"Overloaded wtih Outfielders"
Buster Olney was just on ESPNEWS Hotlist discussing the DFA with Milton Bradley. He said that he had just spoken with Billy Beane and Billy told him that Oakland is overloaded with outfielders and they knew that on the horizon there was going to wind up being a playing time issue with Milton because of Travis Buck's emergence, Kotsay's return from the DL and Nick Swisher being an outfielder. They thought that it would be an issue with Milton down the road so let's designate him for assignment now and look to make the best deal.
Olney went on to say that reading into it (and not something that Billy said to him), but Milton Bradley is an emotional guy who has had a lot of blowups. Olney felt like Beane probably didn't want him on the team in the case where he isn't playing everyday or has to share playing time. In other words, heading trouble off before it starts.
Olney was then asked by the host what team would take a chance on him and Buster replied that he thought that San Diego desperately needs an outfielder right now, but he also said that Bradley's emotions are a factor when considering acquiring a guy like him.
So I would imagine that is what's going to come out of the phone call with Beane and the press. Billy is going to say that he understands that Bradley wouldn't want to be a platoon or part-time player, even if it increased his chances of remaining healthy. And few can argue that Bradley wouldn't have been a problem if he wasn't starting on a regular basis.
Any way, this is the first person who has actually chatted with Billy Beane I've heard quoted.
0 recs |
324 comments
Comments
ditto that
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 12:36 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For what?
Five or six games? Cause that's been Bradley's story this season. Me? I'll take Kotsay hands down.
by Blez on
Jun 21, 2007 12:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Same here...
...Kotsay would at least have a decent chance at staying reasonably healthy and actually playing.
It would mean Swisher probably being the b/u CF, and I don't like him in CF, but when everything is weighed together, it's ok, I think.
by UncleLeo on
Jun 21, 2007 12:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'll take Bradley
for the five or six games, and then go back to Kotsay, then.
by andeux on
Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree
To me there isn't even a comparison.
by IndianaAsfan on
Jun 21, 2007 4:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Exactly
The solution to "overloaded with outfielders" isn't to release the most talented one.
by rageon on
Jun 21, 2007 12:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It is when the most talented one...
...can't stay healthy and can't see that affects his playing time even when he can go out there.
by Flashfire on
Jun 21, 2007 3:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Are you kidding?
I don't like Kotsay much as a personality but his glove is terrific and his batting hasn't been bad considering the length of time missed. I have to say Kotsay is a true gamer coming back that quickly. Plus he is very poised.
by IM4Oakgal on
Jun 21, 2007 2:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If true
Then we DFA'ed Milton to preserve Johnson's playing time at 1B. Let's hope Johnson was worth it.
by BlameChannel53 on
Jun 21, 2007 12:32 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think that played a big part...
...in the decision, but it certainly is a result.
by UncleLeo on
Jun 21, 2007 12:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If Olney's version is the truth
It would be the entirety of the decision. "Swisher being an outfielder" means that Johnson is our 1B, and the A's would rather cut Milton than have Swisher take over at 1B. I don't believe Olney's version is true, because that would mean that Beane is telling the truth. Benae never tells the truth in these situations; I doubt he is in this case.
by BlameChannel53 on
Jun 21, 2007 12:46 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Beane's truthiness aside
we know he knows how much better Bradley is than DJ.
by green star oakland on
Jun 21, 2007 12:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's wrong to say that Mr. Beane
never tells the truth.
It is bad poker to never tell the truth.
It is also bad poker to never lie.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on
Jun 22, 2007 4:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree.
Your saying that Bradley took the fall solely to cement Johnson in place at 1B. That it was a "Johnson decision", and that Bradley was the poor unfortunate sap that got stuck with the result. I don't buy it.
by UncleLeo on
Jun 21, 2007 12:52 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No, that's what Beane is saying
and it makes 0 sense = Beane is lying.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 12:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it's a conspiracy!
Show me some evidence that proves Beane is lying!
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 12:55 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't either
but that's what Olney said.
by BlameChannel53 on
Jun 21, 2007 12:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
< snerk >
"Johnson decision"
I know I always get in trouble when I make those.
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 12:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well played, sir.
by Tony on
Jun 21, 2007 6:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Monkeyball is an expert
at playing with his Johnson.
Decisions.
by Nick on
Jun 21, 2007 7:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why is Beane
obligated to reveal all the details of his decision-making? His first obligation is to put together a good team, and he shouldn't reveal more if it might put the A's at a competitive disadvantage. Sure I'd like to know the real story, but I'd prefer that Beane make transactions that help the club.
by SportySpice on
Jun 21, 2007 12:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As far as I can tell
No one has suggested Beane should tell the truth, only that he isn't telling the truth.
by BlameChannel53 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:00 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think it cements Johnson at first.
We still have many outfield options. Stewart,kielty,kots,Buck,cust,Snelling. Our outfield cups runneth over. I think there is a good chance that Johnson maybe traded away. It does increase the chance that Kielty will be sticking around.
by IM4Oakgal on
Jun 21, 2007 2:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Swisher being an outfielder
does tip the scales, I agree. However, I don't think it necessarily means that Bradley was released to accomodate DJ. It could mean it was done so they can put DJ on the field to showcase him for a trade. Then, Swisher plays first, and they still have a plethora of outfielders - Stewart, Cust, Kielty, and Snelling to play the third outfield position when Swisher moves permanently to first. Alternatively, it could mean that Barton could be called up to play first if DJ doesn't pan out, thus keeping Swisher in the outfield.
If you accept, for the sake of argument, that Buck and Kotsay are the two main outfielders, even if Swisher is moved to first, they still have four viable outfield possibilities. That still means someone would have to go, and it makes some sense to get rid of the guy who they think will be the biggest problem.
Now, one question I have is how Swisher handles all of this. I imagine he'll be just fine, but he and Bradley were close, and it's never easy when your close friend is gotten rid of this quickly.
by IndianaAsfan on
Jun 21, 2007 4:23 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hmmmm
It seems like a perfectly logical explanation except that if it was just a numbers crunch, then we could've tried to trade him without the DFA. This just seems to reduce our bargaining power. Unless you absolutely had to get Bradley out of the clubhouse immediately, why DFA?
by DiegoAsFan on
Jun 21, 2007 12:35 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Because the Athletics need the roster spot
especially in the next ten days.
Very crucial. Bradley didn't look "healthy" contrary to his statements otherwise.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You are gonna lose all your bargaining
leverage because we need a Utility IF? No way in hell.
by OaktownPower on
Jun 21, 2007 4:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In a certain respect.
I get a little upset at roster moves that are made to prevent "emergency" players at a position for part of one game...
If a club is going to lose two infielders to injury in a game, and they only have one backup because of a roster crunch, it's only going to hurt for part of that one game. The next day someone will be on the DL and someone will be coming up from AAA.
I think it's inefficient to lose players for small roster advantages that would only come to play in multiple injury situations.
That having been said, coming into a series in an NL park, none of that applies until interleague is over.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on
Jun 22, 2007 4:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
San Diego
lots of good relievers:
Linebrink
Meredith
Bell
Cameron
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 12:35 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
We ain't getting Headley for Bradley
by BlameChannel53 on
Jun 21, 2007 12:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe Antonelli
But even that is a stretch for Bradley. I think a reliever is more likely.
by DiegoAsFan on
Jun 21, 2007 12:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In fact, that could be where we're headed.
