Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: The Michigan Fan's Guide to Beating Ohio State Bar-right-arrows



A Blueprint for Rebuilding (Phase 2)

Well... that was disappointing.

I am of course referring to the complete and total lack of action on the part of the Oakland A’s as the July 31st deadline passed. This is a team that has holes in the roster, holes that cannot be filled internally unless the players who are currently digging said holes can turn it around. And seeing as how the primary culprits (Eric Chavez, Bobby Crosby and Mark Kotsay) have all been varying shades of disappointing for going on two years now it seems beyond optimistic to think that a turnaround is forthcoming in 2008. But more than that, I’m tired of giving them more chances. I’m tired of wasting my time and the time of some very good players on this roster. Meanwhile, the likelihood of Beane & Co. going on a spending spree in the coming off-season seems even more remote than the possibility that Bobby Crosby will quit chasing sliders.

Star-divide

But I’m not without hopefulness.

There is still time for Billy Beane to enact the more critical details that I brought up in the first part of this series. The Blanton non-trade could still come to fruition in the coming off-season, so its failure to materialize in the last 24 hours is not cause for too much alarm. (Although I have to admit, I don’t see how Beane can expect to get a better deal in December than he would have gotten during a July playoff push. I worry that Beane might have missed the optimal moment to deal Blanton. But moving on...)

Phase 2

Step 1: Get Piazza moving dammit!

Let me make this crystal clear. Trading Mike Piazza in the next 10 days is the single most important thing that Billy Beane can presently do to improve the future of the Oakland (eventually Fremont) A’s. This seems at odds with my previous diary, in which I said I didn’t care where Mike Piazza got traded to or who the A’s got in return. Well, I still don’t care where Piazza ends up or who we get in return, I’m more interested in the 3-5 draft picks the A’s could sign once they freed up Piazza’s salary.

Today’s history lesson: How the Oakland A’s have spent their draft signing bonus budget for the past 5 years.

Year    Total # 1st Rd Picks    Budget

2003      2 1st/1 Sup 1st        $4.9 million
2004      2 1st/2 Sup 1st        $6.3 million
2005      1 1st/1 Sup 1st        $4.8 million
2006      0 1st/0 Sup 1st        $1.6 million
2007      1 1st/2 Sup 1st        Est. $4 million spent

As you can see, the A’s broke the $5 million mark once in the last four years and that came when they had 4 1st round picks to sign. This year, with only 3 1st round picks to look forward to, it is likely that the A’s budgeted no more than $5 million to sign their draft picks. Expecting the A’s to dip into ownership’s pockets and up their signing budget in order to give above slot bonuses to draft picks with signability issues seems the height of foolishness. However, if the A’s could take the roughly $2.5 million they’d save by trading Piazza and slip it into their draft budget... well, that’s money that has already been allocated by the ownership towards baseball operations. Now we’re talking about moving money from one pot to another, I don’t see why Beane would have to ask permission to spend money he’s already been told to spend.

What the A’s need to do more than anything is restock their farm system with high ceiling talent and that kind of prospect costs money. The A’s currently have 22 unsigned draftees from this year’s draft. Two of those draftees, 12th rounder Gary Brown and 21st rounder Stephen Porlier, were considered talented enough to be taken in the first 3 rounds. There were even some whispers that Brown could be worthy of a Sup 1st round pick. The problem with both is signability. Brown is a high school player who signed a letter of intent to Cal State Fullerton; Porlier is a draft eligible sophomore for the Oklahoma Sooners. It will probably cost anywhere from $600 – 900 K to sign Brown away from Fullerton, which is pretty much the going rate for a Sup 1 pick but well above the norm for your typical 12th round pick. Porlier doesn’t have quit that kind of leverage but he’d probably be expecting at least $350 K to sign. Again, that’s the going rate for a high 3rd round pick (which is roughly where he’d have been picked based on talent alone) but considerably above slot for a 21st round pick.

The A’s could spend the remainder of their original signing budget on Brown and Porlier alone and there might not be enough left to cover even that much. Adding the savings from Piazza’s salary gives Oakland much more flexibility and would allow them to sign more young talent. Now there are some folks who worry about spending too much money on draft picks, who are afraid that doing what I’m advocating will end up costing the A’s more money down the road as the bar will raise for the next crop. There is some merit to this argument, but bare in mind that the A’s are paying Jay Witasick $1.5 million to pitch for the Devil Rays. They cut a $1.3 million check to the Padres so they’d take Milton Bradley and put him in their outfield. And last but certainly not least, the A’s gave the Chicago Cubs $4.5 million to make Jason Kendall a platoon catcher. Oakland is spending $7.3 million (almost 1/10th of their Opening Day Payroll) to make 3 players ex-A’s! If you’re worried about financial Armageddon then spending a few extra dollars on draft picks is not the slippery slope you need to worry about.

