossom into a full-on fetish, and I'll have to quit reading AN altogether just to avoid the inescapable profusion of 'meh' rejoinders."
That would be a rather tragic outcome, for me at least. And all because of an inexplicably grating Wire joke. Beane'll trade Blanton, then Street, then Ellis, and in each instance there I'll be, anxiously tapping my fingers against the desk, chewing my lower lip, reading the excruciatingly vacuous ESPN summary, aware that a wellspring of hardball acumen is but a click away, wishing I could navigate to AN to witness you and devo arguing over whether the prospect hauls were sufficient and the strategy sound, but worried, reticent, deathly afraid really, that someone might refer to the talent of our newest 20 year old AA infielder as "meh", at which point monkeyball, drunk on obsession and cackling like Jack Nicholson in an underwritten role, would hit F4 again.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
