Loaiza claimed off waivers by Dodgers
It would seem Loaiza has been claimed off waivers by the Dodgers. Rosenthal seems to to believe the A's are going to just let him go without compensation..
I find this real hard to believe. Why would the A's just let him go for nothing? It can't just be about the money saved. If so, then the A's continue to come off as VERY cheap...............
0 recs |
370
comments
Read Related
Comments
Link...
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7168078
by AthleticsPTBNL on Aug 29, 2007 10:16 AM PDT 0 recs
it's a done deal
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7...
The Dodgers have added another starting pitcher to their rotation, claiming right-hander Esteban Loaiza on waivers from the A's.
The teams did not complete a trade for Loaiza; the A's simply allowed the Dodgers to assume the rest of Loaiza's contract — less than $1 million this season, plus Loaiza's entire $7 million salary for 2008.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 10:17 AM PDT 0 recs
If this is true
then someone is asleep at the wheel. Given his contract, I can't imagine not being able to get a return on him with the other club taking on his entire contract.
by DMOAS on
Aug 29, 2007 10:23 AM PDT
up
0 recs
You can bet there'll be a payback later.
We help you now, you help us later...
by Ozzz on
Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Considering the odds of the Dodgers winning
the World Series, I seriously doubt Billy's getting his ring from this move.
by DMOAS on
Aug 29, 2007 10:43 AM PDT
up
0 recs
hope not
if the Dodgers won't give up anything good now, I've little doubt that the A's can get something good in the offseason, especially given what the free agent class looks like.
by OaklandSi on
Aug 29, 2007 12:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
just checking in at work
and now have seen the news
ugh
by OaklandSi on
Aug 29, 2007 12:43 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Wow
I'm completely baffled. Why not hold on to Loaiza and deal him this offseason? Another terrible move by Beane. Buy High, Sell Low.
It almost feels like Beane & Company have become a "Born Again" Organization.... choosing to keep "Good Guys" who suck (Chavez, Crosby, Kotsay) over "Bad Guys" who don't.
by Colorado Fan on Aug 29, 2007 10:23 AM PDT 0 recs
another wtf moment for sure
by ArakSOT on
Aug 29, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Don't they realize...
... How cheap they look to the fans, players, etc. I may not be a huge Loaiza fan, but his contract next year was not huge dollars by any means. I would think that they could have gotten someone for him. Maybe not a high level prospect, but someone decent with a good upside.
by AthleticsPTBNL on Aug 29, 2007 10:25 AM PDT 0 recs
The other option...
...is to hold onto some pipedream of a WS title this year and keep older players who aren't going to help way too long... ala the Giants the past several years.
It's a gamble, sure, but I see it as setting up for the future. The alternative is slow and painful.
by UncleLeo on
Aug 29, 2007 12:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
This makes
Charles O Finley look like Diamond Jim.
by billyball1981 on
Aug 29, 2007 1:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Let's all keep our heads now
Letting Loaiza leave for no return is nothing like Finley's attempt to sell Blue, Fingers and Rudi for cash...just to cite one obvious example of Finley skinflintery.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on
Aug 29, 2007 2:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Are we really trying?
Come on!
by Jennifer on Aug 29, 2007 10:31 AM PDT 0 recs
Release
OAKLAND, Calif. - The Oakland A’s today announced that right-handed pitcher Esteban Loaiza has been claimed on waivers by the Los Angeles Dodgers. To take his spot on the roster, the A’s have selected right-handed pitcher Colby Lewis from Triple-A Sacramento.
Loaiza began the 2007 season on the 15-day disabled list with spasms in his right trapezius muscle and was transferred to the 60-day DL on May 4. He was later diagnosed with a bulging disc in his neck and torn meniscus in his right knee and made two starts with Sacramento on a rehab assignment before having surgery on the knee on May 31. Loaiza began a second rehab assignment on August 1 and went 2-0 with a 2.93 ERA in four starts before he was reinstated from the DL on August 22. He went 1-0 with a 1.84 ERA in two starts with Oakland this year and was 12-9 with a 4.62 ERA in 28 starts in two seasons with the A’s. Loaiza is 124-108 with a 4.60 ERA in 362 career appearances, 325 starts, in 13 seasons in the Majors. He is in the second year of a three-year contract through 2008 with a club option for 2009.