This is a time critical action. The A’s will lose all rights to sign their draft picks on August 15th. Having to put Piazza through the waiver wire before dealing him complicates and slows down the trading process. I’m giving the A’s 10 days to move Piazza because they’ll still need some time to negotiate with their draft picks and get them to sign. So the sooner Mike Piazza becomes an ex-A the quicker things can happen with players who could contribute to the long term success of the franchise.

Step 2: Add Michael Madsen, Gregorio Petit and Jason Perry to the 40-man roster.

There are currently 38 players on the 40-man roster and if Loaiza comes back in August that number will bump to 39. This is why I was so anxious to put Chavez on the 60-day DL as part of Phase 1. I want to see Madsen get a cup o’ coffee in the Show, I want to see if he’s got what it takes to help Oakland in 2008. He’ll probably be nearly maxed out innings wise, so he might end up pitching out of the bullpen ala Joe Blanton in 2004. If I’ve counted right, Petit will need to be placed on the 40-man roster before next season anyways to keep him from being snagged in the Rule 5 draft. I think Petit has a good chance of taking over Scutaro’s role as the primary back-up infielder in 2008. I just don’t see the wisdom in paying Scoot $2 million or more next year when he struggles to handle the defensive responsibilities of 3B and SS. Keeping Scutaro as a back-up in 2008 smacks of laziness, nothing else. Again, a cup o’ coffee would give Petit a taste of what life is like in the Show and it would provide a means to measure just how far he’s come and how much more work he needs to put in to stay in the big leagues. Jason Perry is something of a sentimental choice and if there was some kind of roster crunch that necessitated someone else being on the 40-man than so be it. I believe in rewarding the organizational soldiers who end up bouncing between minor league stops to accommodate the parent club’s needs. Brad Ziegler could also be a choice to fill this spot, although I would like to see how well Perry’s bat can handle big league pitching come September.

Step 3: Call up Dan Meyer in September and put him in the rotation.

Meyer is already on the 40-man roster, so when rosters expand in September I’d like to see Meyer get a shot in the big league rotation. Gaudin will probably be gassed so it shouldn’t be too hard to open a spot for Meyer. I want to see how far away the A’s are from actually getting a return from the Hudson trade. And if he actually shows something in September then it will be easier to trade a starting pitcher for a bat (or two) in the off-season.

Admittedly, Phase 2 is more about evaluating the existing personnel than it is about improving the roster. It makes no sense to plan ahead and pursue players, be they free agents or trade targets, without first having an accurate picture of what the A’s have in place. Figure that out and move from there.

Phase 3 opens the day after the World Series ends.

0 recs | Comment 165 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Grest post as a follow up

to Phase # 1 Grover. An excellent read as always...........

Man, Beane sure did leave me flabergasted at not getting anything done at the deadline this year......I mean, even at the very least he could have shipped off dead weight in DJ, plug in your CF in Kotsay, JoKe for a bucket of sunflower seeds, and Piazza for a salad!

Oh well, I guess we still have our collective health.............right????? (Not including anyone else on the A's current roster...)

by mrod on Aug 1, 2007 1:15 AM PDT   0 recs

Glad to see that Brad

is at the very least a sentimental option.  I hope that guy gets his shot.  What he does with it is entirely up to him.  

Many props to you Grover, I've really enjoyed the last two diaries you've posted.  Is our low minor system also bereft of talent?  

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Aug 1, 2007 1:24 AM PDT   0 recs

Talent in the minors

There is some talent in A-ball and below, but the attrition rate is so high that its a very thin margin between having someone to look forward to and viewing a desolate wasteland. A lot's been said about the A's spending some early draft picks on high school arms the last few years, of those 6-7 arms only Trevor Cahill is having a decent 2007.

I pulled out my copy of BA's 2007 Prospect Handbook before answering you post. Did you know that 15 of Oakland's Top 30 prospects have missed significant time due to injury? In classic Oakland tradition, there have been a few players that have missed a week or more due to injury but never made it to the DL. Three other prospects have been traded away. so yes there's talent, but with odds like that I can't promise you it will be around next week.

As for Ziegler, he's been death to RH hitters down in AAA. I think he has a shot at a bullpen job in Oakland next year.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 1, 2007 9:03 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Good Points

The break down of the signing bonus money is especially good information. I would hope that Beane and Co. could use some of the money saved by shipping out Piazza to sign someone like Gary Brown, although I'm not so sure it would as simple as that.

