I'll drink the Kool-Aid, but why Hatty?

by Tony on Jan 24, 2005 1:32 PM PST Comment 27 comments

I am begrudgingly starting to get on board with what BB is trying to do with the team. If you read between the lines of his interview, he basically is saying that he's too competitive to ever give up on a season and call it a rebuilding year, but realistically, he's looking to 2006.

If this is the case, I don't understand the need for Hatty at first. BB basically said that the previous era of the A's is over, and we're about to embark on the next one. We already have multiple rookies in the lineup...what's one more?

I appreciate what Hatty has done the last few years, no doubt. But does keeping him in the lineup really help us down the road? I don't think so.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

As BB said in the interview...

...he doesn't want to surround Chavy with 8 rookies. Hatty was hot for much of the early season last year, I don't think we can count on a better performance from a rook. Let's let Hatty go out and show what he can do before before we ship him off or bench him.

He's at least earned the chance.

P.M.:It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room. J.C.: No. It's awful.

by McFood on Jan 24, 2005 1:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

What's the alternative?

They're not going to send him to AAA, they're not going to pay him $2 million to sit on the bench, and they're not going to eat his salary and cut him. Additionally, very few teams are going to be interested in trading for a $2M first baseman with average defensive skills and limited power.

I want to see what Dan Johnson has to offer just like everyone else, but another season of mashing in AAA -- while delaying the start of his MLB service clock -- isn't such a bad thing, considering the alternatives.

by Vic on Jan 24, 2005 1:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hatty's last season-2005

This is it for Hatteberg in Oakland as a starter. He fatigued at the end of 2004. NO reason to be too harsh with him anymore. Ironically, we were better off with him than Giambi last year and perhaps this year. Admittedly, BB acknowleged no depth. That will change this year and give Dan Johnson or the kid from the Mulder deal enough time to make the transition from catcher to 1b, so that by 2006 our next ROY will come up.

by Gerard on Jan 24, 2005 1:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Prevent the super 2!!!

If you keep DJ at AAA to start the season you delay his arb eligblity and FA by 1 year.
Matt

by novaoakland on Jan 24, 2005 2:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Could be...

Could be that they want the possibility of trading Dan Johnson at some point, since Barton's coming up through the system. Also, Hatty's in the last year of his contract, like Vic said, they're not gonna cut him and they're not gonna sit him with that salary.

I'd like to see what Dan Johnson's got, but I do love Hatty and it's nice to see Beane have faith in him during the final year of his contract. Plus, it'll probably be good for our rookies to have a guy like Hatty to learn from, given his eye for the strike zone.

by Kyli on Jan 24, 2005 2:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Use Hatte as a starter this year. If we go anywhere, great. If not, we pat him on the butt and let him walk. DJ can take over in 2006 and keep first base warm until (hopefully) Barton comes up, or else a better alternative comes up via trade.

As Hatteberg has proven, a long-term 1st base solution is not that big a deal since you can put most anybody there and turn 'em into a pickin' machine!

by salb918 on Jan 24, 2005 2:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

seems to me

that dj can pick up at bats for hatty and ruby, getting some experience for himself and giving them some rest.

by mcbronsh on Jan 24, 2005 2:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The intangibles...

I know that statistically, the intangibles are not measured. However, in real life, BB may have put the intangibles of Hatty as part of the calculations when he signed him to that extension. (Signed in 2003 or 2004 or 2 years, right?)

Considering that Hatty was pretty much a "broken" good from the BoSox, as documented in the book Money Ball. However, what Hatty represented was a mind-set that he would do whatever he could to help the team win. That is a silent leadership, similar to Kotsay's.

I guess it is much more comforting to the young starters that we have now that 3 corners out of 4 on the diamond are anchored with experience (catcher), talent (3rd base), and hard work (1st base.) Fortunately, the middle is anchored with potential which we should be very excited about this year!

