BP Weighs In On Beane's Recent Moves
by baseballgirl on Aug 30, 2007 3:02 PM PDT
61 comments
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...
...Instead, it looks like there won't be any shopping of Blanton, and the A's went for payroll flexibility.
Does ditching Loaiza this way make much sense? I don't see how. The fig leaf that they want to look at Dallas Braden and Dan Meyer is all nicely optimistic. Add in a probable appreciation that Leonardo DiNardo's a solid commodity, and that somehow they'll get a something or somebody named Rich Harden to deliver on the fourth, really expensive year of his four-year contract. That seems like a lot of overlapping maybes and wishcasts to me, and doesn't balance too well against the potential value a starting pitcher with a track record for relative success signed for two more years for $14.5 million might be worth to any shopper disappointed or limited by what's in play during the winter silly season.
The other, perhaps more genuine defense that isn't money-related would be any uncertainty over whether or not Loaiza can pitch thirty starts or more per year in those two seasons, because he's been hampered by injuries in each of the last two. That's a more reasonable suggestion, one that most teams, checking his records and putting him through a physical, might weight pretty heavily before deciding to offer something or anything of value in a trade. I have no inside info on the subject, so this is just me saying it out loud, but if Loaiza's recent fragility might have diminished his relative value, to the point that the A's might have been asked to pay some part of his salary in a deal, that would obviously represent a rationale for why they might just skip to the chase and try to unload the full amount—in which case, mission accomplished. If Loaiza delivers two seasons and 60-68 starts for the Dodgers, then the gamble blows up in the faces of Billy Beane and his staff.
Which brings us to the real factor in play—the money. The money saved just isn't going to go that far by itself to help them out with their shopping needs this winter. Although they'll be out from under the money owed to Jason Kendall and Mike Piazza, almost $13 million total, and presumably won't re-up Shannon Stewart (not for only a $1.5 million base at any rate), contract acceleration ramps up their compensation to this year's people already under contract for 2008 by more than $12 million. This doesn't really leave them with major money to throw at the reliable fourth starter that they can't count on Harden to be, or at a center fielder because they can't count on Mark Kotsay, or to acquire a bullpen arm of any serious stature. The sort of money we're talking about certainly isn't going to buy them Aaron Rowand or Torii Hunter, assuming for the sake of argument that they're buying their own story about Meyer and Braden.
This isn't bright, but what's actually dopey is referring to Loaiza's deal as Billy Beane's worst. That's just fundamentally ignorant of Beane's history, the risks that go with signing pitching, and the market forces that change from year to year. Besides, there are better candidates—have we so quickly forgotten the three-year deal given to Mark Redman, or the money prematurely thrown at Terrence Long, long before he was eligible for arbitration? At least with Loaiza there was reason to believe he was a top-shelf starter, and in light of today's compensation structure, a mid-rotation starter making $7-8 million isn't quite the boondoggle we might have once anticipated. Hell, from current events, the far worse decision was granting center fielder Mark Kotsay a two-year, $15 million extension, and at this point, that $9 million still due to shortstop Bobby Crosby through 2009 isn't looking so hot.
There's something about that point in time when you learn that your heroes are great, but that they're also something less than perfect, and that's certainly come up a fair amount in relation to the analysis community and its hopes and wishcasts for all things Oakland. For me, it's sort of like recognizing that while Daft Punk's pretty sweet, LCD Soundsystem is even better, even if they've got Daft Punk on a pedestal. Falling short of the lofty expectations of on-demand genius doesn't mean that Billy Beane suddenly got dumb or that he's any less effective as a GM; the fact of the matter is that the world of baseball management isn't populated by cardboard cutouts any more than it is anywhere else, and a more ferocious competitive ecology makes it just that much more difficult to contend on the cheap if everyone with money's relatively bright too.