I remember the whole "Smoak" incident, when Beane actually travelled to the East Coast to meet with Justin, after which he came out with the impression that "he's going to college - case closed." That could be the same case with Brown, and even if it's not, I'm not sure Beane would go out and offer as much money as you suggest (up to 900K) to a 12th rounder, when that's about how much we spent to sign our 1st rounder. It would seem like that would be kind of a slap-in-the-face to every player we took in the supplemental round and 2nd - 11th rounds. It's worth trying though.

I agree with most everything else you mention here with regard to personnel, with the possible exception of adding Perry to the 40-man. I understand that he's an "organizational soldier" but there are just certain guys that HAVE to play for the Rule 5 draft, and unfortunately Perry is one of them, since there are already about 6 outfielders (or outfielder-types) on the 40-man ahead of Jason and whom I'd rather see ahead of him on the depth chart.

I'm looking forward to seeing what both Madsen and Meyer can bring to this team after both have performed pretty well this season and have finally bounced back from injuries. I think I heard someone call Meyer's current pitching style as "effectively wild". It might be an interesting experiment to see what a guy like that can do mixed into a rotation with such disciplined control artists (Haren, Blanton, Loiaza, DiNardo) working ahead of him.

by Taj Adib on Aug 1, 2007 8:48 AM PDT   0 recs

No slap to the face... its just business.

If Brown or anyone else is dead set on going to college or staying in school than no (realistic) amount of money will change their mind. But if the draftee in question is of a split mind, if they have a number that will serve as a tipping point then by all means the A's should explore that option. And if Oakland is serious about improving their ballclub through the farm system than Brown and his elk are exactly the kind of talent the A's need to be targetting.

As for Smoak, yes he wanted to go to college and it certainly looks like that move is going to pay off for him in the 2008 draft. But he also had a price to forgo school and the A's were not willing to match it. That was their choice and the debate about whether or not it was a wise one has been hotly debated since.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 1, 2007 9:18 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

when the niners drafted rice in the first round,

they traded their normal first and a second round pick (i think) to move up in the first round.  it was considered an expensive move.

does anybody think it wasn't worth the price?

people have it in their heads that value means cheap.  it doesn't.  sometimes it means you get what you paid for and other times it becomes frank thomas.

does anybody really think that the a-rod contract hasn't turned out to be good value for the teams that he's played for?  if it's a bad contract, why is he going to opt out and get a similar contract again.

the a's are cheap.  if they find value, then ok.  but they're cheap.

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 9:36 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

This raises a crucial issue about team finances

What does ownership do with payroll savings?  The A's "saved" a bit of payroll on the Kendall and Bradley transactions, and would/will save more on any post-waiver Piazza deal.  Better still, if the Phils or Yanks get really desperate for OF help, maybe Kotsay could go.

But what does Wolffish do with such resources?  Are the funds added to the draft pick budget as grover urges?  Do they roll into next year's payroll budget, adding that much more room to sign help this winter?  Or do they go straight to Lew and John's (and Billy's) pockets?  

Given that ownership is raked over $15 million in profit off the top in each of the last two years, I'm concerned that the answer is C: into the pockets.  I'm further concerned that the lame-duck Coliseum years of 2008-10 couold prove to be even more low payroll, high profit oriented.  I've opined often that I don't think the A's have planned to take the slashed costs/elevate profits/don't contend for a few years approach...but I'm beginning to worry.  

And frankly, if the answer is C, then it's time to stop celebrating moves that save the A's payroll costs.  I root for the team in the clubhouse much more than the one in the boardroom.

I hope you packed a lunch.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 1, 2007 8:55 AM PDT   0 recs

Ownership has increased payroll ...

every year they've been around so I don't feel it's fair to accuse them of excess thrift.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 1, 2007 9:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Revenue has increased each year

So maybe a better way to phrase the question is: Has the payroll increased at a rate matching or surpassing the growth in revenues?

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 1, 2007 9:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The answer to that is no

A's payroll as a percentage of revenue in April of this year was 55%, the lowest for the team since 2002.  It's probably dropped a little bit further since April.  Payroll-to-revenue last year was 56%.  In 2005 it was 64%.

That's a league-wide trend, though the A's three year drop is more precipitous than most.  Set against a 112% increase in franchise value over three years, it's not unreasonable to wonder whether the profits are going back into the team, or somewhere else.  And devo, I didn't accuse the A's of excessive thrift...I think the jury's still out on that one...but the question ought to be on everyone's mind who hopes that new revenues in Fremont will mean a better quality roster.  Because that sure ain't happening now.