However, Hatty probably is at best an average corner offensive player.

What a pitch!

by monteverdi on Jan 24, 2005 2:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

i agree...

by high street on Jan 24, 2005 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good situation

If Hatty is hot he plays ...

...if he struggles at all DJ gets called up ...

-nothing like competetion to get the best option!

-seems like this is the way its supposed to work!

by Bleed Green on Jan 24, 2005 2:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

When BB signed

Hatte a few years ago and was criticized, he said then "there is more to a player than his simple stats". He likes Hatteberg for a lot of reasons which we are not aware of, and doesn't hurt that Hatteberg of all the hitters strikes out the least.

by china bob on Jan 24, 2005 2:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

On the other hand...

...I like Hatty, but I've seen him hit so many weak grounders to second with two strikes on him, that it looks like he's just trying to avoid striking out instead of trying for a hit in those situations.

But hey, that's his style, and probably selective memory on my part.

P.M.:It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room. J.C.: No. It's awful.

by McFood on Jan 24, 2005 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're Right Bob and May I add

...that we shouldn't forget about Hatteberg's motivation being in the final year of his contract. Whether he wants to retire, we all don't know but I doubt it.
Considering that a team such as Boston would love to have him come off the bench and fill in as spot starter, he would probably receive a paycheck higher than the one he receives this year.
I think some of the reasons BB likes him are fairly obvious. You touched on his ability to avoid K's, he fulfilled a lot of BB's vision especially during the 1st half with his offensive productivity. He also appeared to have moved beyond his ankle injury which hampered him in 2003. Physical durablity is a quiet issue that BB doesn't advertise as much but we know from his latest interview that it's something he values. Hatteberg held up physically until the end but at that point, there were no options.

by Gerard on Jan 24, 2005 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what Beane was referring to there I think...

...were less noticeable stats, not intangibles...especially the fact that no one sees as many pitches as Scott Hatteberg. That's the big one, and no one looks at shit like that.

"When I went to church that same Sunday, I picked up a 2x4. I went up to the pulpit and clubbed the preacher in the head..."--Wesley Willis

by Cutthemullet on Jan 24, 2005 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and for what it's worth...

I think Johnson should be traded. He doesn't appear to have a future with the organization

"When I went to church that same Sunday, I picked up a 2x4. I went up to the pulpit and clubbed the preacher in the head..."--Wesley Willis

by Cutthemullet on Jan 24, 2005 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Than the A's need a 1st baseman in 2006

Hatty will be gone and Durazo, even if he comes back, should not be allowed to own a 1st baseman's glove. I think you keep Dan Johnson unless you get an overwhelming offer for him... but I could say that about nearly anyone in the organization.

by grover on Jan 24, 2005 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

stopgap...

till Barton in, uh '07 I suppose

"When I went to church that same Sunday, I picked up a 2x4. I went up to the pulpit and clubbed the preacher in the head..."--Wesley Willis

by Cutthemullet on Jan 24, 2005 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Barton

He hasn't played above low-A ball. He could be great but I don't want to see the A's rush him. If he has an excellent 2005 than I'd be more comfortable projecting him for 2007.

Besides, I think Durazo is gone after this season. I'd trust Johnson with the DH job now, so I have no problem with keeping his bat around for the next few years.

by grover on Jan 24, 2005 7:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Depth is a good thing!!!

While we all might look at Hatteberg's 2+ million dollar salary and say that he is expensive and expendable, having him there at the corner as a veteran leader and a PROVEN good hitter is pretty invaluable.

Dan Johnson probably will be a good offensive major league first baseman sometime soon, maybe starting next year, but there is no way to be sure of that. I hope he earns a call-up during the season and shows what he can do in the Show, for better or for worse. Hatteberg, on the other hand, has proven for several years that he has a great eye, can get on base and hit for average.