Maybe Beane has decided that Chavez's injury problems are more significant than we've heard? If so, that explains why Kevin is added to the roster and could be another reason for trading Bradley.
by atomopawn on
Jun 21, 2007 12:38 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
haven't you heard?
Barton is our new 3B of the future....
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 12:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bocachica
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 12:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the circle of life
Maybe Beane will trade for him just to cut him again. We can call him yo-yo.
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 12:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Could he trade Bocachica for himself?
by Nick on
Jun 21, 2007 1:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Only if he names him later.
by oblique on
Jun 21, 2007 2:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Harry Chiti traded for himself
you can look it up on Baseball-reference.com
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 2:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wow, basically about 90 days
That's what I call a rent-a-player!
by oblique on
Jun 21, 2007 2:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
maybe they'll take Piazza back, too
Piazza + Barrett = one heck of an offensive C platoon.
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Party line
while trying to preserve trade value.
I don't see how DFA-ing him is conducive to making the best deal.
by green star oakland on
Jun 21, 2007 12:36 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Exactly
Whether it's true or not, this is what Billy's going to say, in order to try to keep Bradley's trade value from dropping all the way to zero.
Note how he plants the idea of "where he could play everyday" in a context other than a discussion of Bradley's injury history.
Olney probably knows he's passing what Billy wants him to pass on. He's making an investment in his access.
by iglew on
Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"Investment in his access"
is understandable, but it still kind of sucks.
You'd hope that once in a while a supposedly thoughtful baseball writer would call bullshit - especially when its a pile this big and stinky.
by green star oakland on
Jun 21, 2007 12:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree
But as soon as a writer does that, he doesn't get to talk to anymore GMs.
by dbuzi123 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So he can pass along more of their bullshit
by RLangford on
Jun 21, 2007 1:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
All I'm saying
is most writers have their own self interests at stake.
by dbuzi123 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:31 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We expect that from our Washington reporters
But damned if we're going to accept it from ESPN.
We have standards, you know.
by MobiusKlein on
Jun 21, 2007 1:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I can't wait for the Urban interview ...
... where he channels Judy Miller: "I was proved f'in' right!"
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 1:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Because the Athletics need the roster spot
DFA for Bradley removes him from the roster. The Athletics are simply stuck in a tough spot with Chavvy being iffy.
These next ten games on the road could make or break the season. It's all because a roster spot is needed to be filled by a healthy guy. They cannot worry about diminishing Bradley's trade value. There are no secrets about this with the other clubs.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:22 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
DFA Kendall Now
"an emotional guy who has had a lot of blowups. Olney felt like Beane probably didn't want him on the team in the case where he isn't playing everyday or has to share playing time. In other words, heading trouble off before it starts."
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 12:37 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
heck, for that matter, DFA Kotsay now
The more I think about it, the more Kotsay pressing the issue with Beane makes sense as a precipitating act.
Aside from DJ, who stood to lose the most PT with Bradley off of the DL and quasi-healthy?
Then again, I am conspiracy-minded ...
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 12:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually you're just a Kotsay hater
about as much as I'm a Kotsay lover. Neither of us can think rationally when it comes to our center fielder.
by Blez on
Jun 21, 2007 12:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
true, that
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I can think rationally about Kotsay
and he's overpaid, but not by so much that we should get rid of him. He's valuable if you see 3 million of his salary each year as a sunk cost.
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on
Jun 22, 2007 4:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have to say ...
... he's been better than I expected since coming back and having his "spring training" adjustment period. One of my other punching bags, Stewart, has also been doing really well of late.
Kendall I can still comfortably dismiss, though.
But, to your point, yes, if Kotsay's back is as healthy as it looks, and he gets his defensive range and efficiency back up to the levels they were at when he was acquired, he's not dramatically overpaid -- but I'd like to think such conditions would also make for a great opportunity for him to be re-valued by the trade market.
by monkeyball on
Jun 22, 2007 5:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
mballs, lets try to stay on topic. bradley
by ak_A on
Jun 21, 2007 12:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Complete BS
I was more right than I thought.
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comme...
Got rid of him to play Dan Johnson? Don't think so.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 12:41 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Exactly.
For a team that (a) struggles offensively and (b) values defence, if everyone is healthy you play Buck, Kotsay & Bradley in the outfield and Swisher at 1st.
The real congestion is at DH, with DJ, Cust and Piazza.
by green star oakland on
Jun 21, 2007 12:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually
If I had to guess, I'm thinking the lineup will probably have Cust (or Stewart) in LF, Kotsay in center, Buck in right with Swisher at first and Piazza the DH. That would be my guess and preference, despite Cust's terrible defense.
by Blez on
Jun 21, 2007 12:45 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Umm
That's not what your own diary's indirect quotes from Olney/Beane say.
by green star oakland on
Jun 21, 2007 12:46 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That makes even less sense
They didn't even want Piazza on the team a few days ago! That scenario may well happen, but it doesn't explain the move.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
DJ over MB?
you have to be kidding me. I'd much rather have Swish at 1st than DJ. Milton could then play OF. Beane is feeding us a big shitburger on this one.
by SwisherSweet33 on
Jun 21, 2007 12:47 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
It's how he rolls
by BlameChannel53 on
Jun 21, 2007 12:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Milton could play the outfield when he's
healthy. which is about 7 days a month.
by larrysgurl on
Jun 21, 2007 12:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How soon we forget that Kotsay and Stewart
are just about as reliable, health-wise, as MB.
by SwisherSweet33 on
Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
stewart isn't the one who's been on the DL
more then he's played this year. Kotsay got his problem fixed and seems healthy to me. now don't misunderstand me, I like Milton a lot, and I am sad to see him go, but it's not like he was 100% healthy and playing everyday. the A's have played fine without him.
by larrysgurl on
Jun 21, 2007 12:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So if he's injured
playing time isn't an issue.
by green star oakland on
Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As I recall......
It was the bats of Milton Bradley and Frank Thomas that carried the A's into the postseason last year... and it was pretty much only the bat of Milton Bradley that made an appearance in the ALCS...
I'll preface this by saying that Milton Bradley was probably my favorite player on the team... Bradley, Kotsay and Swisher... and although I understand the overload of outfielders... It doesn't make sense to get rid of your best one (which he is when healthy)
Also... Just because he was on the DL 3 times... doesn't mean he will continue to get hurt all season... by this logic... Bobby Crosby should have been released last year.. and Rich Harden earlier this year...
And I know Bradley has a long history of injuries.. but I believe last year he played only about half of the first half of the season... and went onto playing a very key role down the stretch....
I hope it doesnt... but I honestly fear this moving coming back to haunt the A's in late August/September when the pitching is still strong and the A's are losing games 4-2... While Bradley is playing well for another team...
(and yes... that was my first post this entire season.... I'm slightly flustured that right when the hitters start to come back.... they are setback by the orginization (first Piazza... no Bradley)
by Duby on
Jun 21, 2007 12:49 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I wonder if the Piazza nonsense ...
... had anything to do with the Bradley DFA?
Perhaps the Bradley DFA (or a trade) has been in the works for a little while, and the Piazza story was floated to buy time to consummate whatever Bradley deal was underway.
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 12:53 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
This was my thought
One question: Can Cust play 1B?
by richwol on
Jun 21, 2007 12:59 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Cust doesn't have to play first to stay around.