0 recs |
61 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The 4th paragraph
is the one that....gives me pause for thought. I want to think that we have enough money to buy some players who could help out.
by IM4Oakgal on Aug 30, 2007 3:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would say on the FA market no,
because the pickings are slim, but that the A's could--and might be planning to--trade for a player who has a substantial contract. Maybe that's master plan. What I, personally, "want to think" is that there IS a master plan, and that it's one I like.
by Nico on Aug 30, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
God help our A's
if Beane doesn't have a plan. This season was not much fun...except for watching a few of the young guys...like Buck. I would not like a repeat.
by IM4Oakgal on Aug 30, 2007 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 5th paragraph
gave me a headache... too many big words.
Oh yeah, what's a boondoggle?
by TerrenceLongsTaint on Aug 30, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I eas confounded by the
Daft punk references in paragraph 6. HUH??? Shall we tear all of the paragraphs apart now? Hehe.
by IM4Oakgal on Aug 30, 2007 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm confused...
what do daft punk or rich harden have to do with the a's?
by xbhaskarx on Aug 30, 2007 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL. Except Punk might pitch next year
by Nico on Aug 30, 2007 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Christina Kahrl likes Daft Punk?
attagirl.
by Bukanier on Aug 30, 2007 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
first paragraph: bullshit
Instead, it looks like there won't be any shopping of Blanton, and the A's went for payroll flexibility
But Kahrl herself further down demonstrates that the A's don't gain any payroll flexibility from this move, since what was saved on Loaiza will be eaten by other committed salary increases and even if the budget had been drawn up for '08 including Loaiza's salary plus the other increases, subbing out Loaiza doesn't put the A's within range of affording what's actually available on the FA market,
So: what "flexibility"?
That's a euphemism, plain and simple.
by monkeyball on Aug 30, 2007 3:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Assuming they're planning
a "time share" for A-Rod, this move might allow them to rent him for 81 of the games instead of 54.
by Nico on Aug 30, 2007 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someones math doesn't make sense, grover, and I
think it was Paul Thomas, came up with a savings of close to 20 Mil, this person has it at 12? There is an 8 Mil difference. Who has the right numbers.
by theblackpearl on Aug 30, 2007 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Payroll
Guaranteed - Chavez (11.5), Kotsay (8), Ellis (5 - option), Harden (4.5), Haren (4), Crosby (3.5), Swisher (3.5), Embree (3), Piazza (.75 - buyout) - Total $43.75 Million
Arb eligible - Duchscherer, Blanton, Street, Gaudin, DiNardo. All in their first year of arb eligibility, except Duchscherer who's in his second. I'd say around $2 million each for the first three, $1.5 million each for the last two. - Total $9 Million, give or take a bit
Wage slaves - Lugo, Johnson, Denorfia, Bowen, A. Brown, Buck, Casilla, Cust, Meyer, Suzuki, Murphy, Barton. $400k-$500k each, or $5+ Million total.
Free agents - Stewart/DaVanon
Non-tendered - Calero, Scutaro, D. Brown, Snelling
That's $58 Million total for 26 players, which I think is the same total grover/PT came up with. A little more if we keep Scutaro or Calero, a lot more if we inexplicably exercise the option on Piazza.
And it would leave $15 million free compared to this year's payroll - just enough to get one top-tier player, if Beane chooses to spend it all in one place (and if such a player is even available).
by andeux on Aug 30, 2007 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*cough* *cough*
I know one guy with a maple bat who could help us get 5-6 more wins in a season...
Just around $15M too...