I hope you packed a lunch.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 1, 2007 9:18 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Careful

We could be on the verge of a very interesting discussion.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 1, 2007 9:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

if I could ask Beane one question ...

... right now, it would be: How do you and the rest of the ownership group currently plan to market the team in the new stadium?

Obviously, there's a host of clarifications and follow-ups out of that, but everything depends on Beane's answer to that question.

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 1, 2007 9:50 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Your

"bring in big name FAs who might not be that good to entertain the visiting-from-out-of-town guests in tech company corporate seats" theory makes no sense to me. Won't happen (the first clause that is).

by mikeA on Aug 1, 2007 10:13 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

where and when did I say *that*?

Strike the "might not be that good" from your precis. The only big-name FA I've ever advocated bringing in (or speculated that Beane might bring in), for reasons sabermetric and market-oriented, is A-Rod.

I totally agree that the first clause ("bring in big name FAs who might not be that good") won't happen.

My suspicion is that there still will be essentially no real marketing of the team per se -- that 99% of the marketing will be focused on the condos/hotel/year-round-events/circus and the ballpark atmosphere/experience/lifestyle.

It's a lot more cost-effective to build the Fremont brand that way than it is to have the brand be dependent on the W/L% of the team.

Which is not to say that Beane is intentionally going to put the team in the tank post-move. I actually think that Beane's management of the payroll and roster is hardly going to change at all. Maybe he'll sign certain FAs ... if certain FAs present as undervalued. Maybe he'll up his draft-signing budget ... if high-ceiling draft picks present as undervalued. Et cetera.

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 1, 2007 10:33 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

then my question is:

why do you care how they market the team? I certainly don't care about that.

by mikeA on Aug 1, 2007 10:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

What's the point in building a new ballpark...

if no one is going to come watch the team play?

I think that's monkeyball's point.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 1, 2007 10:48 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't think he's suggesting

that the condos/hotel/year-round-events/circus and the ballpark atmosphere/experience/lifestyle marketing is going to lead to people not coming to see the team play.

by mikeA on Aug 1, 2007 10:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No

But winning hasn't managed to draw the fans either and I think the perception is that the A's cannot or will not hold on to their fan favorites. So why should the typical fan get involved with a team that's just going to let someone they care about walk away in the near future?

Most folks can't just root for the laundry, they need a face to go with the uniform.

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 1, 2007 11:02 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

that's part of it

I think a huge part of ownership's thinking with the stadium (and I always in this context use "stadium" as shorthand for "is that they want to maximize revenue (and cost) predictability -- even at the "cost" of not maximizing revenue. Hence, the smaller capacity -- they'd love to see no walk-up ticket sales at all.

Even so, this means locking up as many season ticket sales as possible, in as large groups as possible and for as long as possible. I think you'll see a lot more focus on group ticket sales, and, likely, some innovative thinking on financing LT seat/suite "leases," PSL-type subscription models, block/affinity-group marketing, and tying ST/suite packages to condo purchases -- as well as a lot more conditions attached to (and larger commitments for) "mini" ST packages.

Which means fewer and fewer individual-game tickets available on the "white" market -- which, in turn, means fewer chances for fair-weather fans to abandon buying tickets during performance downturns, and lots of Warrantless Wiretap Park-style 5k-under-capacity-attendance "sellouts." (And also that it's not merely that the price of individual tickets will be a greater barrier to entry for LNWIs, but the necessity of buying a big package [or working for a firm/affinity group that does] or not going at all.)

All of which means, essentially, disarticulating "fan" from "ticket purchaser" -- which is not to say that Winthrop Chardonnay is less of a fan than Joe Sixpack; rather, that Joe's likelihood of ticket purchase is almost entirely contingent on his degree of fandom, whereas Winthrop's is not.

To circle back to grover's post, I think it's more "What's the point in building a new ballpark ... if the team's play, which is subject to all sorts of extremely-expensive-to-eliminate random and unpredictable variation, is the strongest determinant of whether people buy tickets?"

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 1, 2007 11:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

aw, crap: forgot to finish a parenthetic

... in th first sentence should be:  (and I always in this context use "stadium" as shorthand for "the stadium as a central but ultimately only complementary revenue-generating element of the entire development")

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 1, 2007 11:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That sounds about right as far as their plans

the white market in tickets will probably be similar to SF (if they're successful). I guess my confusion was that you hadn't seemed to be one of the people bemoaning that.