Swish can play first, Buck can play right and Cust can play left or DH. Kotsay and Scutaro could also play first in a pinch and worse case scenario we call up the hot hitting Daric Barton. Bradley is a P.O.S. and I am personally sick of watching him go on the DL and in his first game back he legs out an infield and then steals second before going back on the DL. Some guys aren't worth the trouble.
by jjham15 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I know Cust can play the outfield
But the best open position is 1B if Beane wants to keep Swish in the OF. Dan Johnson is a question, not an answer.
by richwol on
Jun 21, 2007 1:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Beane is Clearly Spinning
Although we may never know the real story. Beane will just wait out the news cycle and we'll all be blogging about something else by this time next week.
Makes Mychal Urban look prophetic though...
by BruceBochte on
Jun 21, 2007 12:55 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
This is total BS
I don't buy the give DJ playing crap. Anyone with sunscreen clear eyes can see that MB is a far better player than DJ.
Here's what we could have had:
CF Kots
RF Bradley
LF Buck/Stewart
DH Cust
1B Swish
That's offensively and defensively the best the A's could have put out there.
Here's what we have now:
CF Kots
RF Swish
LF Buck/Stewart
DH Cust
1B Johnson
With Cust having to make occasional starts in left.
by lenscrafters on
Jun 21, 2007 12:59 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Bradley DFA = Best.Thread.Enhancer.Ever
by LawDaddy on
Jun 21, 2007 1:00 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Ummm I can think of a reason
- Milton Bradley 4,000,000
- Shannon Stewart 1,000,000
- Nick Swisher 400,000
- Dan Johnson 390,000
by 510inDenver on
Jun 21, 2007 1:01 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
if he's claimed on waivers
a's are still on the hook to play the bulk of his salary. his new team will just pay the pro-rated league minimum.
by oak1 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think Billy is gambling here
I bet he's looked at the market and sees that there are lots of buyers. So he DFA's Bradley to start the auction, and ten days limits who can play coy. If Bradley goes on waivers, I'll eat a Yankees hat.
by 510inDenver on
Jun 21, 2007 1:06 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's what we thought about Witasick
We are now paying him to pitch in Tampa Bay, which of course does seem better than paying him to pitch in Oakland.
by BlameChannel53 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Too bad
We couldn't pay him to pitch in Anaheim....
by 510inDenver on
Jun 21, 2007 1:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
and not only that ...
... but we basically swapped both Witasick and Erasmo Ramirez for Ruddy Lugo.
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 1:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Very few thought that about Witasick
There was a significant amount of commentary as soon as he was DFA'd that the A's wouldn't be able to trade Witasick and that he'd be claimed on waivers. The A's DFA'd Witasick at his request, not to trade him.
by IndianaAsfan on
Jun 21, 2007 4:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it's possible...
...that he's even had talks with some teams and knows there's interest out there, and like you say, this is a way to jump-start the process and force other teams to put up or shut up.
by UncleLeo on
Jun 21, 2007 2:17 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
don't think so?
isn't that the case if he clears waivers?
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 1:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Do not believe that is true
If Bradley is claimed on waivers, then the claiming team takes over the rest of his salary. If he were to clear waivers (unlikely) then be picked up after being released (a la Witasek) then the A's would be on the hook for his salary.
At least that is how I understand it.
by AsFanInLA on
Jun 21, 2007 1:22 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hmmmm
So the question is, which teams need an outfielder and have more money than common sense? Or conversely, who would pay money to keep MB from potentially playing for a division rival?
by 510inDenver on
Jun 21, 2007 1:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not so.
If he's claimed on waivers, the claiming team pays all of his remaining salary obligations.
It's if he's released that the new team only pays the pro-rated minimum.
That's why teams let marginal players (e.g. Jay Witasick) clear waivers before trying to sign them. Bradley's not a marginal player, though; I'm confident Bradley has no chance of clearing waivers.
You know, the White Sox could really use him. Ozzie + Milton?
by Faust on
Jun 21, 2007 1:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed
but inducing 500+ comments has to be some kind of a record.
And I'm as guilty as anyone as I posted one of the first comments after hearing it on MLB Radio (when I should be working).
by LawDaddy on
Jun 21, 2007 1:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it doesn't wash. we'll never know.
<dies>
by ArakSOT on
Jun 21, 2007 1:03 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You mean
<cut to black>
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on
Jun 21, 2007 3:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also probably a "plot" with A's management
and AN to garner massive posts and hits on site during off day and jostle AN'ers out of interleague doldroms.
by ak_A on
Jun 21, 2007 1:06 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
oh no
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!
sorry, I know that's someone else's line, but it needed to be said.
I don't like this move, but, it's done, so not much use in wondering what could have been.
I guess DJ's job is safe. ugh.
by brooklyn as fan on
Jun 21, 2007 1:11 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
milton was a special player
apart from the alcs last year he's come through time and again in clutch situations. for instance, earlier this year against the indians and last year on AN day versus the blue jays.
we've just dfa'ed a special 5 tool player to create roster space for players whose ceiling is simply 'above average' major leaguers. and i'm talking about players like kielty, snelling, DJ and kotsay. i hope these players prove me wrong but at this point there's no reason to think otherwise.
there's definitely more than meets the eye here.
by oak1 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:12 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
last dig on Milton today
his career OPS of .784 certainly wasn't very special. When healthy, he's a solid player, but we didn't just DFA Roberto Clemente here. I think people give him way too much credit for what he could have done with his career if he hadn't been injured every other week. His stats show that he just hasn't been that great. Good, but not "special".
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 1:17 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
more Belle than Clemente
but Bradley was one guy in the lineup who could put some fear into the opposing pitcher. the stats havent been there for him because of his injury woes and inability to stay healthy on the field for a reasonable period of time.
by oak1 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe you should revisit Belle's career stats.
Milton has Belle' attitude without the numbers.
by jjham15 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
using comparitives
more Belle, less Clemente!
i agree stats are not close though i was hoping they would have been with the a's!
by oak1 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:45 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that right there is why I don't mind this move
I like Milton a lot, but realistically he's going to be hurt more then he's going to play based on his history and this year alone.
by larrysgurl on
Jun 21, 2007 1:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What does that have to do with anything?
We're probably going to be on the rope for his salary no matter what. So I'd rather have him in the lineup 5 times a month than not. We are "overloaded with [oft-injured] outfielders". If we're cutting guys because they're hurt more than they're healthy I guess we better say goodbye to Harden, Crosby, Chavez (although he just "plays" thru it) and Street.
by methodrampage on
Jun 21, 2007 3:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agree...
I think Milton must have dangled BB off the third deck tarp by his neck when told he was "part time".
That is the only way this move makes sense to me.
Maybe we could package MB, Pizza and Kendall together
for Lo Duca and Miledge, that also could be a way to justify this!
This, IMHO, is a time for us to be shopping for a new bat for the strech, not tossing away one of them. I know Nico is right, 7 days on 7 weeks off, but at least there is a chance with MB to get healthy. Cust is old, Kotsay (god bless him) is overpaid and DJ is just a uniform filler average joe. Is everybody out of options to go to Sacto? Why not Milton increase his worth by playing for a week? I am sure we could have put a package together for SOME young prospect that wouldn't hardly effect our lineup.
How can we spin this to get Miggy back....ponder ponder ponder.
by norcalfan on
Jun 21, 2007 2:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For the sake of accuracy...
...Cust was born in 1979.
Bradley was born in 1978.
by Flashfire on
Jun 21, 2007 3:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"Special" players
Don't play 105 games or less EVERY single season. Been in the league since 00 and he has ONE season of over 400 AB. One. That not not equal special.
by OaktownPower on
Jun 21, 2007 4:17 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Looking out for the future
I think that is what was intended in this move. Bradley was going to be a FA, wasn't he? So why not look out for the future in Buck and Johnson.
by doublehustle22 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:14 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
because DJ is not
the future. He's a bumb.
by SwisherSweet33 on
Jun 21, 2007 3:19 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
bumb?