And hopefully with Landon Powell and Daric Barton coming up next year while Dan Meyer staying at Sac, I think that gives us a shot next year to contend.
by Instant Replay Umpire on Aug 30, 2007 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Powell is out most if not all of next season
Tearing your ACL for a 2nd time tends to do that to a person.
by grover on Aug 30, 2007 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly he will be able to catch full time,
after his 2nd ACL. With his "wait", or "can't wait to eat problem", he may be closer to a backstop than a catcher. I don't know of any catcher who came back from 2 ACL injuries.
by theblackpearl on Aug 30, 2007 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weighty issues
Powell seemed to have turned the corner on his weight gain this season, he had cut out the junk food and had begun to take better care of his body.
by grover on Aug 30, 2007 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*sigh*
maybe the A's can go to the options menu and turn injuries to off...
too bad for Powell, hopefully he can bounce back.
by Instant Replay Umpire on Aug 30, 2007 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I used to be against that.
Now I'm having doubts. Bonds is a big scary monster, and we desperately need a big, scary monster.
Can you imagine the bombs Jack Cust would launch hitting in front of Barry Bonds?
by jeepers on Aug 30, 2007 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Technically
PT and I came up with $64 million but that includes Loaiza's 2008 $$$. It seems I failed to check my e-mail and missed the note that Beane sent me re: waiving Loaiza.
by grover on Aug 30, 2007 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can use re without the :
Notice: you can simply use re as another word without the colon.
by One won lost won on Aug 30, 2007 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:ally?
I didn't re:alize that.
by Nico on Aug 30, 2007 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
realize then
how many letters I've sent to the offices of
Home Dépôt
*8^))
by One won lost won on Aug 31, 2007 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did not know that
Thank you. I'll probably forget you mentioned it the next time I use it, but thank you none the less.
by grover on Aug 30, 2007 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
She's wrong ...
the increases for players under contract amount to about $12m total. That's covered by Piazza and Bradley coming off the books.
The increases due to arbi eligible guys should be more than covered by Kielty and Kennedy being off the books.
Savings from Loaiza, Kendall, Witasick and Stewart get us to about $17m free. If we let Calero and Scooter walk, as I anticipate, we'll be just shy of $20m.
by devo on Aug 30, 2007 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My math says $16 million difference (rounded)
assuming Calero and Scoot walk. And that's assuming that the A's keep the payroll at $79 million & change.
by grover on Aug 30, 2007 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harden and Loiaza
Beane was wiling to let go of ELo b/c he couldn't go through another year of watching 2/5 of his rotation stnad idly by (potentially) and just hope these guys could pitch for him. What would have been gained (very little) by trading ELo and the prospect of failing his physical was quite real. THe move looks horrible right now but the good news is that we didn't give up a hot prospect to get him and maybe in the world of Lew Wolff, he happened to respond to Billy when told about this move, "what's money!" Who knows, maybe Harden stays helathy. Highly unlikely but if it's only one guy out of the roatation we can evaluate someone else, right?
The question is how high Beane is on Braden/Meyer/DiNardo? Will they fill out the rotation next year when our bullpen should be, ahem, healthier? We KNOW the offense isn't changing much and that this team is built around defense and pitching. So as long as those remain (healthy) undervalued commodities maybe, just maybe we compete...
by Gerard on Aug 30, 2007 4:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"We didn't give up a hot prospect?"
Au contraire, amigo. The A's gave up their first-round pick to sign him.
by PaulThomas on Aug 30, 2007 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're Right (for Argument's sake)
by Gerard on Aug 31, 2007 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would you be high on any of those guys?
Braden at least seems to have the demeanor, but does he have the stuff? DiNardo has a nice sinker, but he also has an 84 MPH fastball. He'll need to channel Jamie Moyer to sustain success in the bigs.
Meyer's harder to figure, but it seems clear he left some of his fastball in the operating room, and that diminishes the ceiling he once had.
by jeepers on Aug 30, 2007 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I recall, Meyer wasn't ready for ST this year,
which means he wasn't able to work out last winter. He could work out, and get that 3 or 4 miles back on his fastball.
by theblackpearl on Aug 30, 2007 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope so.
