Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: The Numbers Game: A BCS Status Update Bar-right-arrows



Sickels on the A's Deals

Since I'm not exactly an expert on minor leaguers, I decided to go to someone who is one of the biggest minor league experts in all of baseball.  SB Nation's very own John Sickels, who runs the absolutely stellar Minor League Ball that should be a part of your daily reading.  He also does an annual minor league prospect book that is a must-own.  Especially for teams like the A's that are all about their minor league system now.

Without further ado, here is my chat with John Sickels about the prospects coming to the A's in the Swisher deal:

Blez: First of all, what do you think of the players the A's got for Nick Swisher?

John Sickels: I had Gonzalez as my number one White Sox prospect, and De Los Santos as number two, both Grade B+, both among the best pitching prospects in baseball.

Blez: Can you tell me about them without giving away too much of what's in your prospect book?

Sickels: Oh, sure. Gonzalez is a left-handed power pitcher with two Double-A seasons under his belt at age 22. He projects as a number two starter at the major league level, and showed much improved command this year. He could use some Triple-A time, but should be ready for a spot by 2009. De Los Santos is further away, but he's got a terrific arm and had a breakout season in the Sally League. He'd be more of a 2010 guy depending on how fast they want to rush him, but his upside is terrific.

Blez: What about Sweeney? Some scouts seem down on him at this point.  Could we see him starting for the A's in 2008?

Sickels: I must admit that I am not sanguine on Sweeney. He strikes me as an outfield version of Sean Burroughs, in the sense that his power is just not developing the way it was supposed to. I don't think he will just disappear like Burroughs, but I think he's going to be just a platoon player, not an impact bat.

Blez: If you put the Swisher deal together with the Haren deal, how much have the A's improved their farm system?

Sickels: Well, look at the Top 20 list I posted a few days ago at MinorLeagueBall.com. These two trades, plus the good early returns on the 2007 draft class, completely rebuild the farm system. It has been a huge infusion of talent in a short period of time. 2008 might be a rough year, but the future looks really good. Masterful rebuilding by Beane.

Blez: What prospects that Beane acquired do you think are the most major league ready?

Sickels: The two Gonzalezes, Gio and Carlos, should both be ready late in 2008 or in 2009. Carlos might get pushed sooner and could struggle initially.

Blez: In your estimation, are any of these guys "star" quality players?  By that I mean, will there be adequate replacements for Haren and Swisher down the road?  (I understand there is guesswork involved in this).  I guess I'm asking who has the highest ceilings.

Sickels: Both Gonzalezes have the ability to be stars. Anderson is more of a three/four starter type, but a good one. Chris Carter could be a slugging star if he holds up at higher levels as well as he did in the Sally League. It's an impressive group, these guys aren't just role players.

Blez: It'll be interesting to see if Beane continues to add to the collection too by dealing guys like Blanton, Street and even Harden if he proves to be healthy.

Sickels: Well there is rebuilding, and then there is gutting.

Blez: I suppose A's fans actually NEED your prospect book this year just to know who is on their team.

Sickels: LOL. Probably.

Blez: You mentioned the A's 2007 draft.  Will the A's also be seeing some stars come out of that draft?

Sickels: It's too early to say for sure, of course. At the least they should get some solid contributors. Simmons should get to the majors pretty soon. There are a lot of polished guys in this draft class who could advance rapidly, but no sure-fire stars.
 
Blez: Without doing a lot of research and just giving me an off-the-cuff answer, where would you rank the A's minor league system now?  Is it among baseball's best?

Sickels: I'm not quite done with the book yet so I don't know for certain, but these trades are probably enough to get it into the top half again.  They now have six B+ prospects, and that's a lot

Blez: What's a guy have to do to earn an A from Sickels?

Sickels: I'm a tough grader. To get a Grade A- or even the very rare regular Grade A is quite tough. For me, B+ is high praise.

Blez: I know, that's why I was asking.  I'm glad you weren't my teacher in high school.  Thanks for your time.  Where can ANers pick up your prospect book?

Sickels: LOL. Basically to get a Grade A or A-, you can't have any major question left about your ability. B+ means there is still some doubt there, but the preponderance of the evidence is in your favor. Carlos Gonzalez, for example, is "just" a B+ because of his plate discipline.  The book is for sale only through me. You can go to my website Johnsickels.com and order via paypal, or you can send me a check at the address listed there. It should go out in the mail the first Monday in February, and the Top 50/50 list will be sent to everyone who gives us a valid Email address as soon as it is done, probably early next week.