Is that a combination of bum and bomb?
Or bum and dumb?
by grover on
Jun 21, 2007 4:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bumb and Bumber
by Nick on
Jun 21, 2007 7:31 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
a couple of thoughts
Bradley doesn't deserve the type of writeup that appears on MLB.com (written by -- surprise, surprise, Urban)....and I would argue with Olney's assertion that Bradley was sure to be a problem down the line if he didn't play all the time.
There's been no problem with his attitude in Oakland, but with his health...and considering that he's certainly not the only player on the team that can't seem to stay healthy, I might also question the trades for talented players with health issues .. and then being surprised when they get hurt...as well as some of the training and medical assessments.
I'm sorry to see him go. He was THE MAN for the A's in the ALCS, and was important to the team both when he was playing as well as in the dugout.
I'm out of the country for a while, so haven't been following AN much (though my friends keep me up on some of the games).
by OaklandSi on
Jun 21, 2007 1:19 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
was there anything wrong with the story?
It was a bit slanted, but were there any factual issues?
A's designate Bradley for assignment
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 1:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This came down to dependability
Billy couldn't depend on Milton to keep himself healthy, and to be able to play every day. What good is a sweet Porsche if it doesn't have any tires?
by sprtsnwyn on
Jun 21, 2007 1:20 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Better Analogy
MB is a Jaguar XKE. Looks sweet, runs fast, and has Lucas Electrics requiring it to sit broken in your driveway most of the time.
by 510inDenver on
Jun 21, 2007 1:24 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if we could have cloned Bradley
it could have been the answer to the old jaguar joke about needing two.
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 1:31 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hmmmm....
I'm sure we have a cloning machine in someone's basement.....
by 510inDenver on
Jun 21, 2007 1:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lucas, Prince of Darkness!
That's why there's daylight half the time, no light half the time: Lucas engineers wired the Sun!
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
exactly
There was no "no brainer" in this situation.
People who mention "Five Tool Player", others are mediocre, etc. fail to consider Bradley going forward. He is the most likely to not remain healthy. And, he was limping yesterday! <this according to the radio announcers!</p>
I like Bradley. I also like Hank Aaron in RF, but regardless of either one's past production, neither will work going forward (IMHO, according to as I see what has transpired).
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OT
Melhuse is hitting .308 with a .822 OPS with more regular playing time. Kendall is hitting .221 with a .523 OPS. Another front office decision to debate.
by oak1 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:21 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
:(
I miss Millhouse
by 510inDenver on
Jun 21, 2007 1:24 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
in Texas
by Helloooo 1st on
Jun 21, 2007 1:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What's the context?
What clubs has he batted against?
Who has batted ahead of him, behind him?
Just because he's doing it at Texas doesn't mean by any stretch of logic, that the same would have occurred with the Athletics.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Do you think that's indicative of what...
...Melhuse would do as a starter?
by Flashfire on
Jun 21, 2007 3:47 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OFF topic
but Melhuse homered again, should have kept him over kendall.
by bballfanr33 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:21 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
How?
How were we going to lose Kendall. We're basically stuck with him. Nobody wants his salary so it wasn't a Melhuse of Kendall thing. Melhuse hasn't performed in Oakland and you're still judging him on a pretty small sample size in Texas.
by methodrampage on
Jun 21, 2007 3:14 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Should we tell Blez
that "with" is spelled W-I-T-H not W-T-I-H ?
by 510inDenver on
Jun 21, 2007 1:22 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm wondering if I'm
the only ANer who reads the CC Times, because if someone else does then I'm mystified why they didn't bring up today's article. In the 'notes' section of the paper it talked about how Bradley stormed out of the clubhouse and threw a couple plastic chairs around as he walked out. At first the article seemed to pin the outburst on a controversial call by the home plate umpire in yesterday's game but then goes on to say that Bradley and Beane had a "private" meeting before Bradley left.
Now, hearing this news of the DFA it's obvious that Bradley either threw the tantrum after he had the meeting and possibly heard the news that he would be DFAed, or could he have thrown the tantrum before the meeting, necessitating Beane to talk to him and ultimately tipping the scales towards Beane needing to take action. Is it possible that Bradley has been throwing fits behind closed doors all season?
I'm sure what happened in the clubhouse is directly related to the DFA and it'll be interesting to eventually learn the whole truth when it does come out.
by Helloooo 1st on
Jun 21, 2007 1:31 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
it's referenced in the orig diary
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's been posted
3 or 4 times in various threads.
And, yes, there's surely some relation between the meeting and the DFA, but we don't know (and maybe never will) which was the cause and which was the effect.
by andeux on
Jun 21, 2007 1:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
DFA Schrodinger now!!!
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 1:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if he hadn't always been injurred
he could have been the next einstein
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 1:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Or, if you could pin him down..
never certain where he was going to show up!
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
watching the game on MLB.TV yesterday
Two incidents stand out now:
1> Adam Dunn hits a mile high pop up in shallow RF. Bradley loses the ball in the sun and stays put while Ellis has to go to make the catch. Ellie had an odd look on his face as he stared in Bradley's direction while going back to his position.
2> Bradley strikes out on a check swing. He glares at the home plate ump, stands at the plate after the inning has ended and starts to get into it with the umpire before Lach gets in his face.
Maybe i'm reading too much into this, but i think together with Milton's unhappiness on not been activated early from the DL, this may indicate that he just hasnt been the happiest camper in the a's clubhouse.
by oak1 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just another point being at the game
Kotsay stood in CF waiting for Bradley to throw warm up tosses and ended up throwing the ball up in the air to himself for 5 minutes (like we did when we were kids) because Bradley didn't make it out to his position until the balls had already been returned to the dugout. And Kotsay looked none too pleased with his childish teammate.
by marco magic on
Jun 21, 2007 3:10 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What caused the hand injury?
Reported after the April hamstring injury. Team wouldn't disclose cause.
by FanSinceKC on
Jun 21, 2007 3:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"overloaded with outfielders" = cover story
And it means there's no intention of giving us the real one. I understand going with the cover story, you don't want to wind up trashing the guy you're getting rid of. They didn't trash Jeremy Giambi either, just stuck with their cover story about how they just wanted to go with Mabry, even though it was ludicrous on its face.
by Faust on
Jun 21, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You don't trash any player. Period.
Even if you get arrested for drunk driving your Ferrari at 130mph, your team doesn't "trash" you.
So, why is what was announced a "cover" story?
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Because it makes no sense
The action taken is not a rational outcome of the purported cause. Hence, cover story.
If it's not a cover story, if the reason given is the real reason, then it strikes me as a rash and foolish move, and I'm not accustomed to those from the A's. I find a cover story much more plausible.
But who knows. I don't really know what the hell is going on, and I'm confused and a bit depressed about it.
by Faust on
Jun 21, 2007 2:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're depressed about millionaires??
Here these guys make millions, and you're depressed about their goings-on???!!
C'mon, it's entertainment, a game! Get happy, but don't get depressed about MLB.
I don't really know what the hell is going on, and I'm confused
..so enjoy it. Don't take it to heart. Even if you knew 100% about what was "going on", would it make a diff???