But I'm not convinced.
by jeepers on Aug 30, 2007 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Meyer
It usually takes a good 2 years to recover from surgery and while Meyer has shown glimpses of hope, he hasn't returned to his lofty prospect status when Beane acquired him. I think it's risky to really trust any of the triad I mentioned but Beane will may have others in mind as well. Those 3 seem to be the obvious choices at this point. With a healthy shoulder, hopefully he'll be able to let his injury become more of a remote memory and excel by concentrating on the finer points of pitching.
by Gerard on Aug 31, 2007 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
here's Melissa Lockard's take on the Loaiza move
by OaklandSi on Aug 30, 2007 4:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
She's right.
I see a team that's looking to be really competitive when Cisco Field opens, rather than next year.
by jeepers on Aug 30, 2007 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone is so short-sighted. I am not saying it
is good or bad, but you can't judge what Billy is doing until next spring training, and see what the team looks like. If it looks the same, then flame him, but give him a chance to retool. If getting a prospect meant paying some of next years contract, then you can keep the prospect. Noone knows for sure. Billy has always been 3 steps ahead before he makes the 1st move. It doesn't always work, but he normally has a plan.
by theblackpearl on Aug 30, 2007 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
What I keep telling myself to deal with the moves of this year is that his mistakes from the past are coming due this year. If we can move on from them, we still have a presumably talented GM in place.
What worries me about Beane is the pattern of treating people as less than people over the past year. It started with the way he treats managers, and seems to be moving into the way he treats players.
by jeepers on Aug 30, 2007 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you like the way he treats fans?
by McFood on Aug 30, 2007 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?!
If getting a prospect meant paying some of next years contract, then you can keep the prospect.
The object of the "game" is this: When one team expresses interest in a starting pitcher from your team, the correct response is, "What will you give me for him?" It is NOT, "Oh, ok, just go ahead and take him, because we can save some money."
It's like waiting in line for five hours so you can buy gas for .02 a gallon cheaper.
By all means, you take the prospect, because the Oakland team currently playing baseball? They're not good. They need players. Not one. Multiple.
You take the prospect every ... single ... time.
by Vacafan on Aug 30, 2007 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the prospect worth, say 1 million dollars
that they'd want us to pay. If he isn't then you don't "take the prospect every single time" that's stupid. You have to do a cost benefit analysis every time
by Dusty Baker on Aug 30, 2007 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure, sure
But how many prospects that we'd accept wouldn't be worth $1M?
That's far less than first-round draft bonus money, for a player who's presumably developmentally much further along (i.e., much closer to being MLB-ready and closer to his physical peak-performance window) than a mere draftee.
by monkeyball on Aug 30, 2007 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with the daft punk metaphor
enduring an a's game is almost as bad as listening to a daft punk CD 3x in a row at this point
by notah8er on Aug 30, 2007 4:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
if we sign a Type A FA in the offseason ...
... do we now have to surrender a first-round daft punk?
by monkeyball on Aug 30, 2007 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
monkeyball
Of course dumping $7 mil gives increased payroll flexibility for next year. Instead of being, say, $7 mil over budget for next year, we're 0 over budget. If the A's have the 12th worst record in the bigs, so their first rounder would be protected. But if they pick it up a little bit and finish with a pick in the 16-20 range, no way they sign a type A free agent.
Not that they'd necessarily sign one anyway.
by Nick86 on Aug 30, 2007 6:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
By that logic
why not just throw every game? Teams do it all the time in the NBA, and they aren't even guaranteed to pick first!
by PaulThomas on Aug 30, 2007 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Most prospects aren't first round draft picks and aren't worth $1 million. Jack Cust, if you can call him a prospect, was traded straight up for cash, and i assure you it was less than $1 million. Guys like him, Hannahan, Jay Marshall, and a hundred guys in every system with a limited shot at reaching the majors aer worth less than $1 million.
by Nick86 on Aug 30, 2007 6:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Stop, you're both right
Yes, the bonus for a 1st rounder is generally more than a million. And yes, the A's bought Cust for less than a million. Which means, guess what? That players like Cust are way undervalued! And what have we learned about how Beane works? If the Dodgers expected Beane to pay a million bucks for a marginal prospect, of course he refused, assuming he feels he can find another Cust-like player for less.
by ozzman99 on Aug 30, 2007 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it time for "Sign and Trade" in baseball?