(And I enjoyed your preemptive response to Sal's "Hey, rich people are fans too!")

by mikeA on Aug 1, 2007 11:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm neither bemoaning nor celebrating

I think it's certainly unfortunate for working-class families -- individuals could still get single/double tix in the gray market for not-unreasonable markups, but getting 3+ seats together in advance for one game only is gonna be an expensive and unlikely proposition.

But, as I've always said, that's Lew's right; and while I'd sympathize with some sort of consumer group action I'd be decidedly opposed to any legislative "fix" of that "problem."

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 1, 2007 11:50 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

uh um

http://www.athleticsnation.com/comme...

Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Aug 1, 2007 10:14 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

How aMUSEing
I hope you packed a lunch.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Aug 1, 2007 10:15 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

in one of the diaries yesterday,

somebody suggested that beane has historically not been active around the trade deadline.  except for the payton and kennedy trades, beane hadn't made a trade since Moneyball.

the problem with that logic in my opinion is that beane was more likely to be a buyer at the deadline and the asking price is generally pretty high.  this year however beane was a seller.  now it's possible that prices have dropped relative to the past few years, but beane should have been able to shed dead weight.

if the giants can dump morris, his entire salary for 2008 and wind up with 2 players, then the market was there to dump piazza, stewart and blanton.

we all know that beane doesn't respect blanton's talent.  all you had to do was look at last year's ALDS and ALCS.  he chose loaiza over blanton and relegated blanton to the bullpen.

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 9:29 AM PDT   0 recs

Why would we want to dump Stewart or Blanton?

They are cheap and productive ... aren't those good players to have around?

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 1, 2007 9:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

you're not wrong...

i'm merely commenting on the rumors and expressing my disappointment that beane wasn't able to get anything done that sets up the team better for 2008.

blanton eats a lot of innings but he doesn't inspire me with confidence.  he's a barbell.  when he's good, he's lights out.  when he's bad, he's wicked bad.  to be 8-8 on an under .500 team is impressive.  blanton is cheap but i have no idea which joe is going to show up on a daily basis.  and he seems to be fading right now (whether it's dead arm, no confidence in the catcher or another factor).

stewart is also cheap and he's been a productive hitter but his defense leaves a lot to be desired.  who cares if he bats .300+ but every runner takes an extra base on his arm.  is he net-net a positive factor?

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 9:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Studies have shown ...

that boom/bust pitchers will actually help the team win more than a more consistent pitcher with comparable overall numbers. He's not an ace -- but he's probably one of the top 20 pitchers in the American League and that ain't nothin'.

Stewart isn't a championship caliber left fielder ... but this isn't a championship caliber team, so ...

There are conceivable scenarios which would have made sense to pull the trigger on a deal for either of them ... and, especially for Stewart (and Piazza), I'm sure BB tried -- but if no one was willing to give him a good deal, it doesn't make sense to make a deal.

re: Morris, veteran pitchers are always the most likely to be dealt -- every team has room for a pitcher -- there are 12 spots for them on the roster -- not every contending team really has a need for a league average corner outfielder with a noodle arm.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 1, 2007 10:09 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

devo...

i believe those studies.  it makes sense to me.  but i don't believe that joe blanton is a top 20 pitcher in the AL.  

at best, he's second on the a's and there are at least 3 pitchers on the angels that are better than him.  i'd rather have wang of the yankees, several of the twins and bosox pitchers, etc...  

i understand your point but i don't believe that joe blanton is a top 20 pitcher.  maybe top 20 for the money, but that wasn't your point.

i also understand how trade value works.  but i'd be willing to take a decent deal today b/c we need to plan for next year and stewart does not help us plan for next year and he's eating up a roster spot/playing time.

if morris can be traded to a crappy team that's willing to eat his salary, then stewart can be traded as a dh substitute that can play the outfield.  he will have value as a free agent next year, so he has to have value now.

we need to find out if dj is an option for next year and we're loaded with OF/DH/1B guys that need a shot to play.  stewart has no future with the a's and the a's are going nowhere.