Lewis joins the A’s for the second time this year after going 0-2 with an 8.06 ERA in 19 games, one start, during his first stint. He was selected by Oakland on May 22 and allowed 10 runs in 3.1 innings in a start that night at Chicago. Lewis was then moved to the bullpen and retired 24 batters in a row at one point while compiling a 5.24 ERA in relief. He was designated for assignment on July 16 and sent outright to Sacramento on July 19. Lewis was 8-3 with a 1.88 ERA in 15 starts with the River Cats, including 3-2 with a 1.40 ERA in seven starts after he was sent down by Oakland in July. He allowed a .202 opponents batting average, including .190 against left-handed hitters and .167 with runners in scoring position.
by OaklandA23 on Aug 29, 2007 10:31 AM PDT 0 recs
money
That takes Kendall, Piazza and Loaiza off the books for next season which should free up about 20 million dollars. Anybody think they'll do anything with that money as in bring in some free agents who can hit?
by shawzy on Aug 29, 2007 10:32 AM PDT 0 recs
name 'em
Do you seriously think any of these dudes are worth committing big money to?
by monkeyball on
Aug 29, 2007 10:35 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I guess
the answer is another season of mediocrity with that crew of free agents
by shawzy on
Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That Bradley kid can swing.
Oh wait.
by Ozzz on
Aug 29, 2007 10:40 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That Craig kid can swing
Oh, wait.
by monkeyball on
Aug 29, 2007 10:42 AM PDT
up
0 recs
His wide stance, on the other hand...
by Englishmajor on
Aug 29, 2007 11:33 AM PDT
up
0 recs
the toe-tap is a timing mechanism ...
... like Crosby?
by monkeyball on
Aug 29, 2007 11:39 AM PDT
up
0 recs
He went to school with Joe Blanton.
Craig's was 'Cup Balls'.
by Ozzz on
Aug 29, 2007 12:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That Julio Franco kid.... is no kid.
by McFood on
Aug 29, 2007 4:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That Julio Franco kid... is no kid.
by McFood on
Aug 29, 2007 4:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
only four guys are interesting
- Hunter - would fit very nicely into the organization, but will probably get a better deal somewhere else
- Jones - see #1
- Fukudome - just think of the slams we can come up with when he screws up
- Linebrink - coming off rough season, maybe we can get him cheap to sure up the 7th inning
by jubjub on
Aug 29, 2007 10:42 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Best case scenario I can think of
off the top of my head would be something like Bonds for $10 million + Rowand/Fukudome for $9-13 million. I think Meyer or Braden can probably put up similar numbers to Loaiza, but it would be nice to have gotten something in return - even a low level relief prospect.
by scromulus on
Aug 29, 2007 11:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Barry Bonds
A lineup with Cust and Bonds in the middle would look really good, even if it means really crappy defense.
by AsMontreal on
Aug 29, 2007 11:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
YES!!!
Alex Rodriguez NYY (may void after 2007)
But, it would never happen, and not for just $20 million.
by Donner on
Aug 29, 2007 1:56 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If his current team doesn't pick up his option
I say we should sign that Ellis guy.
by iglew on
Aug 29, 2007 2:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
20 Million Bucks
...doesn't go as far as it used to.
I really don't know what the A's realistically think they can get. This team needs to be rebuilt from the farm system up. The problem is Beane isn't getting any prospects. Too many GMs are weary of looking bad or burned by Billy if they deal with him. His reputation preceeds him although he hasn't exactly shown himself to be brilliant lately.
by Gerard on
Aug 29, 2007 10:54 AM PDT
up
0 recs
OK, here's the plan
We need to figure out a way to get Crosby, Chavez, and Kotsay to start bitching publicly and by name to the press about Beane.
Then, Beane will simply DFA them.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:32 AM PDT 0 recs
I like it
Maybe we can have a Florida-like do over(either of them). I would have said fire-sale, but we have nothing of value to sell.
by jubjub on
Aug 29, 2007 10:36 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I... don't... understand
This makes no sense whatsoever to me.
by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2007 10:33 AM PDT 0 recs
Would anybody have felt differently
if he had given up 10 runs over his last two starts? I think people are overvaluing him based on his stats in the last week.
That said, he'll go to the NL and probably pitch very well and everyone will think it was another terrible Beane move. I guess this means we won't be trading Blanton in the offseason.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 10:33 AM PDT 0 recs
There are two obvious possibilities
(1) The A's intend to pursue a free agent or two to fill some holes, or
(2) The A's want to sign one of their current players to a long term contract.
My guess would be (1), but then I am not particularly in the loop as far as who is likely to want a long term deal or whom the A's want to lock up for a long term deal.
Also, Piazza may be traded (or claimed off of waivers) before the end of the week. The deals aren't done yet.
by intexile on Aug 29, 2007 10:35 AM PDT 0 recs
Piazza already cleared waivers
but Detroit currently has interest so maybe they'll just say "Hey, take him, he's yours. Would you like Blanton and Swisher too? Really. For Free."
by DMOAS on
Aug 29, 2007 10:38 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Giving Piazza away for nothing
would actually make sense.
by andeux on
Aug 29, 2007 10:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I love it....
Good riddance to the guy and the money he was owed next year. Bye bye ELo
by OaktownPower on Aug 29, 2007 10:36 AM PDT 0 recs
giving players away = new market inefficiency
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT 0 recs
Well, BB has obviously determined
The most overvalued commodity in baseball today is players, and the most undervalued is money.
by chadgaudummy on
Aug 29, 2007 1:48 PM PDT
up
0 recs
There has to be more to this
Yes Loaiza has $8 mil on his contract, but thats actually pretty cheap considering the money that teams are throwing at decent, mid-rotation starting pitchers these days.
Can it be that they just claimed him and agree to work outcompensation later?
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT 0 recs
That's my guess, too
I don't think this was the huge giveaway others are suggesting -- I don't think we were going to get someone like LaRoche or Hu for Loaiza -- but I do figure we should have at least gotten a couple of lower prospects.
I'll be watching the wire over the off-season to see what comes up that might have been part of an unofficial, handshake agreement.
by iglew on
Aug 29, 2007 2:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm not sorry to see DUIza go...
BUT...they should have gotten something for him! He's a starting pitcher who will give you a decent outing most times out and is coming on the cheap for today's market. And you're telling me you couldn't swing even one prospect from the Dodgers for him?
I wonder where all this "money" we're "saving" is going to go. Do the new San Jose Earthquakes plan to make a run at Beckham or something?
by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 29, 2007 10:38 AM PDT 0 recs
Yea, I guess I am the same
Really happy to see him and his contract go....but would have been nice to get something. But sure didnt want him or his $$ on the team.
by OaktownPower on
Aug 29, 2007 10:46 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Hi. My name is Billy ...
... and I'm a a free-agent-aholic.
Hi, Billy.
Last night, I hit bottom.
Congratulations, Billy.
My team lost its fifth game in a row, I realized we might finish under .500, and ... < sob > I broke the last chair in the Coliseum.
So, this morning, I woke up, and I went through the roster, and started pouring every bad, expensive free-agent signing and extension down the drain.
by monkeyball on Aug 29, 2007 10:42 AM PDT 0 recs
< please note irony >
Yes, I know that Loaiza in the current market is a good deal.
by monkeyball on
Aug 29, 2007 10:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Irony is dead.
by LAXile on
Aug 29, 2007 12:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
W T F
the A's are getting NOTHING in return?????
i don't understand!!!
by gotgreen on Aug 29, 2007 10:47 AM PDT 0 recs
You'll get nothing...
and LIKE IT!! Bajajajajajajajaja!
by Jennifer on
Aug 29, 2007 11:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
And no toys for christmas either!
Just socks and underwear. Now go eat your mush!
by kaweahkaweah on
Aug 29, 2007 11:16 AM PDT
up
0 recs
No toys
Your parents just steal all your old ones and re-wrap them....
by Shippee33 on
Aug 29, 2007 6:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Bradley redux
Add me to the list of those who find this move ... puzzling.
Many didn't like this signing in the first place: the A's paid close to market value for an inconsistent averagish pitcher. And in a sense the critics have been right, as the A's have so far gotten only a month or two of effective pitching for their expensive investment.
But since then the price for averagish pitchers has only gone up farther: Adam frickin' Eaton got more than Loaiza, coming off a year in which he was injured and had an ERA of more than 5. Meche and Lilly got deals for 40% more than Loaiza (and with very risky 5-year commitments). And the Pirates were willing to give up two players for the last year of Matt Morris' contract (more expensive than Loaiza's, and Morris, though healthier, has not been as good as Loaiza since they both signed two years ago).
In these circumstances, one year of Loaiza at $7 Million - even given his injuries and inconsistency - is a low-risk bargain that many GMs should be willing to assume. Giving that away for nothing, especially at a time when Loaiza was finally pitching well, just makes no sense.
by andeux on Aug 29, 2007 10:47 AM PDT 0 recs
At least they got a useful part for Bradley
Despite a few recent appearances, Brown appears to be a nice pickup with longterm value. Hard to believe that Billy couldn't work out a deal for something - a Brown, Hannahan, Van Buren type player.
by boilerdan on
Aug 29, 2007 10:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Wha...?!
We just let him go? Come on, Billy, you're better than this.
by danmerqury on Aug 29, 2007 10:48 AM PDT 0 recs
This isn't a done-done deal, is it?
Beane has a certain amount of time to pull Loaiza back, if he wants, right? Or are they saying he passed on that option?