Blez: Thank you so much for your time, John.

Sickels: No problem!

As an aside, Sickels just happened to publish his top 20 White Sox prospects over at Minor League Ball.  Go take a look.  Three of the top five now reside in Oakland.

0 recs | Comment 291 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Blez !

This was great info. Way to get on the ball! Sickels makes me excited about the trade!

by IM4Oakgal on Jan 3, 2008 12:52 PM PST   0 recs

Am I reading the list wrong?

Or did Sickels slot both G. Gonzalez and De Los Santos ahead of Barton? I'd be surpised if that's the case. Regardless, sounds like we got some quality arms.

by gojohn10 on Jan 3, 2008 12:55 PM PST   0 recs

So...Daric Barton is our 4th Best Prospect??? :)
  1. Carlos Gonzalez, OF, Grade B+
  1. Gio Gonzalez, LHP, Grade B+
  1. Fautino De Los Santos, RHP, Grade B+ (
  1. Daric Barton, 1B, Grade B+
  1. Brett Anderson, LHP, Grade B+
  1. Chris Carter, 1B, Grade B+ (an aggressive grade but I LOVE this guy)
  1. James Simmons, RHP, Grade B
  1. Henry Alberto Rodriguez, RHP, Grade B  (big-time sleeper, great arm)
  1. Trevor Cahill, RHP, Grade B-
  1. Aaron Cunningham, OF, Grade B-
  1. Corey Brown, OF, Grade B-
  1. Ryan Sweeney, OF, Grade C+ (I don't think his power is going to develop)
  1. Andrew Bailey, RHP, Grade B- (another sleeper with an aggressive grade)
  1. Sean Doolittle, 1B, Grade B-
  1. Javier Herrera, OF, Grade C+ (great tools, but refinement??)
  1. Dan Meyer, LHP, Grade C+
  1. Greg Smith, LHP, Grade C+
  1. Sam Demel, RHP, Grade C+
  1. Andrew Carignan, RHP, Grade C+
  1. Grant Desme, OF, Grade C+
  1. Travis Banwart, RHP, Grade C+
  1. Josh Horton, SS, Grade C+
  1. Jermaine Mitchell, OF, Grade C

----------------------------------------------

I'm thinking Sickels might give Sweeney a B- grade, or move him down to #15.

by Colorado Fan on Jan 3, 2008 12:57 PM PST   0 recs

LOL

That gave me a smile CF. But You are right.

by IM4Oakgal on Jan 3, 2008 1:00 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Bonds as an A

I know this sounds weird, but it actually makes sense at this point to sign Bonds. He'll cover Swisher's power and allow Cust to play outfield, particularly if Kotsay is healthy and in center (with Buck in the other corner spot). At that point, the A's make up for the loss of Swisher's bat and have a pretty regular outfield rotation. Denorfia, then, if healthy, becomes the fourth outfielder, with Hanahan as the fifth.

It keeps the A's competitive in 2008.

The thing is, none of these guys appear quite ready for 2008, including Sweeney and the other Gonzalez.

by richwol on Jan 3, 2008 1:01 PM PST   0 recs

Signing Bonds

Trade away two Fan Favorites, then sign Bonds.  If Beane did that, he would have the biggest set of balls in the history of all Mankind.

by Colorado Fan on Jan 3, 2008 1:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

LOL
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Jan 3, 2008 2:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I thought if he signed Bonds, he'd have ...

... the smallest set of balls in the history of all Mankind.

Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when blood spurted out. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 3, 2008 2:50 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The smallest balls and the biggest dichotomy.

Yep, that about sums up the Barry Bonds Experience.

"He's a misfit. He gets along with everyone." - Reggie Jackson, describing Joe Rudi

by McFood on Jan 3, 2008 4:25 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Bonds on the A's in 2008

does not make them competitive.  08 is done....no reason to bring him aboard.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jan 3, 2008 1:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I agree with that.

Since we aren't competing this year for anything except experience why bring someone onto the team that will be controversial?

by IM4Oakgal on Jan 3, 2008 1:15 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Because...

He puts fans in the seats. He doesn't take away at bats from prospects. He keeps the A's from losing 100 games. He strengthens the team's lineup.

Look, the A's have to play in 2008. You want to field a team that may lose a lot of games, but is competitive on a game by game basis. Plus, what if by some miracle Harden and Gaudin are healthy and Duke makes the transition to starter seamlessly? As Sickels says, you've rebuilt but you haven't gutted.

I find it disheartening to read so many posts from people who have no interest in rooting for the A's to win any games in 2008, which is what I seem to be reading. Let me emphasize something that Sickels talks about ---- these guys ARE NOT ready. If 2008 is an anomalous year, between one generation and the next --- at least give the team a fighting chance.

by richwol on Jan 3, 2008 1:30 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Baseball is a funny game -

Meyer and Eveland have breakout years, Blanton, Gaudin, Duke hit their potential...As Joaquin Andujar said in one word, "youneverknow".

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jan 3, 2008 1:33 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

And

"joo cahnt git rieech if joo don gambo".......

by mrod on Jan 3, 2008 11:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I never said I didnt have interest in rooting for

them...I just see zero way they compete in 08 and I am fine with that, but will still root for them and watch the young guys.

Bringing aboard a controversial guy who might be on the verge of going to jail is a move a team should do to maybe get them over the top.....I very much wanted the A's to sign him last year.  I think it would just be a bad decision now.  I dont want Bonds on a 72 win team.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jan 3, 2008 1:48 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

All Bonds is going

to cost is money out of Fisher's, Wolff's and Beane's pockets.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 3, 2008 1:51 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I still think if Oakland wants to do that

it might be better served to sign Shannon Stewart, because he has more trade value. Bonds has none, because of all his luggage.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 3, 2008 1:58 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Shannon Stewart
is 34 years old next season, coming off of a 101 OPS+ season in a corner, with unimpressive, slightly below average, D. Little to no baserunning value. Below average offense for his position, below average D in a corner. Even as a platoon hitter against RHP, his numbers were only about average for a corner.

Ageing below average corner OFs, who are average or below average at everything, are easy to find and have little trade value.

Bonds but may have no trade value, but at least he helps the A's put out a non embarrassing team. And sells some tickets, generates some hype.

Stewart is crap, whether for winning games, selling tickets, or trading.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 3, 2008 2:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

hahah

Well said:

Stewart is crap, whether for winning games, selling tickets, or trading.

It starts with rule No. 1 from coach Don Nelson: Shoot the ball.

by mikeA on Jan 3, 2008 2:28 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

This team, as currently composed ...

isn't a 72 win team.

With average health, we were looking at a mid to high 80 win team (based both on more substantial projections as well as simply adding a couple of games to the 07 pythag, based on average health and full seasons out of new, more productive players) ... I think it's fair to assume that management's best guess is that we won't have average health, so we should knock that down a couple of games. Now we're looking at a low to mid 80 win team. In moving Haren and Swisher we've subtracted about three and two wins respectively, so now we have a high 70 win team.

As currently built, this is a team that should win between 76 and 81 games. Bonds would add about 2 wins to that.

Getting a couple extra games of luck to break our way and having breakout performances from a couple of young guys could easily push this team into contention.

It's not the most likely scenario, by any means, but its also not an unrealistic one.

Even without getting the lucky breaks or extra development, if early season small samples are favorable, the team could easily appear to be in contention for the first few months ... that's more fun than the alternative.

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

by devo on Jan 3, 2008 3:44 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I agree with you on Bonds.

Paying him for one year isn't going to hurt the A's future. He will not cost no draft picks. He won't be blocking anyone, not unless Beane wants to rush Carlos Gonzalez.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 3, 2008 1:49 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah

I'll be rooting for the team regardless.  Although bad baseball is never fun, it will be fun to watch the development of some of these young guns.

by Blez on Jan 3, 2008 1:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Im kinda

Hoping that 2007 was the anomalous year, and 2008 starts the new era out with a bang...

"I Will Not Relent, I Am Driven"... Clutch
Bring Back The Bash!!!

by Shippee33 on Jan 7, 2008 9:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Just want to point out

That the A's entered the offseason with two glaring holes in the organizational depth chart, CF and SS.