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 10:23 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

don't sell blanton short

He hasn't been a top 20 pitcher before this year, and you can also point to his last few disappointing starts. But still, look at the stats from this year so far (I pulled this all from Hardball Times):

  • #2 in the AL in Innings Pitched
  • #18 among AL starters in ERA (and ERA+)
  • #9 among AL starters in WHIP
  • #3 among AL starters in BB/game, #24 in K/game
  • #5 among AL starters in FIP
  • #13 in the AL in Pitching Runs Created (two relievers are ahead of him: Okajima and Putz)

Looking at WHIP and FIP, which I think are supposed to be more predictive than ERA, Blanton is totally awesome. I'm willing to concede that he might just be having a career year. I was even pretty excited yesterday about the prospect of shipping him off for a load of prospects. But you have to give him credit for being easily one of the 20 best pitchers in the AL this year.

by colin on Aug 1, 2007 11:30 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i'm not selling blanton short...

the rumor yesterday was that the a's could've gotten 3 prospects for blanton.  how is that selling him short?  3 prospects including some potential everyday players seems like a good haul and good value in return for value given up.

i'm not as good with the stats as you are, so i have to believe your numbers.  i don't know the flaws of all those stats.  that being said, he's a great home pitcher in a pretty good pitcher's park and he's a disaster on the road.  he had a good 2006, but that's only cuz he owned the mariners.

this site kills me in that we only conceive of cheap as value.  the only thing cheap is, is cheap.  cheap matters more to us because we can't afford expensive value (think johan santana at $7 mil per year - that'd be a lot of money for the a's but man would it be value - hell he might be cheap at $12 mil).  if we got three players for blanton that could be mlb ready in a few years, wouldn't those players be cheap also?  isn't pitching a strength of our upper minors (madsen, meyer, braden)?  why not give up cheap starter for a slew of everyday players that are also cheap?  

my only argument is that he's probably as good as he's gonna get.  his improvement in era, ops seem driven by a lower hr/ip this year.  will he be able to sustain that hr/ip rate as the weather warms in late summer/early fall?  we have good substitutes for him in the minors and other teams want him.  trade him.

if beane values him so highly (cuz he's cheap, young and durable), why did beane not start him in the alcs last year?  why is beane trying to trade him now?

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 12:01 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Given the way he unloaded on Terry Ryan today,

perhaps Santana for $7M wouldn't be such a hot deal after all.

He seems to be suffering from the same defeatist attitude vis a vis payroll that Tim Hudson had toward the end of his tenure here in Oakland.

by PaulThomas on Aug 1, 2007 12:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

wow

i don't blame guys for wanting to win.  i blame guys like chavvy saying "oh well, we'll get 'em next year."  santana wants to win and do it badly.  what's wrong with that?

santana would be the most ridiculous steal of all time at $7 mil per year.

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 2:19 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm sorry, but

saying "We're never going to go beyond where we've gone" is defeatism, plain and simple. Santana believes that it's impossible to win without a huge payroll. He's wrong, but it doesn't really matter. I have a hard time believing that this doesn't affect his game at least a little.

by PaulThomas on Aug 1, 2007 3:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

gee,

chavez has never made a jacka$$ comment like that before.  how many times has chavvy said that gee we're injured, so we're going nowhere.

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 3:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I see a huge difference

between "We're injured, so we're treading water" and "The rest of the players on my team are crap because the GM won't lay out for better ones."

by PaulThomas on Aug 1, 2007 3:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

that's not what chavvy said and that's not what..

santana said.

based on what i've seen, santana basically said be a buyer not a seller.  he said we're close to being great and we need to add at the trading deadline to put the team over the top.  instead, in his eyes, the twins were a seller.  he wants to win in minnesota and he's afraid that terry ryan is going to blow up the team.  he wants to win a title with morneau, hunter, mauer and cuddyer.  in his eyes, if the twins aren't going to build a world series contender then he wants to play somewhere else = where the team is committed to winning.  i see nothing wrong about that and he wasn't ripping his teammates.

chavvy has said we're hurt and we can't win till we get healthy.  he always says we pitch  but our team can't score.  therefore it's up to pitchers.  of course this leaves out the crappy risp performance and the tons of guys left on base.

santana is still putting up huge numbers and trying, while chavvy continues to post deteriorating and sub-average offensive numbers.  chavvy won't stand closer to the plate and he won't get better against left handed pitchers that pound him on the outside corner.

if you don't see the difference, then i'll just have to respectfully disagree.  

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 4:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

They're both reasonable things to say ...

Players should want to win ...
Injuries impede winning ...

Yup ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 1, 2007 5:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

but...

doesn't chavvy's statement ring of defeatism?  it does to me.  chavvy should say, it's an uphill battle to win games with all the injuries we've had, but i'm gonna bust my a$$ to win games.

sometimes i think ANers (or just me) want the a's to win more than the a's players themselves seem to.

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 6:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, let' s see

Santana's career ERA+ is 144, it is 150 this year. So, you're saying his defeatism is making him better?

Also, you're taking his comments out of context. Show me where he said that "it's impossible to win without a huge payroll". This is a link to the Minneapolis Star  Tribune with his comments. His comments were in response to the fact the the Twins traded Luis Castillo for 2 crap prospects who project to be roster filler, while not doing anything to trade for talent in return.