All this brings me to the fact that Bleed Green mentioned which is that competition between these guys (Hatty, D. johnson) will be a good thing, and furthermore, having both of them on the roster late in the year as capable first basemen will be great for the overrall team.

Depth at all fielding positions is something that our team has sorely lacked over the last few years, and 1st base is no exception. This year that will be different. By keeping Hatteberg, Billy makes 1st base, like catching, an organizational strength, with capable players at several levels contributing to the organization and consistently improving and moving up.

I personally would love to see Hatteberg take more of bench/situational hitter role this year, since he is soooo tough to strike out and puts the ball in play a lot. But with his salary and experience I think it is wise for us to give him the starting job, and if he struggles, we'll have Dan Johnson or even Nick Swisher (two young studs) in there to back him up...and that is the miracle of depth!

by Taj Adib on Jan 24, 2005 3:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Johnson and Barton's future

Don't forget there is a good chance we lose Durazo eventually. So, it is likely that Johnson and Barton will have places in the lineup in 2006 and/or beyond.

by Donner on Jan 24, 2005 3:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

DH

Yes, but DH is an easy position to fill, especially given the organization's philosophy of gathering players who are good hitters even if they aren't good at defense anywhere.

There are several others in the A's minor leagues who make sense as DH -- Jack Cust, Jeremy Brown, John Baker.

by iglew on Jan 24, 2005 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone keeps saying DJ in '06

Well, if that's the case, I'd rather have him work out the kinks this year, when we're in a mini-rebuild, and be ready to tear it up next year. I would happily take an 81 win season this year if it meant taking 95-100 for the next 5.

I disagree with whoever said Hatty isn't tradable. We're not going to get a lot for him, but I'm pretty sure there's some teams out there that could use a solid LH 1b. (Mets....)

Anyway, whatever, I don't feel passionately enough about it to really argue it too long....but it's nice to be talking about baseball again, huh?

by Tony on Jan 24, 2005 6:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Here's the logic

BB genuinely thinks Hatteberg will be better than Johnson in 05. Putting both of them on the team uses up a roster spot which can be saved if Swisher is the back-up 1B and we have five outfielders. If Hatteberg is on the team, then we can keep Johnson at AAA and still have both of them; if Johnson is on the team we have to lose Hatteberg and then we have only one of them.

Keeping both of them is better. First, it means that if something happens to Hatteberg and he can't play or he slumps big-time, we've got Johnson ready to bring up from AAA. That doesn't work vice versa if we play Johnson and lose Hatteberg. Second, it means BB can wait a few months to see what happens on the trade front. Right now there doesn't seem to be much interest in either of them, but down the road their might be, at which point he can trade whichever of the two he gets a good offer for.

Some have suggested needing Johnson in 06 to play 1B until Barton is ready, but I think BB sees 1B as an easy position to fill. Among other things, Swisher could be the starting 1B in 06.

by iglew on Jan 24, 2005 6:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

good points

i'd like to see dj come up this year but what beane is doing makes sense. i still think we'll see a fair amount of him before the season is over though...

by xbhaskarx on Jan 25, 2005 12:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah but...

when did Nick Swisher become Darin Erstad? I don't see how a full-time job at 1B could be in the cards for a good RF/CF

"When I went to church that same Sunday, I picked up a 2x4. I went up to the pulpit and clubbed the preacher in the head..."--Wesley Willis

by Cutthemullet on Jan 25, 2005 12:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Swisher at 1B

I don't think anyone expects Swisher to be a full-time 1B. When I mentioned the possibility of him there in 06, I was only making the point that having him as one possible fallback plan makes it easier to trade Johnson away now if a decent offer comes along.

Swisher's main value at 1B, I think, is that he gives flexibility on the team. It means that Hatteberg can get days off without us having to carry a back-up 1B on the roster, and it makes it easier to move players around for pinch-hitting late in the game. Sort of like Mabry was a few years ago.

by iglew on Jan 25, 2005 2:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs