Travis Bucks The Odds
IN: Travis Buck, Lenny DiNardo, Jay Marshall, Todd Walker
OUT: Antonio Perez (DFA), Erubiel Durazo (BYE-BYE), Brad Halsey (AAA)
Welcome to the show, Travis Buck. I am very happy right now, for two reasons. One has nothing to do with the A's. It has to do with Poochini (the world's cutest and dumbest dog) finally being found after an hour of frantically running around Tilden Park until someone (unbeknownst to me) picked him up and drove him home (while I continued running around Tilden Park, not frantic but sufficiently cute and dumb). So Poochini lives to see another day.
As does Buck, whose presence on the roster allows the A's to play Swisher at 1B rather than settling for the inferior defense of Walker at 1B and Swisher in the OF, or Kielty full-time.
Buck and Marshall instead of Durazo and Perez; I can definitely live with that. This was a really difficult decision for Beane and Co. and I was prepared to offer support no matter what simply because I wouldn't want to have to make the call on this one. But given the somewhat surprising decision I say: good call, guys--I think you got it right.
0 recs |
91
comments
Read Related
Comments
Corrected, thanks--
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You can also
thank me for stealing/returning Poochini in order to boost your spirits.
by mikeA on
Apr 1, 2007 12:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Thanks, I appreciate it
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
it was probably the best decision
given the circumstances and the options.
I'm moving on...Let's go A's!!!
and I'm glad for Poochini...great dog!!
by OaklandSi on Apr 1, 2007 12:22 PM PDT 0 recs
I like the roster given the injuries
Buck is what he is and I don't think time in AAA is really going to change that. With Buck playing full-time or near full-time, Kielty can fill in for Stewart and Bradley and always play somewhere against LH pitching. Walker is likely to see more playing time than Perez would have, so I like that decision as well.
by BlameChannel53 on Apr 1, 2007 12:27 PM PDT 0 recs
It's interesting how the A's
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Or . . .
by BlameChannel53 on
Apr 1, 2007 12:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Don't forget about Melhuse.
Melhuse can play the corner infield positions which adds a decent amount of depth. I am a little concerned about the back-up center field position. If something non-catastrophic happens but causes Bradley to miss 5 or 6 games we may be in a little trouble. I don't trust Swish and God only knows what either Kielty or Stewart would look like out there. Can Buck swing center?
by jjham15 on
Apr 1, 2007 12:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Or Piazza
who has played 1B once or twice in his life.
by doctorK on
Apr 1, 2007 12:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Swisher played well at CF in ST ...
.. he will be fine .. Geren already said in his show today {with KenKo} that Swish will be a backup for CF ..
by Randy Bell on
Apr 1, 2007 12:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
or, they now have some fill-in insurance
at the AAA level
by OaklandSi on
Apr 1, 2007 12:38 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I think we all wished
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:41 PM PDT
up
0 recs
now there's Merloni, the new guy from Florida
Donnie, Bocachica can play infield, who else? as possibilities in an emergency.
This time they're in AAA instead of rotting on the bench like Perez did.
by OaklandSi on
Apr 1, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Swisher, Ellis, Crosby, Chavez ..
.. {Marty Lurie says} .. may be the best infield in baseball ..
by Randy Bell on Apr 1, 2007 12:29 PM PDT 0 recs
best DEFENSIVE infield {correction}
by Randy Bell on
Apr 1, 2007 12:29 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Great point
not only great at handling the routing play, but great range at all positions as well. I'm not even sure that there's a better offensive infield (other than the Yankees) out there either. When you look at overall infields, offensively and defensively, I think the A's have it.
by IndianaAsfan on
Apr 1, 2007 1:00 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The Cardinals are better offensively
Pujols is way beyond any of the A's at the plate, and Rolen and yes, even Eckstein are productive hitters, too.
And the Phils are even better than the Cardinals -- Howard, Utley, Rollins, and a life-size chocolate Mike Schmidt would be a better hitting infield than the A's'.
by Nick on
Apr 1, 2007 3:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Not an outrageous statement
They are great defensively and have the potential to be well above average offensively.
by BlameChannel53 on
Apr 1, 2007 12:31 PM PDT
up
0 recs
bullpen today
Today's game may present an early season problem. Assuming Kennedy doesn't give us 5 innings, who do we use in the bullpen to eat up some innings? We used quite a few pitchers yesterday and we don't want to open the season with a tired pen.
by AlBowe on Apr 1, 2007 12:35 PM PDT 0 recs
Probably extra non-roster guys
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:39 PM PDT
up
0 recs
APRIL FOOLS! Buck didn't make the team!
He's being sent to AAA, and it turns out Perez made the roster after all he's not being DFA'd. Turns out the A's were playing a trick on us!
by Philip Christy on Apr 1, 2007 12:37 PM PDT 0 recs
APRIL FOOL'S TO YOUR APRIL FOOL'S!
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If Buck
hits to his .290/.348/.459 PECOTA and plays acceptable defense I'll be extremely happy.
For now, I think I agree that it makes sense, though ideally I would've liked to see Buck get some time in AAA.
It'll be interesting to see what they do if he gets off to a poor start.
Happy that Marhsall made the team, as well.
by walk off bunt on Apr 1, 2007 12:42 PM PDT 0 recs
That may be optimistic, BUT
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
While I agree
At this point I'm really doubtful Buck has the power to carry around a .250 average. I'm guessing his ISO will hit somewhere in the .100-.130 range this season, with future upside of something like .150-170, thus the importance in keeping his average in the .270+ range. Something like .270/.340/.400 would be more than acceptable, but .250/.320/.380 is a whole different beast.
I'm really not sure that kind of power will ever come, but there's nothing wrong with a career of 2006 Andre Ethier-type seasons.
by walk off bunt on
Apr 1, 2007 12:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'll glady take an Ethier-type season
by Randy Bell on
Apr 1, 2007 12:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
buck is already noticeably bigger than he was
last year.
by xbhaskarx on
Apr 1, 2007 12:52 PM PDT
up
0 recs
it's not the size of the player
it's the motion of the ocean
by rolliedigits on
Apr 1, 2007 12:56 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Buck
ISO'd at .165 while at Arizona State, and in two minor league seasons has ISO'd at .181.
It's possible he'll develop more power, but I'll be highly, highly shocked if he ever puts out an ISO higher than .200. Which, again, there's nothing wrong with. It just means he needs to keep his average up, something I personally think he can do.
by walk off bunt on
Apr 1, 2007 1:00 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Topps now scrambling to create Rookie card..
Buck will be card number 702 or thereabouts...
by One won lost won on
Apr 1, 2007 4:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Oh, I see they took Antonio Perez' card
marked it like Antonio Perez, then off to the side, they scrawled in "Traves Deer Buck.
Could be a collectible!!
by One won lost won on
Apr 1, 2007 4:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
no, no no no no NO
It just doesnt make sense to me. Why have Buck up in the majors, wasting both his clock and his development time, by having him platoon in the OF. And who is he platooning with? Kielty. Yeah, that's a great option for the OF.
Never played a game in AAA, and has not been impressive on defense at all. Hopefully he can take care of business, like I expect him to next year.
by fadedash on Apr 1, 2007 12:43 PM PDT 0 recs
I don't see the problem with
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
true
but i don't like the idea of throwing him out there without any splash at AAA, especially with his defensive deficiencies.
if it works out, then great. but unless buck his hitting well enough to the point that he'd remain as a starter when DJ/Kotsay come back, i consider it a waste of clock.
and if he struggles, then you open a whole other can of worms.
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 12:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Why are you hung up on
AAA? Pujols never played at AAA, so you would have sent him down just to get him some AAA at-bats?
by IndianaAsfan on
Apr 1, 2007 1:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
it was no secret that Pujols
would be great.
Buck is not in that category
by OaklandSi on
Apr 1, 2007 1:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Really??
It was the biggest story of that spring. Pujols went to junior college because he got NO college scholarship offers. It was a huge surprise that he was that great that early. Remeber, he jumped from A ball to the majors, and the Cardinals were heavily criticized for it.
I never claimed Buck was in his category, I just took fadedash's logic and applied it in another situation.
by IndianaAsfan on
Apr 1, 2007 1:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
you didnt take my logic
you put words in my mouth and ran with it that way
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 1:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Which words exactly
did I put in your mouth? Please explain, because one of your complaints was that Buck didn't have any AAA at-bats. How is that putting words in your mouth. The Cardinals had other options at the time as well, but thought he was ready for the big leagues. Time has obviously proven them right. Now Buck could fail miserably, but the A's feel he is ready. Criticize all you want, but come up with something other than he doesn't have any AAA at-bats, because AAA at-bats don't increase his chances of succeeding at the major league level.
by IndianaAsfan on
Apr 1, 2007 1:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
words in my mouth
i didnt say i was hung up on AAA.
and i didnt say i would have made pujols play AAA.
you assumed both of these about me
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 1:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Well
re-read your post. You complain that Buck doesn't have AAA at-bats. I then compared that to Pujol's situation, and there is nothing different about Buck's situation now compared to Pujols's situation then. Except that Buck has had more minor league at-bats than Pujols did then. Pujols's clock started early, if he had failed miserably or merely did ok, then the Cardinals would have sent him down to AAA with an early starting clock.
by IndianaAsfan on
Apr 1, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
and i'm not hung up on him not getting AAA time
i'm just a risk-adverse person generally, and i dont see anything wrong with that.
Why use Buck right now? Start him in AAA and let him play every day.
In the meantime, go with Durazo/Walker or whomever at 1B. If they struggle, you can call up Buck. Buck isn't going anywhere, so why not wait and see first?
Instead, the other option is to cut one player and call up your rookie who hasn't played in AAA or the MLB, and has shown defensive issues in the OF in ST. If he struggles, you will have started his clock and will have to have him back in AAA.
If he does ok, you'll have him gain some experience at the MLB level, but he'll be back in AAA when DJ/Kotsay return, again wasting a full clock year.
If he does great, he stays on the team and everyone's new favorite player (mine included) is Buck.
That 3rd scenario has the least likely chance of happening, and therefore, I'm not in favor of it. Follow?
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 1:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, I follow
and there's nothing wrong with being risk adverse.
Here's my point - if either one of your first two scenarios happen, experience at AAA isn't going to turn Buck into a great player so you haven't lost anything by starting his clock this year. Do you think Beane sits around and worries that he started DJ's clock early? I don't. The A's have lost ok players in the past and will in the future, it's just a part of being in Oakland. Beane didn't just start this today, and if he thinks Buck should be in the majors, clock notwithstanding, then that's good enough for me.
by IndianaAsfan on
Apr 1, 2007 1:29 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm not saying the AAA experience will turn him
into something better. It takes talent to get drafted and it takes talent to go through the system. A stop in AAA will not turn him into a superstar.
What I'm more concerned with is just starting him out there already, without having given the other options a chance.
If Walker/Durazo did well at 1B, we dont need to call up Buck right? The A's will get the benefit then of letting him build somewhat of a track record in AAA. If he's mashing and Walker/Durazo struggle, go ahead and call him up.
They're completely foregoing that option (which I'm sure they thought of and decided against) and instead are just banking on Buck providing enough to help this team get through the 1st half.
I hope he comes through, but I just wish they didn't give up on one option before going to this one.
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 1:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
No, fadedash, you're wrong
It's shocking to read a diary and see that you're making people angry and shooting off incorrect information.
YOU DON'T WASTE A FULL CLOCK YEAR BY MAKING AN APPEARANCE IN THE MAJOR LEAGUE SEASON. Do not write things you don't know and confuse people.
Service time is doled out as percentages of a year. That's why Milton Bradley has 5 and change years of service time and won't be an FA until after this year.
If Buck is called up for part of the year, then sent down, he will not lose an entire year of service time. If he plays 3 months with the A's, then is sent down, he'll be at approximately .5 service time years. That clock will continue as soon as he's brought back up.
Visit Cot's Baseball Contracts.
by notsellingjeans on
Apr 1, 2007 1:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
ok my mistake
is there a need for you to express it that way?
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 1:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
No, there isn't.
by notsellingjeans on
Apr 1, 2007 2:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
i knew someone would bring that up
i'm not hung up on it. if we didnt have other options, then of course you go with buck. but we have other options.
and is buck pujols? no
could he be? who knows, but probably not.
unless buck puts up an extraordinary line, he's going back to AAA when kotsay/dj come back. when that happens, you'll have wasted a clock year.
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 1:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Also
I don't understand at all the choice of Walker over Perez. Perez is better than he played last year, and looked like he was coming around this spring. He's very versatile, whereas Walker isn't, and young to boot.
I imagine Beane and co. know something I don't on this one.
by walk off bunt on Apr 1, 2007 12:44 PM PDT 0 recs
What they know may be
by Nico on
Apr 1, 2007 12:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Walker is also a known commodity.
Walker will get AB's because he's proven himself over his career. Perez had a solid season for the Dodgers one time. Walker is a guy who may end having a lot of AB if Piazza is injured/struggles or our brittle middle goes down again.
I think that Halsey is going down to AAA to be stretched out to start again and will be up to fill Loaiza's spot in the rotation with DiNardo switching spots with him in the minors.
by jjham15 on
Apr 1, 2007 12:59 PM PDT
up
0 recs
i'm guessing its because
walker can play 1B and perez can't.
if buck sucks it up at the MLB level to the point where Geren doesn't want to play him, they have no other option but send him back down to AAA.
and what will they do then? have 3 OFs with no one on the bench, one of those starting OFs be kielty? don't think beane is a fan of that.
if buck sucks, swisher to the OF, kielty to the bench, walker to 1b.
perez didn't give them that possibility.