I would think Beane would want to hang onto Loaiza and hope that he pitches decently the rest of the season. His contract will be a steal in the offseason.
by black beane and rice on Aug 29, 2007 10:51 AM PDT 0 recs
the A's press release would indicate otherwise
by jubjub on
Aug 29, 2007 10:52 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Figured it out
Billy had to save money because his subprime adjustable rate mortgage just reset and his payments doubled.
by jubjub on Aug 29, 2007 10:51 AM PDT 0 recs
How many trades have there been
this season where Billy just gives players away for nothing? I don't understad him anymore. He's pathetic.
by chavyizdamn3 on Aug 29, 2007 10:53 AM PDT 0 recs
Pathetic?
I'm guessing you don't understand the finer points of baseball dealing such as "What constitutes a trade", "How to get rid of players with little value" and "The payroll"
by Dusty Baker on
Aug 29, 2007 11:06 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Pathetic?
Wow...a few questionable moves and he is "pathetic". Whata freaking joke that is....do you not remember the past 7 years where the A's have been competitive every season. Spoiled much?
by OaktownPower on
Aug 29, 2007 11:11 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Maybe ... just maybe ...
Assuming a modest increase in payroll ... the team is currently a bit more than $20m under payroll for 2008 with all of the starting positions covered (though a couple of them may not really be covered adequately ...)
With Kotsay coming off the books, we can afford that sum for at least 2-3 years ... which will bring us to the presumed doorstep of the new stadium.
Why not A-Rod?
by devo on Aug 29, 2007 10:56 AM PDT 0 recs
If we dumped Kotsay, Crosby & Chavez's
contracts, you might have something. Until all three of them are gone, I wouldn't even start thinking about it.
by DMOAS on
Aug 29, 2007 11:00 AM PDT
up
0 recs
wouldn't have to do one before the other
Yes, signing A-Rod before jettisoning other players would limit Beane's negotiating position (other teams would then know that he had to get rid of one or all of those players), but if the objective is mainly just to dump salary -- well, they could ultimately just be DFA'ed. Or traded for peanuts.
I also don't think you'd have to get rid of all three -- Crosby is relatively affordable and plays excellent defense (he could stay at SS while A-Rod sticks with 3B; heck, Crosby could even be converted to 3B), and Kotsay is coming off the books after '08 (heck, he could conceivably retire this offseason if his back is bad enough).
Really, Chavvy is the only one who would have to go in an A-Rod scenario.
by monkeyball on
Aug 29, 2007 11:06 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Makes you wonder
If Crosby could play third, then why not just re-sign Tejada instead of Chavez?
by GusanoQuemador on
Aug 29, 2007 11:21 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Tejada is DONE, he hasn't looked good all
season, and the only thing he would have been good for is the Cal chase, which is now over as well. I wouldn't spend that much money on him
by theblackpearl on
Aug 29, 2007 11:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
And an .813 OPS
I hardly consider that "done"
I think with each passing season we're seeing that the A's really rolled the dice on Chavez vs. Tejada and we've basically crapped out so far. Yes it gave us a little more salary room to play with and yes Chavez has been a solid defender with some potential left, but Tejada was a spark plug to this team that we've been hard pressed to replace.
by GusanoQuemador on
Aug 29, 2007 12:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Chavez was better too.
Miggy EQA's 00-03: .284, .278, .298, .283
Chavez EQA's 00-03: .288, .299, .296, .295
And one less year away from FA. Considering we already had what was considered to be a good SS waiting in the wings, this decision wasn't even that close really.
by Dusty Baker on
Aug 29, 2007 12:14 PM PDT
up
0 recs
yea but you forget
That Tejada was coming off 2 excellent season, one of which was an MVP season. He had hit a level much higher than we had seen out of Chavez.
by GusanoQuemador on
Aug 29, 2007 12:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Huh?
I just showed you how they hit. Tejada was only two points above Chavez in that 02 year. In fact he did not even hit at the level Chavez did the previous year (yes .001 is obviously about the same but I'm making a point after all)
by Dusty Baker on
Aug 29, 2007 12:28 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Point taken
Buts stats aside...Miggy was an MVP player with fire. Didn't see that in Chavez pure & simple
by GusanoQuemador on
Aug 29, 2007 12:43 PM PDT
up
0 recs
But what I'm saying ...
is that we have the money now, without dumping any of those guys. Given the substantial upgrade from A-Rod, I'd be comfortable going into 2008 with Denorfia, Snelling and Kotsay competing for PAs in center and I doubt we're ready to give up on Crosby yet, so it wouldn't leave us with any real (unavoidable) holes elsewhere.
Our rotation should be good to very good, our bullpen could be anywhere from solid to spectacular, depending on health and Garcia/Brown's ability to throw strikes.
With the exception of CF and SS, our team is decent in every position, so t