Beane has now traded Haren and Swisher and the best long term options available at those two positions are prospects THAT WERE ALREADY IN THE ORGANIZATION PRIOR TO THE FIRST TRADE!

A lot of things will have to go right before Aaron Cunningham can play CF full time. There aren't many (if any) non-A's biased prospect watchers who think Carlos Gonzalez is a legitimate canidate for CF. Newly added Ryan Sweeney isn't thought of as someone who can play CF full time. Sickels just called him a 4th OFer and BP feels the same way.

Beane hasn't added a single middle infield prospect!

Yes, Beane has added a lot of oyung talent to the organization but at some point wouldn't it behoove the roster if he actually acquired players who could fill in the holes that have existed since this whole process began?

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

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 1:06 PM PST   0 recs

I speculated in a quick comment

on the other thread that the next move might be packaging Blanton and some combination of our new acquisitions for a hot SS prospect.

I noticed that about the Haren trade, and agree that we haven't solved the up-the-middle problems yet.

But hard-throwing, top-shelf pitching prospects are probably the most fungible asset to dangle in front of other teams.  Who doesn't want a 21-year old who throws 95 mph and dominates AA hitters?

Beane's moves so far don't get us further away from the goal of acquiring our next SS.  They may even get us a little closer.

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

by Nick on Jan 3, 2008 1:11 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

yeah, Beane ain't done yet

And by "yet," I mean "preparing for 2009-2010" -- I'm guessing that Beane is essentially considering the 2008 season as an extended offseason between '07 and '09.

Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when blood spurted out. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 3, 2008 1:13 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Must have missed that comment

300 or so posts in a couple hours tends to obscure some stuff.

As for acquiring our next SS... get a move on Billy, I'm tired of waiting!

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

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 2:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Urgency of the CF/SS acquisition

I think Beane is now clearly in the mode of opportunistic trades -- a 180 degree turnaround from the Loaiza deal last season.

If he sees a Cf or SS he likes in someone else's system, he can try to put a deal together.  If the deal doesn't work out, he'll stand pat.  He doesn't need to overpay, or get a mediocre prospect, for the sake of this season, god knows.

I'm also curious if new opportunities will open up after the draft in June -- isn't it a rule now that you can't trade players within a year of drafting them?

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

by Nick on Jan 3, 2008 3:45 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Rules

A player must stay with the org. that drafted him for for 1 year from the day of his signing. A PTBNL must be disclosed within 6 months of a trade. Therefore, it's possible that a player drafted by a team could be earmarked to go elsewhere in a trade within 6 months of his signing date but he could not report to his new club until a full year.

Not many folks are comfy with the idea of "their" prospect being in the care of another team for an extended period of time.

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

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 4:17 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Beane will have to make a deal with the Devil ...

... to behoove the roster.

Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when blood spurted out. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 3, 2008 1:11 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

grover?

He may have some more cards to play. If you know this Beane knows it too. We still have Blanton, and Street as trading chips ...aw well as some other guys that  we would actually enjoy unloading.

by IM4Oakgal on Jan 3, 2008 1:13 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

He does have cards to play

And yes it's me, not sure why you're questioning my identity.

Here's the thing that gets me. Beane has traded two of his best players and has not acquired that which the A's need most. He can trade someone like Street and pick up The Next Great SS.

Which leads me to ask, why not hold on to Swisher and Haren, trade Street for the new SS and reload for 2008 and beyond?

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

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 2:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

isn't that oversimplifying things a bit?

i think the organization as a whole was too weak to seriously be in contention through 2010. the system was stretched far too thin with promotions, injuries, and a couple of mediocre/poor drafts. consider that, how close (or not so close) we came to winning the division last year, and factor in the Angels' soon to be graduating young talent– it's a long shot.

We wouldn't only need a SS or stop gap CF, we'd need both + a SP in my opinion (especially considering Gaudin's injuries). Oh yeah, plus we'd need Chavez to successfully come off surgeries, Duke to transition to starting coming off surgery, and be more fortunate on the injury front.

In my opinion, it was a better move to get the very best value possible for players not likely to be here in 2011. No, that doesn't include Swisher, but I think that was more Beane accepting what he thought was a f'in A deal than wanting to shop Swisher.