If Santana's comments are defeatism, what about Terry Ryan's actions? Trading away Castillo for crap, persisting with the "Piranhas"?

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Aug 2, 2007 12:55 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Career numbers don't really tell the story

with Santana. His first season-ish was terrible, because he was a Rule 5er who had to stay on the Major League roster the whole year even though he was patently not ready.

I suppose there's no real reason for him to dial back his effort, since he wants a big contract regardless of who gives it to him. Even so, I felt like he threw his teammates under the bus. You have to admit that it's an implicit slam when you criticize ownership for not buying better players.

by PaulThomas on Aug 2, 2007 9:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

His numbers are almost exactly in line ...

with 2003 and 2005 ... he seems to have "down years" (by down, I mean only slightly sub-3 eras) in odd numbered years.

While the example might not have been perfect, rfloh's point remains that Santana is pitching like a Cy Young candidate.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 2, 2007 9:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Perhaps, but his criticism
was after ownership / the GM traded a decent league average 2b for 2 guys for whom an optimistic projection would be that they will reach the majors someday. Trading Castillo to the Mets looks very much like nothing more than a salary dump. Never mind the big 3 Mets outfield prospects, or Pelfrey. Or Guerra, or even Humber, whose stock has fallen. Terry Ryan couldn't even pry loose a semi-intriguing prospect like Mulvey, or even Carp.

Why should Santana be happy / or care that the Twins are saving money this year?

Also, if the Twins pitching prospects are too valuable to trade, how about playing them?

Santana's ERA+ in his 3rd season, in which he had 14 starts was 148. Since then season by season, he has had 151, 182, 153, 161. Don't really see a pattern there.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Aug 2, 2007 9:39 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I see a pattern ...

he's really good.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 2, 2007 9:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

if they'd gotten the 2nd semi-intriguing prospect

... then wouldn't Ryan have been Carping, and thereby undermining team morale?

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 2, 2007 10:15 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

All I'm saying

is that going public with criticism of the front office is not exactly calculated to improve the team's performance-- or your own public image.

Apart from which, even as a salary dump the move made sense. Castillo has no power, and he's been bothered by injuries which have sapped his range and baserunning abilities.

Speaking of "no power," Castillo is now the consecutive-ABs-without-a-home-run leader. Unbelievable as it may seem, Jason Tyner not only hit a home run, he came inches from hitting another one.

by PaulThomas on Aug 2, 2007 10:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, the move made sense as a salary dump.

It doesn't improve the team now, and is unlikely to improve the team in the future, unless the money saved is directly plowed back. That's the issue. Maybe Santana actually cares about the team, which is why he's complaining; maybe if he didn't, he would just mouth platitudes, and go to the Yanks when his contract expires.

Castillo still gets on base at a good clip. OBP of 352 from 2b is good. His OPS+ with the Twins this year is 91, career 93, so it isn't as if he is cliff diving.

I haven't watched him much recently, so I'm going to have to rely entirely on metrics for his defense. UZR has him at exactly 0 runs per 150 games, and 0 runs for the games he has played. BPro says he is +7 above replacement, -6 below average.

I'm not saying he's a star,  but there are far worse 2bs around, and far worse players on the Twins.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Aug 2, 2007 2:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

rumors aren't always true ...

and, in fact, I personally believe that more often than not, they aren't true. I mean, I'm sure the Dodgers would have given us three minor leaguers for him -- but the question is, which three? Different combinations of the players discussed on this site would have represented huge variations in returned value.

As far as Blanton not being among the top 20 in the AL, can you name 20 who are better?

"This site" does not collectively think much of anything. Personally, I've argued that Chavvy's contract, despite the fact that his performance has been nearly a worst case scenario, is still a good deal.

The team's goal every year is to accumulate at least 90 wins. If, for example, we have a $75m budget, then we need to make sure that we're not paying more than $1.2m/win (10 runs created/prevented = 1 win). Teams pay a premium for high end players, though, so I believe that the best way to build a team on a budget is accumulating a lot of 4-5 win players, who generally come a lot cheaper (about 1/3 the cost), as 8-10 win players.