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 2:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
These players aren't millionaires:
- Chris Snelling 450,000
- Chad Gaudin 400,000
- Nick Swisher 400,000
- Dan Johnson 390,000
- Lenny DiNardo 389,750
- Chris Denorfia 382,500
- Joe Blanton 380,000
- Huston Street 380,000
- Travis Buck 380,000
- Jay Marshall 380,000
I think Faust has the right to feel at least mildly down in the dumps regarding these poor bastards. As for the others, he should try to buy his soul back from the devil and then maybe mope around for a few days.
by LAXile on
Jun 21, 2007 4:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
and when you consider taxes
its more like half those amounts and that many of their careers are only going to be 5 years or so. They are all not as rich as you think. Of course theres exceptions like Swisher but in 5 years how many of those players will still be around? 2-3 maybe 4 tops. I forget what the average career length is for a MLB player nowadays but a few years back it was like 4-5 years.
by Athletics Fan In London on
Jun 21, 2007 4:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe so...
...but don't take that to the other extreme and feel sorry for them for somehow being underpaid, either.
by UncleLeo on
Jun 21, 2007 4:30 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Beane versus Bradley
Heck, let's bring in the ballpark vendors. That old Asian guy at the Coliseum, gawd, YEARS walking up and down for that poor guy!
And if half goes to taxes, here's a hint: drop your "posse" and get a $25k a year accounting firm on retainer.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 10:20 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Half
Yeah, I almost choked on that, too. But then I noticed it said "more like half", so technically that's correct. Yes, their net income is probably more like 50% of their gross than it is like 100%. But it can't be as low as 50%.
Top marginal rate for federal income tax is 35%, and for California it's 9.3%, so even with the stupidest financial planning they're paying 45% at most. And that's ignoring all sorts of things like deductions, out-of-state income, etc. Not to mention the investment income they can earn by putting some of it away.
by iglew on
Jun 22, 2007 11:32 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It not playing time.
I think it's obvious that it's not playing time that lead to Bradley being DFA'd.
1)The idea that you play DJ over Bradley is ludicrous.
2)Bradley blew up yesterday after talking to Beane.
3)Bradley loved Oakland and would have been a relatively easy resign next year.
4)Bradley carried the team in the playoffs last year.
5)Billy Beane is known for dumping players that piss him off.
The idea that Bradley was DFA's for reasons of playing time is imposable; in fact, the only reason that does make sense is that Bradley somehow pissed off Beane.
Now Beane will deny this until the cows come home because if he admits to this it lowers Bradley's trade value, so all Beane can do it try to sell the story that Bradley was DFA'd for personnel reasons and hope someone bites and throws a decent prospect/reliever his way.
It's probably little consolation, but if there is any GM in baseball that can come out ahead in a situation like this it's Billy.
by Threepwood XX on
Jun 21, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Or pissed off some teammates
or the manager, or...
I don't think Beane reacts with a "Oh, yeah?!! Well, how about THIS!!" to getting "pissed off".
He cannot afford to.
Beane has an advantage over Cashman, etc., for GMs, in that he has been on a ML roster, many times, and been a marginal player. He knows about players and their pain, first hand.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not quite
According to the book Moneyball Beane lost his temper at Jeremy Giambi's on and off-field antics and traded him even as his assistant GM tried to calm Beane down.
Also, I could be wrong about this, but didn't Billy trade Guillen due to his negative clubhouse presence?
by Threepwood XX on
Jun 21, 2007 1:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Guillen left as a FA
We weren't willing to match the Angels' offer that offseason. The $5M/yr. he on that contract was too steep for us back then.
by Qwerty75 on
Jun 21, 2007 2:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jeremy Giambi
was arrested at the Las Vegas Airport for marijuana possession prior to that season where he was traded.
Perhaps Beane got emotional at the end, but Beane had a "running start".
I'd say there was no such buildup with Bradley.
Now we know, Beane met with Bradley yesterday and told him he was to be DFA'ed. That would not have been the case if Beane didn't respect Bradley. If Bradley had done something to piss Beane off, he would have never gotten that meeting. Bradley would have found out about the same time we did.
Jose Guillen got traded to the A's, and was publically critical of A's management for not signing him to a longterm deal right away, after he arrived and started hitting. That's when Beane made his (you're no)" Mark McGwire" remark about Guillen.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 3:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
admitting to #5
doesn't lower Bradley's trade value.
It enhances Bradley's trade value if other GMs think Beane is just playing out a personal grudge and Bradley really wasn't that bad.
by iglew on
Jun 21, 2007 2:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I loved Bradley when he played...
I thought he made us a better team but the guy has rarely played and it's just business. Hopefully we get sothing decent for him as we all know he will go somewhere and be healthy and tear it up.
He's a talented player when he wants to be.
by Vegas A's Fan on
Jun 21, 2007 1:39 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
surprised...
Maybe Billy thought Milton wasn’t hitting the rehab as hard as some of the other injured guys. I don’t agree 100% with the move, but it seems like a lot of the injured guys are suddenly all coming back seemingly at once and perhaps he figured Milton’s injury history and volatile personality would not be able to deal with the sudden influx of same-position guys and playing time.
by knowledge24 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:40 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Remember when the Indians
had Milton Bradley and Coco Crisp in the outfield? Ah, those were days of innocence when funny names and 17 pints of beer were the only thing you needed to get through the day. Those were the days...<falls off bar stool>
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 1:40 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Slusser says
the meeting yesterday was about dfa-ing him.
The A's designated the outfielder for assignment on Thursday morning, a day after general manager Billy Beane met with Bradley to let him know that the transaction was coming. Bradley left the clubhouse upset, and he also had expressed dissatisfaction on Tuesday after not being activated when he felt he was ready to return from a calf injury.
link.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 1:40 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
huh
Answers one question, but raises several more. I still don't get it.
by andeux on
Jun 21, 2007 1:48 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not completely sure I believe it
They did this preemptively because they thought he'd blow up in the future, as the result of a playing time scheme that doesn't make sense anyway?
Preexisting active trade talks are the only thing that would render this intelligible.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 1:52 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dan Johnson?
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 1:52 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fuck, it's my fault
Billy set up an RSS to my posts about DJ/Niekro.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 1:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Answers everything
A) Have to consider (1)near future (2) longer future (3) free agency status (4) player's ability to cope.
B) Athletics had no easy choices here.
C) Having to drop a player, maybe never to return (e.g. like Boccachica) who is the most expendable?
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Shannon Stewart
he has virtually no value.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 1:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
he's good at being a #4 OF
Sheffield was right...
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 1:57 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
true
decent #4 (really #5) OFer=virtually no value.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 2:06 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
but he knows how to sit down 3-4 days a week
and not make a fuss
That has some value
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 2:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Uh, more crucial hits
in yesterday's game alone, than Bradley.
"No value"??? I'd say since early May, which of the two has done the most to add value to the team? Stewart.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 1:58 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well he's played more then Bradley
so at this point I think he has more value then a guy sitting on the bench.
by larrysgurl on
Jun 21, 2007 2:00 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No he doesn't
First of all, Stewart is going to be sitting on the bench 90% of the time anyway. Second of all, it would be incredibly easy to match his production with someone else if they did need to play him.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 2:05 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe Billy woke up
and said to himself "What could I possibly do to make mikeA like Shannon Stewart even less. Hey, I know..."
by andeux on
Jun 21, 2007 2:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sitting on the bench...
...on the DL, or sitting on the bench available to play?
Joe DiMaggio Shannon Stewart ain't, but he's done ok thus far, and has had some good key moments that have contributed nicely.
by UncleLeo on
Jun 21, 2007 2:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There is a limitless
supply of people who are able to sit on the bench ready to play.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 2:38 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
equal or better than Stewart, yes.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 2:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree.