Interesting though. Beane should move Blanton and Street for value (imo), but I can't see the A's acquiring even more corners and pitchers– even the farm gets full at some point. I'm anxious to see what the front office does next.

Brian Sabean lol.

by rebus on Jan 3, 2008 3:47 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Not oversimplifying at all

2008 might have been a rough season regardless but it also would have been cathartic by ridding the team of excess weight. With a strong FA class coming in the 08/09 offseason it's possible the A's could have bounced back to full on contender status by 2009.

Setting that aside, if the Angels suffer a key injury or two in 2008 (namely, Vlad) they're in a very bad way.

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

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 4:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

the thing is

You can never be overstocked in the minors. The A's are sitting pretty for future trades if thats how they want to get what they "need".  Now they don't have to just trade Street or Blanton alone (or whomever), we now have other prospects to throw into a deal to get anyone they want, like a CF or SS.  Stock the farm system with the most players you can get and trade from a posistion of strength.

But, whats the rush to get what we "need"? This team isn't going to win the division this year so its not imperative that we fill any glaring holes yet. But if something comes along, great. BB can now sit on any player til someone comes a callin.

No matter how much we liked Haren and Swisher (and I did like them both, quite a bit of course), the fact is the team for the next few years wasn't going to be any good nor was there anyone in the high minors coming along to change that. By pulling off these trades, BB made sure the A's weren't going to turn into the Giants. Now we are stocked and ready to roll as the need arises over the coming seasons.

And, c'mon, now we will have some fun prospects to root for and argue over who is going to be better and that beats watching what the team was before the trades and being bored for another season. At least the unexpected is exciting.

by ChickenStanley on Jan 3, 2008 8:34 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

C'mon, we have Kotsay and Crosby

Seriously, though, I suspect he figures that the team can trade minor league talent to fill holes if need be once the team is competitive again. Right now, I'm inclined to agree.

I'm already visualizing a Hunter Pence for Carter/Anderson/somebody trade in a couple of years' time.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 3, 2008 1:17 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

CF: SS: 2B

I know it's healthy to be "strong up the middle", but past champions didn't need it to win rings.  Names like Eckstein, Uribe, Iguchi, Lugo, etc... immediately come to mind.

by Colorado Fan on Jan 3, 2008 1:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I don't agree with just trying to fill specific

holes on your roster.  You get the best talent available and if you need to fill a hole down the road at a certain position, then you'll have plenty of talent to offer for it.  

I think you can't seek out particular position players.  Stocking up on young, great arms can never be a bad thing because once you get to a point where you've built up a competitive, young team again, you can either sign that missing piece or deal for it.

by Blez on Jan 3, 2008 1:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That works great until you put your team

on the field.

Bobby Crosby is still the SS and unless Gregorio Petit shows last year's hitting wasn't a fluke Bobby Crosby will be the SS in 2009 as well. Once Crosby leaves (because at this point the idea of an extension is ludicrous) we are left hoping Justin Sellers can be the guy in 2010.

Sellers didn't make Sickels top 20 list prior to the Swisher trade going down and neither did Petit. Horton did but even if he can move through the system in 2 years he's still a long shot to stick at SS.

Beane traded one of his best hitters and maybe his best pitcher and we are still looking at the same names to fill an obvious hole. All those great young arms would perform a lot better if they had a legit SS to field groundballs.

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

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 2:02 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Let's remember though

that yes Crosby sucks. But if he is your #9 hitter on the team and plays good defense, it's not the end of the world. Look at what the Red Sox did last year with Lugo.

We didn't miss the playoffs last year bc of Crosby and we weren't going to be awful this year because of Crosby. When we're ready to compete in a couple of years we'll replace him with a MLB ready SS that we acquire through trading some of our new minor league talent.

by faninphilly on Jan 3, 2008 2:15 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The RS are a big money

team that can compensate for Lugo by paying big bux to Manny, Papi Ortiz, Mike Lowell, Varitek etc.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 3, 2008 2:25 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<sigh>

Bobby Crosby hasn't been the #9 hitter, the #7 hitter or hold down any other spot in the line-up because he can't get on the field!

It's been 3 freaking years since Crosby has played a full season and to date the A's have yet to find a successor. They've traded Haren and Swisher and did not bring in anyone with even the slightest chance of challenging for the starting SS job.