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 12:48 PM PDT
up
0 recs
or, Walker has played 1B while Perez hasn't
Walker's performance at 1B hasn't been impressive...
but it appears Perez was DFA'd for other reasons
by OaklandSi on
Apr 1, 2007 12:53 PM PDT
up
0 recs
and buck's performance in the OF
hasnt been impressive either.
if DJ doesnt go down, and they have an actual 1B, perez makes the team.
dj goes down, they dont have a 1b, so they find a UT player that has some experience at 1b. game over for perez.
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 12:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
He filled in at first
last year for the Cubs after Lee went down. He played the position at least as well as DJ does.
by IndianaAsfan on
Apr 1, 2007 1:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
really?
not that DJ is great at 1B (Swisher is better), but I have a hard time believing this one
by OaklandSi on
Apr 1, 2007 1:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Well
I live in the Chicago land area and am forced to watch way too many Cub games. Especially last year, and probably again this year once they hit their June swoon. Remember, I didn't say Walker was outstanding at first, but for the short term he is fine, and just as good as DJ. His defensive problem isn't the routing grounder, it's his lack of range at second. When he plays first (especially with Ellis at second) this concern is minimal.
by IndianaAsfan on
Apr 1, 2007 1:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Travis Buck Poll
Looking back on louismg's poll from a few days ago, it looks like about 111 ANer's have a chance of being correct, while the vast majority 491 (70%), were incorrect in their assessment of Buck's talent:
<prePoll <p>Travis Buck in 2007 will...Play in AAA Sacramento and have a Sept. call-up.
70% 491 votes
Make the A's Opening Day roster, rot on the bench
6% 42 votes
Make the A's Opening Day roster, be a regular starter
9% 69 votes
Start in AAA, get in a funk and demoted to AA or worse
0% 5 votes
Start soft tossing from the mound and be the 5th starter
8% 57 votes
Other (Write-In Below)
5% 35 votes| 699 votes | Results
</pre>
I, of course, was among the 9% of smart ANer's. ;-)
by FoolshGame22 on Apr 1, 2007 12:57 PM PDT 0 recs
wonder why it doesn't preview...
with the </pre> HTML showing? Oh well...
by FoolshGame22 on
Apr 1, 2007 12:59 PM PDT
up
0 recs
talent assessment?
buck isnt any more/less talented than he was a week ago, right?
dominoes just fell in the right order for him. funny thing is that his luck is created by yet some more bad luck for DJ
by fadedash on
Apr 1, 2007 1:00 PM PDT
up
0 recs
happens sometimes that way
for example, when Marco made the team in 2005
Bonds just HR'ed at the coliseum
by OaklandSi on
Apr 1, 2007 1:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Only difference
Luck and injuries often play a role in sorting out final roster spots.
What's different is that Buck is regarded as our best minor-league prospect, not a guy trying to catch on with a team after bouncing around the league.
My main concern with Buck is that we're rushing him. I would have preferred that he get a little time in Sacramento. But as you say, everything fell into place for him to make the big leagues right now. Let's hope he does okay.
by bear88 on
Apr 1, 2007 1:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree with you
I would have liked to see him start at AAA. But given the injuries and the options I understand why he's going to start with the big club.
by OaklandSi on
Apr 1, 2007 1:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Thanks Nico!!!! :-)
BUCK IS IN!!!! YEAH BABY!!!! So glad he's in!!!!!
I think this was an awesome call by Beane & co. :-)
by baseballgirl on Apr 1, 2007 1:00 PM PDT 0 recs
I agree
Tough decision for sure, but I'm happy with it.
by sprtsnwyn on
Apr 1, 2007 1:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I like the Buck move
a) as someone pointed out he probably doesn't have a huge ceiling, so he doesn't have much room yet to expand in the minors;
b) even if you don't believe point A, you have to believe that 400 AB's (assuming he stays on the roster and hits against RH) against Major League pitching is worth more to the development of a 23 year-old than 600 AB's in the minors; and
c) he's "hot" right now and if he can keep it up, he'll provide a nice obp/doubles power from the 8 or 9 hole. He'll never be a big bopper, but he should be a solid OF with at least some room to grow.
Excited the season is starting after the eternal winter.
by jubjub on
Apr 1, 2007 1:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
he'll likely do ok til the pitchers
adjust to him. How he learns from that and adjusts may separate him from other players who started out well but haven't stuck
by OaklandSi on
Apr 1, 2007 1:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Doesn't have a huge ceiling ?
Seriously people, yesterday Buck was one of the best A's prospects. He makes the 25 man roster and suddenly the A's might as well have another Keith Ginter in right field. Whats up with that?
by Threepwood XX on