Perhaps something that may develop in the next few years, as a result of the growing gap between small market teams and big market teams is a new kind of "sign and trade" agreement of sorts.
Here's the scenario I envision. We'll use our A's and the deep pocketed New York Yankees as examples.
Let's say the A's decide they have need of a new thirdbaseman. And let's say the Yankees have a thirdbaseman in the final year of his contract. This particular thirdbaseman is a multi-time all star and would easily command a double digit million dollar contract on the free agency market. And let's say that the Yankees have decided that they would prefer the services of a young, reliable starting pitcher. The A's could never afford the all start thirdbaseman, if left to free agency. So the Yankees negotiate a four year extension to his contract before the end of the season. A clause on the contract, though, states that at season's end, they will trade the thirdbaseman to the A's, otherwise the contract extension is voided and he becomes a free agent. Again, this doesn't help the A's at this point, as they wouldn't even be able to afford the contract extension. So then comes in the "sign and trade" deal. Make it legal to pull off a move like this, and then the A's and Yankees can negotiate a deal at this point in the year whereby at season's end the thirdbaseman goes to the Yankees, who also agree to pay a large percentage of his contract while working for the A's. In return, the A's send their reliable, young, Kentucky bred starting pitcher, their royal sounding stud bullpen pitcher and a top prospect. The Yankees are happy because they get the pitching they need, and no longer have to deal with the thirdbaseman's wife wearing naughty words on her blouse in the stands, and the A's are happy because they can now cut or deal their former thirdbaseman (unless he is also part of the deal).
I know this is a long stretch of a fantasy scenario, but I really think that major league baseball needs to make changes to it's rules regarding trades to give aid to the small teams. That's my 43 cents worth.
by bzn5150 on Aug 31, 2007 7:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No, no, no
There was never a King Colby I. You've got your history mixed up.
by PaulThomas on Aug 31, 2007 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I fear that Kahrl's last paragraph may be correct
And what that means is: we're not special anymore.
Beane & Co. used to be clearly far ahead of the curve in baseball, giving the team a big advantage to counteract its financial disadvantage. But now our smart kids don't stand out so much because there are a bunch of other smart kids around, and some of them have a boatload more money to play with than our kids do. (And one of our smart kids seems more interested in his new toy, the one with the ball you're supposed to kick.) We'll never be bottom of the barrel like the Pirates as long as current management is in place, but we can no longer take for granted 87+ wins a year either. We're just one pretty decent organization among lots of others.
That next championship may be a long time coming.
by Faust on Aug 31, 2007 9:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Another bit of good news!
In her column in this morning's Chronicle, Susan Slusser writes, "There are some savings, too! Barring any major free-agent signings, Oakland's Opening Day payroll will drop from about $80 million into the $60 million range next year, according to a team source."
Well, isn't that wonderful!!!! I mean, that's what we're all in this for, right? To lower payroll!!! Unbelievable. It's one thing to lower payroll so that you can spend it somewhere else ... a whole 'nother thing to do it just to line the owner's pockets. This is a sinking ship.
by Vacafan on Aug 31, 2007 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, duh ...
if we don't spend the money, we'll spend less money.
That's hardly groundbreaking.
by devo on Aug 31, 2007 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to understand his point of view
In Vacaville, that's a major news story.
by PaulThomas on Aug 31, 2007 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you shea hillenbrand
can we trade you to the giants?
by xbhaskarx on Aug 31, 2007 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's true :: LCD Soundsystem IS better...
but Daft Punk has better videos
by ZxAs on Aug 31, 2007 12:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