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

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 2:25 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

In my opinon there's no reason for

Beane to taint the dealings of his two best trading chips by overlooking talent for need.

He should get the best haul of talent he can, and worry about filling positional holes later.

by OldhamA on Jan 3, 2008 5:23 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yes and no

Beane should go for the best package he can get.

At the same time, he needs a SS. And a CF. Beane needs to address these areas and until he does I raise the question.

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

by grover on Jan 3, 2008 5:40 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

we still have two more potential big trades

blanton and street would almost certainly net a lot in return. i think it would have been a bad idea to specifically target SS and CF in the first two trades - get as much talent as humanly possible and go from there. but now, we have tons of talent at the corner outfielder, pitching, and 1b/DH spots. i suspect beane will get a few top CF/middle infield prospects when dealing blanton and/or street.

"welcome to ME, motherf*^*er!" - tim hudson

by guy incognito on Jan 3, 2008 6:35 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Seriously dude

Beane does not need a SS or CF for '08. Period.

He's got time before this team is ready to compete to acquire a SS and CF.  Why don't you understand this.

Would you rathe have 4 Dan Harens or 1 Jose Reyes?

by methodrampage on Jan 3, 2008 8:44 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You're not allowed to be snarky with me

if you can't keep up.

The A's need a SS and a CF now. They also need a new pair in 2009. In 2010. And beyond. The best prospects currently in the system to fill those two positions long term ARE GUYS WHO WERE IN THE SYSTEM BEFORE BEANE TRADED DAN HAREN!

That said, I'd rather have 4 Dan Harens vs. 1 Jose Reyes. That's a freakin' no-brainer.

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

by grover on Jan 4, 2008 6:44 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

CF

I think Beane already thinks he has his CF.  Rightly or wrongly, Beane traded for Chris Denorfia last season, trading away a pretty decent pitching prospect (MacBeth).

2008 CF Depth:  Kotsay, Denorfia, Buck, Sweeney, Herrera, Blasi, Putnam

2008 SS/2B Depth:  Crosby, Murphy, Petit, J. Sellers

2008 2B Depth:  Ellis, Murphy, Melillo, Petit, J. Sellers, Pennington  

  • Have you given up on Kevin Melillo as a valid replacement to Mark Ellis?  Less than 6 months ago, you were steering the Melillo train (if I remember correctly).
  • There aren't any superstars at the 2B/SS depth charts.  But with the additions of Gonzalez/ Anderson/De Los Santos/Eveland/Smith + homegrowns Cahill/H.A. Rodgriguez/A. Bailey , etc... I think you can still win with great defense up the middle.

Would it be nice to get a new SS?  Hell Yes.  Is it necessary Right Now???? Nope.  Beane isn't done yet.  

Blanton + Kotsay to Atlanta?

by Colorado Fan on Jan 4, 2008 8:49 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Melillo has slipped

He's back in the "gotta prove it" category.

As for Denorfia, I'm all for giving him a chance in 2008. I'm just not betting the farm on him panning out. Furthermore, if Beane does believe in Denorfia then why go firesale? Why not make smaller moves designed to reload?

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

by grover on Jan 4, 2008 10:16 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Why does it have to be either-or?

I'm much more inclined to think that Beane thinks about players as having certain probabilistic outcomes-- something like the PECOTA graphs. Even if Denorfia has (say) a 70% chance of "working out", maybe there were enough other cumulative negative probabilities (like Eric Chavez's health) to make a rebuild look like the best option.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 4, 2008 10:22 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

How does that make sense?

Thinking Denorfia has a 70% chance of being a league average CF is justification for not signing one of Rowand, Hunter or Jones. Give him his shot. So much was going to have to break right for the A's to contend in 2008 that it makes sense to experiment next year. Let Murphy challenge for the SS job.

But if you really think Beane could spend money on FA talent in the near future then way would you trade two of your best players, players under team control for at least 3 more years, for prospects who are unlikely to help the team until 2010? Signing a FA is supposed to provide an immediate benefit.

Beane has traded two of his best for prospects who can only be expected to replace the players they were traded for. Unless these new faces are significantly better then the two they replace the A's have not improved themselves.

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

by grover on Jan 4, 2008 10:56 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

what?

Rowand, Hunter, or Jones? Overpriced, aging guys who are likelier to drop in performance almost immediately after signing their contracts?

And who would have, even if added to an A's roster that included Swisher and Haren, not made up the difference between contending and not?

Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when blood spurted out. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 4, 2008 11:17 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

What?

Believing in Denorfia is enough justification to not sign a FA CF this year. Give him a shot in 2008.

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

by grover on Jan 4, 2008 11:22 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'm genuinely not sure how to respond to this

because it's a non sequiter. You're going to need to clarify those first two paragraphs, because I can't make head or tail of them.

As for the last paragraph, he traded a SP and an OF for 5 SP, 3 OF and a 1B. If even two of the SP work out, he can trade the extra one to fill in another position. Similarly with the outfielders or the first baseman, since the team already has one. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 4, 2008 12:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Maybe you're confused

because I was agreeing with you. Give Denorfia a shot in 2008. That's a perfectly good reason not to go after a FA CF in 2008.

You've argued that Beane could sign a CF or SS via FA. I agree. But if you're going to go that route, if you're going to sign an expensive player, why not keep the inexpensive yet established talent you already have on the roster. Signing a FA is a way to strengthen your club without sacrificing what you currently have in hand.

It makes less sense to say "I'm going to sign Frucal a year from today" then trade Haren and Swisher for a group of players that largely won't be ready for another 2-3 years.

As for the last paragraph, he traded a SP and an OF for 5 SP, 3 OF and a 1B. If even two of the SP work out, he can trade the extra one to fill in another position. Similarly with the outfielders or the first baseman, since the team already has one. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

All 3 of those OF prospects project, long term, for two spots that the A's already had covered through 2012. Where was the need for a corner outfielder?

The 1B is at least 2 years away and the A's top prospect is Daric Barton, a guy they'll control through 2013. Where was the need for a 1B?

Of the 5 SP, Smith is weak, Eveland is a total wildcard, Anderson and DSL are at least two years away. That leaves Gio to "replace" Haren, maybe as soon as mid-2008.

If Beane does trade a couple of the newbies for a CF or a SS he'll have done EXACTLY what I've asked him to do, strengthen the weakest areas in the system. Then I'll be happy.

But until that deal happens...

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

by grover on Jan 4, 2008 12:26 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That would explain the confusion

The free agent thing: Basically what I'm arguing is that the team can wait until the "go for it" year arrives-- probably 2010-- and address the needs of the team through free agency then. You're right that if the team wanted to strengthen itself now, free agency would be the way to go-- but the available guys were expensive and mediocre, and Beane opted to rebuild instead.

As for the rest, I guess I'm just not sure why you seem impatient with the process. If 2010 rolls around and the A's still have 4 corner outfielders and no center fielder, or 8 starters and no infield defense, it'll be time to start questioning why Beane hasn't made a move. Right now the team still has time to wait for the best opportunity.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 4, 2008 1:23 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The go for it year

Keep in mind, the 2009/2010 FA class may not have whatever it is the 2010 A's need. (Again, homework could clear some of this up but I'm not doing it. I want to copy off someone else for a change.)

As for my impatience, the rest of AN is going off on these trades. They're weighing in on how well Beane did and the like... why should I have to stay quiet? Beane's brought in a bunch of talented prospects but he's done little to address critical spots on the roster.

Them's the facts.

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

by grover on Jan 4, 2008 1:31 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Well, we know at least one guy

who'll be in the 2010 FA class... Andruw Jones. Lackey will be if they need a starter, while Sabathia is available next offseason.

I'm not saying you have to "stay quiet": if you dislike the prospects, or whatever, have at it. It's a fair observation to say that right now the A's still have unfilled holes on the roster-- but it's equally fair to say that those holes don't have to be filled yet and that failing to do so immediately does not, in and of itself, make the trades poor ones.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 4, 2008 1:50 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

OK, last time

I'm not saying these were poor trades. I'm saying they did not solve the pre-existing problems. Beane traded Haren and Swisher and the best long term options for CF and SS are players who were in the organization before the 1st deal.

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

by grover on Jan 4, 2008 7:00 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

if all you want is legit SS to field groundballs

... then, really, what's wrong with Crosby?

Not that I'd want him extended, but if Beane's recently acquired prospects pan out, then we could certainly "afford" a Crosby/Vizquel-all-glove-no-bat at SS.

Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when bloo