Snelling... maybe... but he falls into the Bradley-esque injury category and his availability is always questionable, as well. I'm trying to keep real-life viability as a criteria as well.
Is Kielty still on the team? (Yes, I know he is, but it doesn't seem like it.)
by UncleLeo on
Jun 21, 2007 3:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"incredibly easy"??
Say, aren't you the Kansas City Royals GM?? Traded Jermaine Dye for Neifi Perez?
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 3:06 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yes, incredibly easy
e.g. the Nationals picked up Ryan Langerhans, who has hit better since that trade than Stewart has.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 3:31 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Stewart made it on to the field
Bradley was behind the 8-ball on that one.
Talent's nice, but showing up is important too.
by grover on
Jun 21, 2007 4:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But showing up really isn't important
if you're add nothing when you're playing. To use an example from before, the A's would have gotten better production if they had kept Langerhans, who they basically picked up for free.
Jason Kendall makes it onto the field all the damn time. Doesn't do us any good.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 4:42 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It seems the A's wanted him to spend more time in
Sac, getting ready, and Milton didn't want to, which is why he was in the dugout the days before he was activated. Every other rehabbing A, came back the day they were activated. Billy must not have liked the insubordination, and gave him a choice, Milton chose the get out of Oakland choice.
by theblackpearl on
Jun 21, 2007 1:53 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"a team source"
Well, that could be anyone at all, from Beane on down through the FO and player roster to Stomper. Since it smells more like a cover story than "inside dope" (as you and andeux have pointed out, it doesn't make much sense, raises more questions than it answers, and actiuvely serves the FO's interests), my money's on someone pretty high on the food chain.
by monkeyball on
Jun 21, 2007 1:57 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"A Team Source"
Read the Blez interview with Beane. If it doesn't say "Beane" as the source, then it's David Forst. No others.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 2:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Damn it, Billy
by Faust on
Jun 21, 2007 1:51 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't expect candor
Of course, Beane is going to spin the decision, no matter how silly his explanations may sound. He's still hoping to salvage something out of this, but there is really no reason for teams to offer Beane much of anything for an injury-prone outfielder with a history (including, an apparently quite recent history) of emotional outbursts and erratic behavior.
Beane cut him. If Bradley was going to be traded for someone worthwhile, that would have happened already. The DFA decision was made because a specific off-field incident, or a combination of such incidents that made Beane decide that Bradley was more trouble than he was worth.
Was Beane right? Maybe. I don't know all of the facts. I just know that Bradley, when healthy, was the best outfielder on the team. So it is difficult to argue that this will improve the A's this season.
by bear88 on
Jun 21, 2007 1:58 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You might as well say
"when hitting" as much as "when healthy".
Bradley has been so unhealthy his entire career, it's exceedingly hard to envision he will ever be consistently healthy. Could be, but calculation is, ...no.
JD Drew was supposed to be the next Rogers Hornsby of hitting. But the guy's rarely healthy.
No doubt, it's not a move Beane wanted by any means. Bradley fires up this club. It's a numbers deal.
He would not have met with Bradley privately if it was anything but that. If Beane was pissed, drugs, whatever... no meeting the day before.
THAT is a courtesy, and a respectful trusting courtesy.
by One won lost won on
Jun 21, 2007 2:05 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bradley's value this year
I never expected, nor would I advocate, signing Bradley to a long-term contract. He's too injury-prone, for whatever reason. I can't comment on Bradley's outbursts, because I don't know all of the facts, but we all know his history.
The issue is whether Bradley could be healthy enough to help the A's this year, not in future years. My guess is that he could help, considerably, down the stretch run.
He was the best outfielder on the team. The fact that the team has depth in the outfield should, in theory, have made it easier to keep him around. But Beane decided to dump him for what will almost certainly be nothing.
As I have said, that may be the right call, based on the stuff we don't know. It just doesn't make the A's a better team this year.
by bear88 on
Jun 21, 2007 2:22 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
very well said.
by popcornjames on
Jun 21, 2007 3:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm guessing
that a stewart and buck in the hand is worth more than a crabby, big mouth, potential blow-up in the bush.. or whatever.
but I was wondering why Bradley wasn't activated immediately on monday like he was last time, and why he was in the dugout on tuesday.. but I never expected this!
Bradley had a place in mye green and gold heart.
by tosk on
Jun 21, 2007 1:59 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Reading between the lines of Slusser's article
There was a good chance of more discontent in the future, with an increasingly crowded outfield in the offing. Chris Snelling is likely coming off the disabled list soon and he is out of options, while Bobby Kielty is also expected to be available by the end of the month. Bradley, who will be a free agent after this season, would have seen a decrease in playing time, according to a source, largely because most of the rest of the outfielders are part of the team's future, while Bradley was not.
Sounds to me like a down-the-road move at the expense of the current season.
by EddieVegas_NRAF on
Jun 21, 2007 2:00 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
the season isn't lost because Bradley is gone.
the A's have been doing just fine without him actually.
by larrysgurl on
Jun 21, 2007 2:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"Just fine"? Welllllllll . . . .
Better than one would expect, considering. But we're still six games out, and seven over .500.
I don't mean to sound like an MFY fan, but I'm not 100% satisfied with the way things have gone this season.
by EddieVegas_NRAF on
Jun 21, 2007 2:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
they are 6 games out
because they started the season with almost everyone hurt. The a's have been winning without Bradley this season.
by larrysgurl on
Jun 21, 2007 2:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Angels' fast start had something to do with it
But it doesn't matter why they're 6 games out. What matters is whether or not they can make it up. Seems to me that Billy has his doubts. (So do I.)
by EddieVegas_NRAF on
Jun 21, 2007 2:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chavez leads the team in home runs....
Considering the fore arms, it doesn't seem like the best time to be giving up a pontential bat.
by norcalfan on
Jun 21, 2007 3:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You are aware of how injured the team...
...has been, right? And how well they've done in spite of that?
Even when the A's were healthy and loaded this decade, playing this well before the All-Star Break was uncommon.
by Flashfire on
Jun 21, 2007 3:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
At the 71-game mark
'00 - 42-29 1st place, up 2
'01 - 34-37 3rd place, 20 GB
'02 - 40-31 3rd place, 3 GB
'03 - 42-29 2nd place, 5.5 GB
'04 - 40-31 2nd place, 1 GB
'05 - 31-40 4th place, 11 GB
'06 - 38-33 Tied for 1st
'07 - 39-32 2nd Place, 6 GB
Seems like the A's are right on pace, aside from the '05 season. And your point re: the insane number of injuries is well-taken. But the Angels are going to be tougher to catch than they were in the past, even if/when the A's return to full strength. It's not unreasonable to at least cast an eye towards '08.
by EddieVegas_NRAF on
Jun 21, 2007 4:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It looks like I'm talking more about...
...the first couple months.
They haven't had to rebound from any of those really terrible starts this year.
by Flashfire on
Jun 21, 2007 5:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the A's best chance
to make the playoffs is with a healthy Bradley in the OF. Of course, the chances of having a healthy Milton in the OF is another matter entirely, but the pitching isn't going to be this good forever, and the offense is going to have to win some games; Kotsay, Stewart and Kendall aren't going to cut it.
by kcfries on
Jun 21, 2007 2:09 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
An example of where the logic falls apart
Kielty is a non-factor. He won't be on the team next year, and maybe not this year.
