Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Monday Night Heartache, Take Two: Bills fall to Browns Bar-right-arrows

"Overloaded wtih Outfielders"

Oakland_tiny by Blez on in News

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 | Comment 324 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Dunno if I buy it

I'd rather have Bradley play CF than Kotsay.

by Zonis on Jun 21, 2007 12:31 PM PDT   0 recs

ditto that
That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 12:36 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

I'll take Bradley

for the five or six games, and then go back to Kotsay, then.

What stank flatulist.

by andeux on Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

To me there isn't even a comparison.

by IndianaAsfan on Jun 21, 2007 4:16 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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.

Bottom of the 9th - Baseball photojournalism by James Venes

by Flashfire on Jun 21, 2007 3:35 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

If true

Then we DFA'ed Milton to preserve Johnson's playing time at 1B.  Let's hope Johnson was worth it.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jun 21, 2007 12:32 PM PDT   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 to parent up   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.  

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jun 21, 2007 12:46 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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.

"The problems in the world today are so enormous they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them."- A. Einstein

by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Jun 22, 2007 4:43 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

No, that's what Beane is saying

and it makes 0 sense = Beane is lying.

My last sig was about Doyle.

by mikeA on Jun 21, 2007 12:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

it's a conspiracy!

Show me some evidence that proves Beane is lying!

That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 12:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't either

but that's what Olney said.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jun 21, 2007 12:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

< snerk >

"Johnson decision"

I know I always get in trouble when I make those.

That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 12:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well played, sir.
I'll try not to swear.

by Tony on Jun 21, 2007 6:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Monkeyball is an expert

at playing with his Johnson.

Decisions.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Jun 21, 2007 7:28 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jun 21, 2007 1:00 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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   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.

Rename Fremont, CA, to Philadelphia, CA. All East Bay printing cos. support this idea!

by One won lost won on Jun 21, 2007 1:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You are gonna lose all your bargaining

leverage because we need a Utility IF?  No way in hell.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jun 21, 2007 4:11 PM PDT to parent up   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.

"The problems in the world today are so enormous they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them."- A. Einstein

by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Jun 22, 2007 4:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

San Diego

lots of good relievers:
Linebrink
Meredith
Bell
Cameron

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Jun 21, 2007 12:35 PM PDT   0 recs

they have a nice 3B prospect

Headley, I think his name is.

by Zonis on Jun 21, 2007 12:36 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

We ain't getting Headley for Bradley
I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jun 21, 2007 12:37 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

Depends

On whether Beane sweetens the deal by tossing in some other talent.

by atomopawn on Jun 21, 2007 12:40 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

haven't you heard?

Barton is our new 3B of the future....

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Jun 21, 2007 12:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Bocachica
My last sig was about Doyle.

by mikeA on Jun 21, 2007 12:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

the circle of life

Maybe Beane will trade for him just to cut him again.  We can call him yo-yo.

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Jun 21, 2007 12:44 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Could he trade Bocachica for himself?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Jun 21, 2007 1:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Harry Chiti traded for himself

you can look it up on Baseball-reference.com

Rename Fremont, CA, to Philadelphia, CA. All East Bay printing cos. support this idea!

by One won lost won on Jun 21, 2007 2:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow, basically about 90 days

That's what I call a rent-a-player!

Aft Yank Sadist

by oblique on Jun 21, 2007 2:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

maybe they'll take Piazza back, too

Piazza + Barrett = one heck of an offensive C platoon.

That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT to parent up   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   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.

"...but we're also always open to hearing about other sandwiches if it can make our lunch better." -- Nico, channeling Billy Beane

by iglew on Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

I can't wait for the Urban interview ...

... where he channels Judy Miller: "I was proved f'in' right!"

That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 1:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I never

would have described Olney as a thoughtful baseball writer (though he's far from the worst one out there).

What stank flatulist.

by andeux on Jun 21, 2007 1:14 PM PDT to parent up   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.

Rename Fremont, CA, to Philadelphia, CA. All East Bay printing cos. support this idea!

by One won lost won on Jun 21, 2007 1:22 PM PDT to parent up   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."

That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 12:37 PM PDT   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 ...

That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 12:39 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

true, that
That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT to parent up   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.

"The problems in the world today are so enormous they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them."- A. Einstein

by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Jun 22, 2007 4:49 PM PDT to parent up   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.

That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 22, 2007 5:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

mballs, lets try to stay on topic. bradley
subject to revision pending next issue and there are too many issues

by ak_A on Jun 21, 2007 12:42 PM PDT to parent up   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.

My last sig was about Doyle.

by mikeA on Jun 21, 2007 12:41 PM PDT   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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 to parent up   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.

My last sig was about Doyle.

by mikeA on Jun 21, 2007 12:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So

we get Piazza's offense instead of Bradley's (probably a medium-sized downgrade) and Cust's defense instead of Bradley's (a huge downgrade)? Still doesn't make sense.

What stank flatulist.

by andeux on Jun 21, 2007 12:52 PM PDT to parent up   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   0 recs

It's how he rolls
I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jun 21, 2007 12:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Milton could play the outfield when he's

healthy. which is about 7 days a month.

"Very nice day in the Oakland A... Oakland A's? What's this stadium called again?" Nick Swisher on TWIB.

by larrysgurl on Jun 21, 2007 12:48 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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.

"Very nice day in the Oakland A... Oakland A's? What's this stadium called again?" Nick Swisher on TWIB.

by larrysgurl on Jun 21, 2007 12:53 PM PDT to parent up   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 to parent up   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)

A's Fan in Philly

by Duby on Jun 21, 2007 12:49 PM PDT   0 recs

Amen!

<nods head in bobble head rollie fingers manner>

by norcalfan on Jun 21, 2007 2:28 PM PDT to parent up   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.

That's not such a bad idea ... but it's a strange inference. ~ mikeA @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 21, 2007 12:53 PM PDT   0 recs