The real statistical difference is that he's walking fewer guys and giving up fewer hits. The hits is mostly due to the fact that he had a very high babip in '06 and it has returned to a more normal level. The walks are probably a real change.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 1, 2007 12:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

20 pitchers i'd rather have than blanton

pitchers i'd much rather have - bedard, guthrie, beckett, matsuzaka, schilling, wang, halladay, buerhle, sabathia, carmona, westbrook, verlander, bonderman, santana, garza, escobar, lackey, weaver, hernandez, haren

slightly better - hughes, kazmir, lee, saunders

i think that's 24 guys i'd rather have than blanton.  some are having better years, some are worsee but i'd rather have them.  i did off the top of my head, so i may have missed a few.

by the way, blanton is better in 1H than 2H of the season.  we'll see what happens this year, but i'm sure the dodgers made a serious run at blanton whether it was 1 guy or 2 guys or 3 guys.  either way, i think beane should have made a deal so we the a's can get ready for next yr.

i have no problem with chavvy's contract.

you're right, i shouldn't say "this site."  but there are many that confuse cheap and value.

i agree 2006 was a real negative anomaly for joe, but i think the reduction in hr/ip has been a real boon as well.  his gb/fb ratio has improved dramatically from anything he's done in his major league career.  fluke?  dunno.

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 2:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I would disagree with your list ...

but, fair enough, it's not as cut and dry of a case as I was thinking.

Blanton has a career 4.15 first half ERA and a 3.98 second half era -- despite the fact that his first half  era benefits from his fantastic first half of 2007.

The difference in his HR/9 rate from last year to this only represents a difference of 3 homeruns to this point in the season -- that doesn't account for that much of his improvement -- and given the fact that his fb rate as improved, the fact that that has so many data points (As opposed to HRs, which has very few), it produces much more real facts and less noise.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Aug 1, 2007 2:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

devo

there may be guys you'd include that i wouldn't and vice versa.  i have an unnatural love of sinkerball pitchers (westbrook), so my list is loaded with them.

good double check of my first half vs second half #s.  not sure where i got the numbers that he was not a second half pitcher or to whom that math applied.

he's clearly giving up more ground balls this year and that's a good thing for a guy like me (see my first point).

my central point (so it doesn't get lost) is not that i disagree with your view or that joe is a bad pitcher or is not valuable.  i think the a's have a good crop of future starters in the majors now and in AAA, while we have a dearth of hitters coming up quickly.  net-net, we trade a valuable (cheap, young and durable) pitcher in blanton for what we don't have (SS, 3B or CF).

by inbillywetrust on Aug 1, 2007 2:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

FIP may be more predictive than ERA,

however, the issue is Blaton's PAST performance, not FUTURE performance.

I agree with your general point that Blanton is about top 20.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Aug 2, 2007 12:43 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

on the Crosby front ...

... there's this "blind item" from Slusser's Chron game wrap this morning:

A team source confirmed that the Dodgers had some reservations about the fact that Blanton's performance has dropped off since a 122-pitch complete game against Toronto on July 3, and the source also confirmed that the A's wanted to include Class A shortstop Ivan De Jesus Jr. in any deal, but the Dodgers did not want to part with the defensive whiz.

Since we all know that "a team source" is always either Beane or one of his Lts. disseminating the Word of Beane, I don't think there's any way to interpret this except as Beane officially lighting the broiler on Crosby.

I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 1, 2007 9:46 AM PDT   0 recs

Although that sounds like

the broiler is too slow-burning for our tastes...

by mikeA on Aug 1, 2007 10:14 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Great, just great

Ivan DeJesus is at least 1 full season away, if not more, from being big league ready. Does this mean that Beane intends to give Crosby another chance in 2008?

Why the fuck for?!?!

Yep. Warm and fuzzy... that's me.

by grover on Aug 1, 2007 10:39 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I look at it several ways
  1. With Cros injured (again), despite it being a ticky-tack, common, simple-standard-recovery break, some consistent and healthy play from Cros in ST (if not the first 3 months of the season) might bolster his trade value somewhat.
  1. Cros is still an outstanding defensive SS, and it's not the worst thing in the world if he's the starter on OD '08 (if not the whole season), especially if (a) Beane improves the offense at positions other than SS, or (b) Beane's focusing on contending in '09 and beyond.
  1. Who knows what other pre-'09 SS options Beane is kicking the tires on? DeJesus might have beeen a fallback option, or he could have been the intended OD '09 starter with a stopgap or Cros starting in '08.
  1. Nobody fucks with DeJesus.
I'm not throwing in the towel, but I'm using it to wipe the sweat off my face and enjoy the rest of the season. ~ oaklandSMASH @('.')@

by monkeyball on Aug 1, 2007 10:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's a very well thought out reply

Only one problem...

You're saying that Bobby Crosby will suit up for Oakland again. That is completely unacceptable to me.

I asked this last year, when do we say that enough is enough with Bobby Crosby? He has not lived up to the expectations placed up