Snelling looked good during the week or so he played until he got hurt, which is what he has spent most of his career doing. I wouldn't be making major decisions based on Snelling staying healthy. Bradley wasn't part of the team's future, but I'm not holding my breath that Snelling will be.
Beane, for reasons we won't know today, wanted to get Bradley off the team immediately. He may have been right to do so. But the cover story is silly.
by bear88 on
Jun 21, 2007 2:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
FWIW (not much)
by Faust on
Jun 21, 2007 2:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We have been winning a lot of games...
without Bradley in the lineup.
by IM4Oakgal on
Jun 21, 2007 2:52 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
because of ungodly pitching...
which is starting to revert to true form now. This is when we need Bradley most.
by Cutthemullet on
Jun 22, 2007 1:37 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
man, so many comments on this move
i kinda want to go back and read the diaries posted when hudson and mulder were gone in the span of 72 hours!
by gotgreen on
Jun 21, 2007 2:09 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Beane's got something brewing...
I think he's after a salary and needed to dump some of his. (This would be a fast way to do that).
For the money MB is a commodity. Unlike Kotsay, Ken-doll, and the hoarde of other overpaids on our current roster.
A trade involving either MB or just a big name target for a run this year seems probable.
by gdub171 on
Jun 21, 2007 2:18 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree
If the A's have a roster squeeze for this road trip, they perhaps are working out the details of a trade with a specific team and agreed to DFA Bradley in the meantime.
Even if Beane was pissed at Bradley, he wouldn't reduce his trade value that drastically by DFA-ing that suddenly.
He's the best position player the A's have had since Tejada left.
by blueconversechucks on
Jun 21, 2007 2:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I just hope this does not have a negative impact
on Swisher. They seemed to be such good buddies when MB was around. Swish has now lost 2 of his compatriots (Big Frank being the other). I hope he can file it under the "it's a business" file and not have it bother him too much.
by 0R0H0E on
Jun 21, 2007 2:18 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
he knew it was coming
that's why he shaved his head to mourn like a good Hindu
by jubjub on
Jun 21, 2007 2:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I didn't know Swish was hindu...
I hope Bradley ends up in the AL..
could be some fun match ups :)
but in the next couple of weeeks, all of this Bradley is gonna start coming.. just wait and see. We're gonna hear about comments, stunts, and tirades we could never imagine.
It's just the great oaklan clubhouse that has concealed it this far. How do we know great of friends swish and bradley are? I always had the feeling that the team was doing everything they could do to support him, constantly.
by tosk on
Jun 21, 2007 2:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My Take
There is no doubt that Bradley can blow up at anytime. His past history proves it. The fact that he has only played less than 20 games this season does not help his cause either.
I also can see how the emergence of Travis Buck could have the A's thinking about moving someone.
With Buck and Swisher the A's have two guys that can play RF as well.
Finally, anyone who proposes that Bradley is a better CF than Kotsay is wrong. Kotsay is the better player at that position and he is also a leader.
I wish Milton the best. Hopefully he can stay healthy and help some team out.
by RudiFan on
Jun 21, 2007 2:24 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Better outfielder, not better center fielder
Kotsay is the best center fielder on the team, even having lost a step. Bradley is the best outfielder (who can play center field when needed), and is a more dangerous hitter.
by bear88 on
Jun 21, 2007 2:28 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Buck's emergence...
...plays a big factor in this, I think.
by UncleLeo on
Jun 21, 2007 2:32 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The team will need to change its commercial
with Swisher watching himself as a little leaguer, given that the post-home run celebration is based on his little thing with Bradley.
by bear88 on
Jun 21, 2007 2:25 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Drat Signing Bonuses
Just a thought, but I wonder if Beane could use the money saved to give signing bonuses to players like Gary Brown and Seth Blair to convince them to sign with the team.
by Threepwood XX on
Jun 21, 2007 2:35 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
mlbradio
is talking to someone named Jeffery Ma, and he says he know someone in the A's brass who was really frusterated with bradly a month a go.
Before he went on the DL and was day to day, and they wanted to get him on the DL, but he would say, no, just needs a couple of days, and the a couple of days would go by and he wasn't ready to play..
by tosk on
Jun 21, 2007 2:48 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
i can buy this
and then when beane told bradley, he flipped out on his way out of the clubhouse.
by xbhaskarx on
Jun 21, 2007 5:20 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Milton's History...
History repeats itself, is one thing I've learned.
I love Milton when hes on the field like most and it appeared he behaved while an Athletic, although maybe not as well as some thought. His constant little injuries and not playing through them are aggravating...its especially puzzling being in a contract year you'd think he would be busting his butt to be out there everyday, 100% or not. Or maybe he really was that hurt and gets hurt every other day of his life.
Its time to move on and chances are his exit with the next team will be similar as the others hes had, with the team looking to get rid of him.
He is talented but I will agree, I think overrated in a sense that even his best season, he was maybe All-Star caliber. Good but not great. Wish it would of turned out better and really glad I didn't get a Bradley jersey like I almost did....yikes.
by WiscoFan on
Jun 21, 2007 2:51 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
me too
I was thinking of buying a Bradley jersey last week. I may still buy one since they all will be half price. He's still one of my favorite players.
by sf drift king on
Jun 21, 2007 6:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Could we swing a deal...
ChiSox need a good character to re-vamp their team. Why not begin with someone who will have a fist fight with Ozzie Guillen?
Send us back Jermaine Dye... PLEASE BILLY!
We will even throw in a player to be named Jairo Garcia after we take someone from the DR and rename him.
by gdub171 on
Jun 21, 2007 3:20 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Well Gdub..
at least you dream BIG.
by IM4Oakgal on
Jun 21, 2007 3:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
call me batty/crazy/hopeful.......
but might this be the beginning of a "oh sh*t" trade? (croz? DJ? dare i say chavez?)
it doesn't add up............
even with MB maybe flippin' out BB, it just doesn't seem to be a "i'll show you who is boss" thing. i mean we are this close, so why would we be ditching a commodity like MB (even with the injuries) when we are getting close to being in the hunt?
also, the DJ > MB thing makes NO sense at all.......
by greendatitiz on
Jun 21, 2007 3:21 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
IF DJ gets traded...
that would be a good thing IMO. Especially if it involved a good relief guy or someone who could actually hit and didn't get injured very often.
by IM4Oakgal on
Jun 21, 2007 3:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
When I read about Bradley's frustration this week
I thought, "Uh oh. Honeymoon's over."
But I didn't think the marriage would end so quickly.
Seems to me this could be the start of a big trade, with this episode being the reason to make parting with Bradley all the more easier. But until I know more details of what's transpired, I dunno...this is a stunner.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on
Jun 21, 2007 3:25 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
They didn't have to DFA him to trade him, right?
That means one of two things:
- He had to be removed from the team, like, NOW,
or
- There was nobody else to remove from the 40-man roster to make space for Melillo. (I would have nominated Halsey, myself.)
by EddieVegas_NRAF on
Jun 21, 2007 3:40 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
So you trade your best prospect and then dump ..
the guy you get before he even finishes his deal?This just makes no sense at all. When the A's traded Andre Either to get MB they knew 4 things.
- He is a talented player
- He has a history of injuries
- He can be a problem in the club house
- His deal is up after 2008
MB has been true to form with #1 & #2 and # 4 was a given. But with #3 the A's have got more than they could have ever hoped for. So just what changed that makes them throw MB on the scrap pile 1/2 way through season 2? Saying he's not part of the future makes no sense. You knew you only had him under contract for two years when you made the deal. The crowded outfield argument is foolish as well. While Buck seems to be a future star and Cust has show he can get hot, neither are close to the player MB is RIGHT NOW. Bradley has proven to be a 290-300 type hitter who can man up when the pressue is on. Aren't we trying to win now? If not, why didn't we just hold on the Either in the first place?
I'm just really pissed at this move right now. It makes no sense to move your best offensive prospect for a guy that has pretty much given you everything (and more) you could have asked for out of him. If they wanted to trade him, then do that. But they way they have gone about this is straight bullshit. I really think this could be the turning point in our season. Sounds like Beane has been reading too many of his own press clippings.
by sactownbull on
Jun 21, 2007 4:04 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Fiscal decision, maybe?
You're talking about a situation where we have an extreme glut of outfielders on the horizon, and they would have to cut one of them-- why not the guy who hasn't really played (115 games in roughly 1 and a half seasons) and takes up $4 million on a limited payroll (salary figure from ESPN.com)?
by Joey C. on
Jun 21, 2007 4:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
4 million dollars is nothing
It's a great salary, in fact. How about Kotsay, a worse player making what, twice that, and through next year as well?
by Cutthemullet on
Jun 22, 2007 1:46 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Did you just call Ethier our best prospect?
He wasn't even close to being the top prospect.
by chri5 on
Jun 21, 2007 4:17 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Either was called the A's best offensive prospect
When that trade went down. As a matter of fact, I know I even read that on this site. Point is, the way the A's have gone about this is all wrong. If you want to move Bradley fine. Just don't let everyone else know you want to move him. Hard to get any value when you do that.
But why the A's think the need to move him is beyond me. Doesn't really matter how many outfielders you have when Bradley is one of your best hitters. Play MB in right, Kots in Center and Stewart/Buck in left. Swisher goes back to first. Someone tell me what the hell is wrong with doing that?
by sactownbull on
Jun 21, 2007 9:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Barton...
has been the top prospect since we acquired him. But Ethier was up there.
by Cutthemullet on
Jun 22, 2007 1:47 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, Tom Petty
Waiting is the hardest part.
I'm near-wetting myself to figure out who (or what) they may get out of a deal. As soon as I saw the headline, my first thought was "they're gonna eat his salary, 'cuz who would deal for a guy who will likely be available after the deadline?" But then the realization that probably everyone else had right away came to me:
"This isn't Jay Witasick we're talking about."
There's a halfway decent chance that someone will want to deal for Bradley's kind of talent before he hits the open market. Again, obvious to everyone else. I don't care if they get a Low-A 1st baseman for the guy (and with Billy behind the helm, I don't think they will), anything at this point will be better than the black hole he has been for the A's, excepting his admittedly galvanizing performance in the playoffs last season.
Hurry up, Billy. I need to update my MLB 2K7 roster.
by Joey C. on
Jun 21, 2007 4:04 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
black hole
some mischaracterization that is
by Cutthemullet on
Jun 22, 2007 1:49 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hello from red reporter
hello all... im a commenter at red reporter, and this story could very well not affect me at all. Or it could very much.
I'm floating around a theory and wanted to get a take on it. When I heard Piazza was being shifted back to catcher, i wondered if beane wasnt making a play at a full-time first baseman. after the bradley dfa and reading your comments, it seems the likely scenario.
i wonder if he doesnt have his eye on adam dunn. he's a TTO guy who likely would make beane salivate, and he would be a much better fit at first base than left field, given his defensive weaknesses. This could allow cust to DH most of the time, keeping swisher in left and kotsay and center. obviously i dont know as much about your team as you do, but it seems to me this would be a much better offensive team and slightly better defensively. Also, with several guys available to DH and play 1st, the lineup would be incredibly versatile.
My thoughts are that Bradley could be a half-year replacement for dunn in cincinnati, similar to royce clayton in the reds' worst trade of the decade last year.
Krivsky and Narron love them some catchers, and ours generally suck, so I would imagine kurt suzuki and a minor league relief arm or two would be involved as well.
A deal for dunn would likely involve restructuring his contract, too, since he's essentially in a walk year if he's traded. My theory is bradley's dfa gives beane time to hammer out a deal with dunn.
Like i said, i realize that most moves dont concern the reds at all, but i wondered about this a few days ago and now the pieces appear to be falling into place. Don't go too hard on me if i got something terribly wrong, though. Im pretty unfamiliar with you guys.
Also, great site. I cant believe how many comments you guys have posted today. This seems like a great baseball community.
by boobs on
Jun 21, 2007 4:04 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
hey man
somebody's gonna fleece us. might as well be you.
by boobs on
Jun 21, 2007 4:16 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like your attitude, uh, "boobs."
by The Dogfather on
Jun 21, 2007 4:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the a's would love dunn's bat for sure
but they'd want to ship dan johnson out in such a deal. also, it would not be a's style to do a contract extension with dunn. they'd most likely try to leverage him putting up a contract year, then let him walk and pick up the draft picks for next year.
by Backspin on
Jun 21, 2007 4:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
dan johnson
is an unlikely pickup for us. We've got a high caliber 1B waiting in the wings in Joey Votto, although there has been talk of moving him to the outfield.
And i wouldnt think the a's would restructure usually, but dunn and the A's seems like such a good fit. i could see beane using him as one of the pieces he builds around.
by boobs on
Jun 21, 2007 4:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I doubt it will happen.
Won't happen unless the Reds are willing to eat part of Dunn's salary. Not only are the A's a low payroll team that I doubt can afford the 6 million or so left on Dunn's contract, but I'm just not sure the A's have any pieces they would be willing to trade that the Reds would want besides Dan Johnson. I would think in order to convince Beane to part with his prospects the Reds would have to agree pay part of Dunn's salary this year and next and Dunn would have to agree to drop his demand that his option not be picked up.
We might see Beane pawn Dunn off on somone in a three way deal though...
by Threepwood XX on
Jun 21, 2007 4:20 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah it would have to be a 3-way deal
We're not going to give up any good prospects (to the extent we even have those) for Dunn. Plus, the Reds don't need Bradley at all.
by mikeA on
Jun 21, 2007 4:23 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
reds and bradley
youre totally right. In my scenario, bradley is pretty much an incidental piece. but while some teams would be scared away from bradley's (perceived or otherwise) chemistry issues, everyone here seems to think the reds lack fire, something a guy like bradley could give them. at least, thats how it would be spun.
even if its not dunn (which, in all honesty, it's likely not) i still think beane is setting up for a better first baseman than johnson.
by boobs on
Jun 21, 2007 4:29 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is Suzuki tradeable for the A's?
There's no way they're resigning Kendall, Jeremy Brown clearly hasn't impressed enough to earn regular time (not even in AAA), and J.D. Closser... ewwww. Anyway, I'm nitpicking, here, but Suzuki definitely seems to be the C of the future.
by Joey C. on
Jun 21, 2007 4:24 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Suzuki
Considering both Powell and Recker could be MLB ready by next year...MAYBE.
by Threepwood XX on
Jun 21, 2007 4:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I await the announcement
that Daric Barton's moving back to catcher.
by Joey C. on
Jun 21, 2007 4:39 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Suzuki
I think Beane will keep all three Catchers (Suzuki, Powell, and Recker), and let them fight for the starting position (with Suzuki as the front runner) until there is a clear favorite.
We might not see any of the three traded until next late next year.
by Threepwood XX on
Jun 21, 2007 4:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs



