Athletics Nation

A LOOGY starter?

That’s a first. Get Curtis Granderson out, then leave the game?

My wording sucks.

He won’t pitch again in a starting role IMO. If he pitches again, it will be as a LOOGY.

Couldn't they just have Granderson bat 5th?

Yes... if you tell them Mulder is "starting" beforehand...

(You are, of course, correct to point out that burning a LOOGY in the first inning is ridiculous. He can get Granderson out in the 7th inning in higher leverage situations, which is clearly a better play.)

You're assuming he can get Granderson out.

mikev - November 11, 2008 reply

He's facing only one batter in any case.

Because then his shoulder will explode?

Or were you expecting one batter a game? That would surprise me.

nevermoor - November 11, 2008 reply

mulder has the left-handed thing going for thim, too bad he can’t throw.

That mysterious left-handed Huston Street the paper mentioned would be a good pickup for AL Central teams then...

Love this suggestion

Living in LA, I watched a lot of his starts the last 8-10 weeks….He really was one of the best starters in baseball in that stretch when the Dodgers needed him. I think he would slot in really well in Oaktown.

OaktownPower - November 11, 2008 reply

Lowe or Randy Johnson.

Whoever comes cheaper.

I think either guy would still make Furcal available.

mikev - November 11, 2008 reply

Randy Johnson will come much cheaper.

Lowe gets 4 years easily.

True, but I think Lowe might well make less per season

and it’s not like the A’s can’t use the man in 2010.

I don't think so.

Lowe will easily get 15MM for 4 years on the open market. He’s the second best starter behind CC. Whoever doesn’t get CC will go Lowe.

And, he’s already 35/36. Do I really want him around at 39, with no idea how he’ll be then?

I don't think Lowe will be the second most sought after

in the open market. The guys to avoid are going to get a lot of attention: Sheets and Burnett. I wouldn’t touch either with a ten-foot pole, but I think Lowe will be the fourth most sought after starting pitcher even though he’s actually the second best choice.

Johnson's a lot worse than his ERA, FIP or xFIP in 2008

tRA: 3.32

I assume by “worse” you mean “better.”

No I mean worse. His opposing batters had a cumulative .707 OPS --

the easiest opposing hitters of any pitcher in the majors to throw more than 50 innings.

i'd touch Sheet or Burnett with a ten foot pole

assuming it was one of those magic poles that makes everything it touches dirt cheap…and that just didn’t sound right

I have a feeling if you touched your own magic pole on stuff at Wal-Mart, it'd be marked down significantly

And you'd be escorted swiftly from the store

Although at ten feet you'd be likely to get some other interesting offers

and we're back to getting Lowe...how the wheel goes round and round

you'd be an instant YouTube star...

once the security video was leaked.

Lowe would be a very good signing for the A's

He would certainly benefit from the Oakland defense.

In reality, I think we need Lowe + Furcal to be serious contenders, but there’s a lot of dollars involved in that first clause.

MrIncognito - November 11, 2008 reply

There's a lot of dollars involved in reality?

While technically true, that observation seems somewhat banal.

Perhaps, but also germane.

I wouldn’t sign Lowe when there’s tons of pitching prospects and the offense still sucks. I’d rather upgrade with Dunn. The only way signing Lowe makes sense is if you’re going to trade multiple pitching prospects for a SS.

You can never have too much pitching

Really. Never.

Another advantage of signing Lowe: he makes it much less likely that the team will be tempted to call up Cahill or Anderson next season…

Ya but with $40M you want to spend $15M on Lowe? I'd rather have Dunn.

Dunn blocks prospects

in the true sense of the term, i.e. makes it impossible for them to benefit your team.

Lowe doesn’t, because pitching prospects are basically never blocked.

Both of them are about a 2 win upgrade from the current roster, unless Dunn shows off a non-horrible ability to playing first base.

play first base*

Didn't he show that non-horrible ability in 2008? They moved Jackson to LF.

He's listed as -6 runs by Smith, so he's about a win worse than Barton on D

On offense, 3-4 wins better. So, he’s again a 2-3 win upgrade on Barton. But he creates position player congestion at a well-stocked position, which might pose a future problem.

He’s probably a better sign than Lowe in the abstract, but I think he’s going to cost considerably more.

I'm thinking Lowe is 4/$60M and Dunn 6/$100M

So considerably more years but not much more per year.

We'll see. Lowe's age, his lack of "great stuff,"

and the presence on the market of C.C., Sheets, and Burnett could keep him below $15mil/year and or below a 4 year offer.

Even if the Yanks, Mets and maybe Rangers bid?

We'll see - guys like Lowe tend to get

offered less than they’re worth while guys like Sheets and Burnett are being offered more than they’re worth, usually by teams just like the ones you mention.

OK then I'd take him for up to 4 years $40M

Same - I'm not suggesting overpaying for a pitcher

Just that it might be worthwhile to invest in a solid #2 starter instead of a solid hitter, strange as it may sound.

I would argue that Lowe DOES have great stuff

His sinker isn’t “unhittable” in the literal sense of the word, but he DOES get massive amounts of ground balls, and I don’t see that changing in the next few years. That fadeback sinker he throws (like the Melhuse/Long pitches) is just filthy against lefties. He doesn’t throw 95 MPH, and he doesn’t have a Kerry Wood breaking ball, but Lowe has some damn good “stuff”.

From your point of view and from my point of view

But not from the point of view of “them ol’ schoo’ scouts who know baseball – yee haw!!!!!”

Hey now, I coach at a high school that's placed 30+ players in major college progrums!

John McGraw wouldn’t have put up with yer guff, young’un…

Why don't you imitate an escape artist

and make a productive out?

Productive out

Isn’t that happening on 1/20/09?

Regarding the congestion Dunn can play LF in the off chance Holliday doesn't re-sign

Then he just clogs the corner OF slots

instead of the 1B slot.

Doesn’t really change the problem. Also, he’s epic fail in left field. Probably worse than sticking Cust out there.

Ya but he's better than the other options. That's not clogging. It's improving.

True

Cahill and/or Anderson next year...

is a good thing.

right, because it could possibly mean all but 3 of duke, gallagher, eveland, braden, giogon, outman, simmons, and mazzaro were ineffective.

I would love to hear some kind of actual explanation for this

… but I’m not holding my breath.

well, I'm only for it...

if they are 2 of the best 5 pitchers we have. And, I’m pretty sure the others that xbh mentions are nothing more than trade bait for something else Billy wants, namely, another bat. I kinda believe in playing our best players. Unlike playing Kielty and Kotsay over Byrnes, when Byrnes was clearly the superior player. I’m weird that way.

clarification...

the others being Braden, Gio, Outman, Simmons and Mazzaro. Maybe even Eveland, if Billy can swing the right deal. All of them are expendable and tradable.

So, I suppose you think Michael Inoa should be starting games for the A's next year too

After all, all that matters is that “he’s the best.” Age, experience, proven performance, etc etc are all meaningless.

There is absolutely no reason to believe right now that either Cahill or Anderson is one of the best 5 A’s starting pitchers. Given where they are at on the minor league ladder, virtually the only scenario under which they will actually look like one of the best 5 at any point next season is if most of the players in front of them flame out in epic fashion. I don’t understand why this is apparently such a difficult concept to grasp.

Inoa is a little young...

but, sure… if he’s lights-out better than anyone else who is older, there is, no doubt, I’d want him in the rotation. Just because you don’t project them, doesn’t mean I don’t want them if they’re the best.

There is no reason for you to believe either Cahill or Anderson is one of the A’s best starting pitchers, right now. Trust. That could change. And, it probably will.

you wouldn't have wanted Vida Blue...

in the A’s rotation in his rookie year.

I'd start Inoa if he were one of the five best pitchers and Vida Blue

if he were one of the five best pitchers. Why anyone would intentionally root for a worse player to get playing time over a better player (aside from a silly exception like they’re almost the same but one can benefit from minor league development) is beyond me. Age is irrelevant. Eye color is irrelevant. Erectile dysfunction is irrelevant (unless it happens to me). Performance counts (especially in that last instance). It’s the only thing that counts.

OK

Fine, it’s obvious that both of you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my (and xbx’s) substantive point, so to hell with this.

I have no intention of addressing your "substantive" point...

until you play me a hand of Texas Hold ’Em. So, quit begging.

I am impressed by your combination of complete irrelevance and gratuitous truculence

I congratulate you...

on the recognition of two of my 5 best talents.

Can you clarify the difference between being "the best"

and “proven performance”?

The rest of those things like age, experience and etc. really aren’t relevant.

They are absolutely frigging relevant

because pitchers (and position players) who get tossed into environments over their heads disproportionately a. suck, and b. continue sucking.

By “the best,” I mean the guy who ranks highest on the team’s prospect list, or, if you will, the imaginary prospect list that includes the guys at the major league level.

Yes, Cahill is a better pitching prospect than Dana Eveland. No, that does not necessarily have anything to do with which of those two would pitch better if you put them in the 2009 Oakland starting roster.

I mean, you yourself outline the situation— and then you proceed to dismiss it as irrelevant when it is, in fact, incredibly relevant:

aside from a silly exception like they’re almost the same but one can benefit from minor league development

Cahill and Anderson can benefit from minor league development. Dana Eveland cannot. Since there is utterly no reason to believe that either of those guys will outpitch Dana Eveland next season, Eveland should be the one starting for the MLB team.

Our difference appears to be one of definition

By “the best” I don’t mean at the top of the list of best prospects. I mean the one who gives you the best chance to win the most World Series during the course of his career (not the 6.6 pre-FA Years). Yo.u can always sign a true superstar for his FA years if you’ve treated him right during the pre-FA years, unless he’s an asshole

I do not buy the argument that you automatically bench or demote a player because he’s not old enough or hasn’t enough innings of minor league ball or anything else. If they give you the best chance to win, you play them. Period.

There are a lot of holes in this definition

notably what to do in the inverse situation to the one here— where calling a guy up too soon will help the team win more games in the short run at the expense of the long run. Sometimes it’s worth trading 2 future wins for 1 highly leveraged present win.

Generally speaking, though, if you’re trying to win a title, you want the 25 players on your roster who will most help you do so. I see no evidence whatsoever other than a. blind wishcasting or b. incredible pessimism about the rest of the team’s pitchers that either Cahill or Anderson will be one of those 25 players at any point next season.

Is ZiPS evidence?

I agree in general you take the most total wins except for that highly leveraged present win.

Is Cahill's 3.68 FIP MLE in 2008 evidence?

How about Anderson’s 3.80 — including those horrible 15 IP that you’ve repeatedly alluded to?

How about each of their BB-Pro MLE

of about 4.80 between A+ and AAA. It’s not out of the realm of realistic possibility that they’ll improve enough by the 2nd half of 2009 to get that 4.80 down to 4.20 or so.

That's AA not AAA

"Those horrible 15 IP" basically had no effect on his FIP

since they pretty much amounted to a huge bunch of singles. He didn’t lose his control, just his ability to throw a competitive fastball.

Short answer: No, I really don’t think that stuff is worth much. FIP is OK for comparing prospects at the same level; not so hot for comparing them to players in the majors. I think it’s radically understating the degree of difficulty increase between AA and MLB. The BPro numbers are more reasonable, but they do not remotely suggest that either of them is big league ready.

ZiPS is lame at best for very young players.

Also, I’d point out that Mazzaro had a 3.63 MLE FIP last year. Do you seriously expect Vince Mazzaro to be a 3.63 ERA pitcher?

I'm not referring to the precision of the

figures, just citing them as evidence that these guys might be ready at some point in 2009 to pitch in the majors. As far as Mazzaro being a 3.63 FIP pitcher in the majors, it seems unlikely, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he pitched in the rotation in 2009 either. I don’t see the guys ahead of the prospects — namely Braden and I guess Outman as being much of a blockage. Duke and Gallagher haven’t exactly been durable either, so the kids are likely to get a chance. They’re good enough that they might succeed.

Let's take a look at last year's PECOTA

Cahill —

75th percentile 2008 — 5.29
Actual 2008 — ~4.80
75h percentile 2009 — 4.75

Anderson —

75th percentile 2008 — 5.37
Actual 2008 — ~4.80
75h percentile 2009 — 4.61

Is it so far-fetched to think that they’ll get to 4.20-4.30 by the 2nd half of 2009 given their tremendous progress in 2008?

Your question answers itself

If their 75th percentile performance is an ERA in the high 4s, an ERA in the low 4s has to be 90th percentile or higher. So, yes, it is that far-fetched— and besides, I don’t lie awake at night in glee over the prospect of a 4.20 ERA. It’s not worth bothering with given all the attendant risks.

What are these "attendant risks"

Please don’t say “service clock”. That’s a losers’ argument.

No, it's a winners' argument

Winners, like the 2007 Red Sox. Like the 2008 Rays.

Perhaps it would be better to describe it as “a winner’s AND loser’s argument”, because both winners and losers pay attention to it. The reason why both winners and losers use it is that it is so obviously moronic not to that even awful teams can figure that bit out.

However, in this case I was more referring to the risk of turning them into the next Jeremy Guthrie or Homer Bailey, or for that matter, the next Joey Devine, who could only get over his issues when he had been sold for pennies on the dollar to another franchise.

re: PTs comment above

this is my main problem in following your arguments. your counterpoints tend to not address important things that others bring up.
i certainly enjoy your perspective, but this makes tracking your (often substantive) threads difficult

oakinboston - November 12, 2008 reply

By the way it's not true that the only way Anderson and

Cahill make the team is if all but three more senior pitchers flame out. It could also be because Anderson and Cahill are really awesome. That wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Did you see Dwight Gooden in 1984-85?

yeah being top 15 prospects in all of baseball isn’t enough, let’s expect them both to be the best 20 year old pitchers in a generation!

I'm not expecting it. I'm keeping my mind open to

all possibilities and not pre-judging for extraneous reasons. I don’t care if a player is 2 or 2 million years old. If he she or it is the best, I say play him her or it.

considering they’re nowhere near as good as dwight gooden at age 20, what are the chances anderson and cahill are as good as him at age 21?

slim...

but, we really don’t need them to be that good. Just better than all the flotsam ahead of them on the A’s roster.

right, those other 8 pitchers are lousy.

2, maybe 3, are good or decent...

which ones do you consider “proven” MLB ready, exactly?

duke, gallagher, eveland, braden, and possibly giogon

all have little to nothing left to prove in the minor leagues.
proven MLB ready is a spectrum, and all 8 of those guys are closer to the MLB end than anderson or cahill.

I don't give it high odds that they have 300 Ks, but I'm not precluding

the possibility that they can progress rapidly. I don’t get why you’d want to take the position that such rapid progress is impossible or so unlikely as to be irrelevant.

"Rapid progress" is a statistical fantasy based on small sample sizes

Nick Adenhart sure looked like he was “progressing rapidly” when the Angels called him up. Turned out his “progress” was an utter fluke, caused by the fact that he’d only started 5 or 6 games on the season.

It can also be real.

Although I’m tempted to use the title of that post as my new sig line.

I find this scenario sufficiently preposterous that it's not worth wasting brain cells on

when you don't have them to spare...

you shouldn’t waste them.

Agreed.

Theres just no chance Cahill/Anderson are pitching in Oak next outside of a Sept call up. Which might not happen since they would prob be better served pitching in the AAA post season.

Syphon - November 12, 2008 reply

next year*

Syphon - November 12, 2008 reply

I'd put the odds at greater than 50% by Aug

Bringing them up to get a spot start here and there does them no good.

Even if he have a lot of injuries theres other players ahead of them, that would prob get a call up first. Mazzaro and Simmons.

Syphon - November 12, 2008 reply

I think all of Cahill, Mazzaro, Simmons,

Anderson and Gio will start in AAA or get to AAA by May. Once that happens it’s not all that unlikely that Cahill and Anderson will distinguish themselves from the other three. To me it’s at least a 50% likelihood.

Wow

I just read through all of this stuff. Why do WaddellCanseco and FoolshGame22 hate prospect development so much?

I loved the “sure, I’d promote Inoa” part. Lunacy of that caliber is a rare and special thing.

Monkey sodomy?

Helloooo 1st - November 12, 2008 reply

"in reality" is not a clause

It’s just a prepositional phrase.

Cutthemullet - November 15, 2008 reply

No. NO. HELL NO!!!

Lowe isn’t a bad pitcher, and the A’s would provide the kind of defensive support he needs to thrive but he turns 36 in June and word is he’s looking for a 3-4 year deal. There is a very good chance you’ll be stuck with an ineffective SP for the last two years of a 4 year deal. At $14-15 million annual that’s a lot of wasted cash even with a payroll over $80 million.

I agree the rotation needs help if the A’s are going to contend in 2008. Sign Randy Johnson (who made 30 starts last year) to a 1 year deal at $10-12 million. If you’re feeling really frisky also sign Brad Penny (assuming he passes a physical) to a 1 year deal at $6-7 million. Sure, the two signings would cost you $4-5 million more than going after Lowe but you buy some insurance by investing in 2 veteran arms instead of 1 and a year from now you aren’t trying to figure out what to do with Lowe and his 3 year/$42 million contract when the kids are ready to play.

what if the plan is to maximize "competitiveness" in the '09 window w/Holliday + Lowe ...

… and then not only let Holliday walk for prospects, but flip Lowe in the offseason as well?

Extend Holliday. It's feasible.

separate question

I’m only throwing the let-Holliday-walk-for-draft-picks angle in there to frame the issue. Heck, could extend Holliday and still flip Lowe. A season in the Coli w/the A’s D behind him could really maximize Lowe’s trade value.

Exactly - you can flip Lowe

(or flip him off, which I tend to want to do) after a season when the young ‘uns are ready. It’s also not a stretch to think he could be effective at age 38-39, as a guy who relies on a sinker and not on velocity.

can we just flip him now?

oakinboston - November 11, 2008 reply

can we make obscene pelvic-thrust gestures towards lowe now?

What was stopping you previously?

His face looks like he voted No on 8

How exactly does that face look?

Personally, my face has one look when I vote “no” on even-numbered propositions, and another when I vote “no” on odd-numbered ones. (I never vote “yes” because I figure if 900,000 people think something is a good idea, it is almost certainly a very bad idea.)

It's kinda similar to the constipated face

Trying to make the point that Derek Lowe looks kinda gay, but in a roundabout way. Spoiled. LOL

Ah - making fun of gay people AND bringing politics onto AN

in the same comment. Nice!

I'm reaching the point where I can no longer find the line between serious comments and complete joke posts.

I love this board.

No seriously…

Great

You just described A’s fans.

grover - November 12, 2008 reply

You're gambling that you can flip Lowe

Which you probably could, but you’re also sending a message to free agents that you better include a no-trade clause if you sign with Oakland. Otherwise you can never really unpack your bags.

That’s a situation the A’s want to avoid.

meh

Partly, I think Beane already has that rep (and doesn’t, generally speaking, relish acceding to NTCs). And any FA who’s really concerned about staying anywhere for the duration of his contract insists on an NTC, doesn’t he?

You had me at "meh"

You had meh at "me"

Is that even possible?

not by California statutes

stole my thunder...

Someone has to pitch in 2010, though

Cahill and Anderson are likely to still be very green in that season. Duke is gone, unless you extend him. Who’s your ace, Gio? Simmons? Doesn’t seem like a great situation.

I'd rather extend Duke for cheaper than extend Lowe.

1. Younger.
2. Much, much cheaper.
3. Yeah, he’s been on the team longer and I like him.

Duke's not a healthy guy though. I think Cahill and Anderson will be ready in 2010.

Tim Lincecum was ready in 2007

He was not an ace in 2007. He was an ace in 2008.

I expect Cahill and Anderson to be “ready” in 2010, and actually good in 2011.

By "ready" I mean ready to be good enough to be in a Top 1/3 rotation.

I’m sticking with 2010 for that. I’m even hoping for August 2009 for that — like Price.

I'm extremely doubtful that Price will be a high-performing starter in 2009

I can already visualize all the “Price: what’s wrong?” blog posts on minorleagueball next July when he has like a 4.30 ERA.

As for the first line of your comment, I must confess that I don’t understand what you mean. It would help if you outlined actual predicted performance numbers for them.

I guess I meant they'd be in the top 1/3 of starters in the majors.

4.30 isn’t a bad ERA, and should lead to a winning record with the Rays. He shouldn’t get too much flak with that.

I know, but the hype on him is ZOMG AUTOMATIC #1 ACE STARTER

compared to which, a decent-to-good first full season will look like a failure.

I think he’s going to be a good pitcher, but whether that’s a #1, #2 or #3 is TBD and by no means a lock. And even if he eventually becomes a #1, I think there will be an adjustment period.

I do not really believe that Cahill and Anderson will be in the top 1/3 of starters in 2010. If they are, fabulous, but I’m sure as hell not counting on it.

I don't think we've got a lot of options other than to count on our prospects coming through.

I’m guessing it will be sooner than later for those two. They’re the two best pitching prospects I remember the A’s ever having, partly because I didn’t really understand how great Harden was. Having them be good at age 22 wouldn’t be that much of a surprise. If it doesn’t happen, no problem, I can wait a year.

Eveland and Gallagher

Generally the top pitchers only need one season to come up to speed. If Eveland and Gallagher are to be more than back of the rotation guys, 2009 is going to be their year to step forward. If it doesn’t happen in 2009 with either or both of them, my guess is that it won’t happen at all and the A’s are shit out of luck for the year.

But if both do step up, then all the team needs is a solid #4 guy, who could be Randy Johnson or Derek Lowe or Brad Penny or A.J. Burnett or Oliver Perez, with the #5 guy starting as Braden or Outman, but succeeded during the year by one of more of the young studs in AAA. Personally, I’d go with Oliver Perez who’s probably pretty cheap and will be easy to flip at some point.

richwol1 - November 11, 2008 reply

I doubt Oliver Perez will be cheap. I'm thinking 4/$44 M

Agreed. He'll get Kyle Lohse money, easily.

IMO, you're allowing your views

on top pitchers / top pitching prospects to be somewhat distorted by what has happened with Lincecum.

Randy Johnson didn’t take one year to come up to speed. Nor Tom Glavine. Nor CC Sabathia.

rfloh - November 11, 2008 reply

Nor Sandy Koufax.

yeah, anderson and cahill are hall of fame locks, as long as their careers don’t get derailed by cocaine.

I think you meant this for Gooden.

i was attempting to connect the two sub-threads.

Smooth.

My Anderson theory

Anderson is lights out during ST, forcing the A’s to start him in AAA. He makes like Zito did back in the day and Oakland calls him up in the 2nd half. There’s no one thing I can point to to explain why this’ll happen, its just a hunch.

I agree. Also Cahill makes like Hudson in AA and gets to AAA in May and

Oakland on June 28.

Will the A's be in contention at that point?

I hope they are either about to make like the 1998 Yanks and clinch in early August. Or be in the celar so they can unload Holiday for SS/3B of the future.

I'm thinking they'll be like the 2000 A's. They'll be around 5 games over at the

break within 5 games of first, and won’t trade Holliday.

That'd be good: The 2000 A's minus Gil Heredia's last start

It's partly strength of schedule -- Angels, Rangers, Mariners aren't much better

than we are.

Not worried about who anchors my rotation in 2010

Trading for Holliday has shifted the focus more towards the present. For all this to work the A’s still need Gallagher and Eveland to step up their games. If everything works out the way the A’s want it to one of those two can anchor the 2010 rotation while Gio, Mazzaro, Anderson, Cahil, Simmons (in whatever combination thou doth desire) settle in.

No Lowe

we have the starters in Duke, galagher, braden, eveland, and gonzalez/outman. We have the bullpen. devine, ziggy, brown, casilla, and blevins. We have a outfield and catchers. So our need is 3b, ss, and 1b. Lets get those first and then pick up a righty starter cheap. Lowe will be a expensive 10+million ayear pitcher.

Arcman - November 11, 2008 reply

I've outlined how good the A's rotation is going into next year.

Viz, not very. It is critical to take defense and park into account when you’re evaluating pitchers. Adjusted for that, most of last year’s rotation wasn’t great.

Lowe would be an upgrade of at least 2 wins, possibly more if he pitches like 2006 or 2008.

I think what people are saying is...

that we have players who could pitch decently in the rotation, for 2009 and 2010.

But we do not have anyone who can play SS, 3B or 1B decently for 2009, and 2010. Our top positional prospects are in AA (Cardenas, Doolittle) and struggled there.

So if we signed Furcal and acquired/signed a 3B or 1B, we’d have a much, much better lineup even if it was just replacing the sub-replacement levels we got there last year. If 1B, Chavez can play 3B. If 3B, Chavez can play 1B.

We have about 40 million to play with for acquisitions. I think it is reasonable to believe we could sign Furcal and a big corner infield bat. Hell, why not try getting Garrett Atkins while Colorado’s doing this fire sale.

As for Lowe, I thought the word was that Lowe did not want to stay in the West Coast anymore, and was looking to go back to the East Coat, with the Yankees going hard at him.

Zonis - November 11, 2008 reply

I don't know where Lowe wants to play,

and that could obviously be a factor. If not Lowe, then my post becomes more “Randy Johnson” or maybe even Randy Wolf.

If we're looking for a control innings eater type I'd take Sonnanstine over Lowe

Lowe sounds like he’ll get something like 4/$60M for declining performance.

Okay. Here's the deal.

You’re stuck on a deserted island and you have to choose one of three companions. Would you rather have a Randy Wolf, a Randy Johnson, or a Randy Savage?

JediLeroy - November 11, 2008 reply

Is Miss Elizabeth tagging along with the Macho Man?

I think he means would you rather be raped by a wolf or savage or have a boner.

I choose boner.

Richard Milhous Stabone thanks you

JediLeroy - November 11, 2008 reply

They actually named that guy Boner and said it with a straight face.

Probably not, since she's dead.

thejd44 - November 11, 2008 reply

Eww. Lowe.

If I somehow had 2003 removed completely from my memory, my baseball life would be much easier. And less hate-filled.

whiteshoes40 - November 11, 2008 reply

yeah, that was my reaction (see my first post on this threa)

OaklandSi - November 11, 2008 reply

At least now when he cheers violently and obnoxiously,

he’ll be showing up his own dugout.

Maybe

we shouldn’t have traded away all of our established young cost-controlled pitchers last year….just a thought

faninphilly - November 11, 2008 reply

And where would we be now?

Helloooo 1st - November 12, 2008 reply

I like the idea of taking a flyer on Penny.

If the A’s are in contention at the AS Break extend an offer to C. Schilling if he is in shape to pitch. Lowe scares me with how much he will cost (1/3 of the current payroll) but if the A’s are trying to win it all this year they might as well not half ass it. Billy Beane did not half ass the rebuilding process so I anticipate he will go all in this year assuming he does not plan to trade Holiday before the season starts.

Pucking Insane - November 11, 2008 reply

Lotta walks for Penny

I did not see him pitch once last season, but seems like the biggest issue for Mr. Brad were high number of free passes issued. If he can get that under control he’d be a legit acquisition.

Hey, he'd fit right in on the recent A's staffs...

A rotation of Penny, Eveland, Gallagher, Chad Gaudin and Greg Smith could raise money for charity every game…

Pucking Insane - November 11, 2008 reply

Not to mention the diet of past staffs...

I mean seriously between Penny, Eveland, and the sheer memory of Blanton, the continental breakfast would cease to exist.

And yeah I know, weight jokes are easy.

The biggest issue for Penny was injury.

If he’s healthy, he’d be a legit acquisition.

rfloh - November 11, 2008 reply

Geez Nico

You couldn’t work “Holliday” into your title?

Slacker.

But seriously, nice to step away for a moment, isn’t it? Away from all those “Holliday season” puns. Not that I have anything against puns, mind you. So how many more shopping days ’til…? Never mind.

Like, "A's Feelin' Lowe After Holliday?"

rebus - November 12, 2008 reply

Yes!

I think Nico has a no-holliday clause in his contract though.

holliday…clause…there’s a Christmas joke in there somewhere. or, at worst, a limerick.

67MARQUEZ - November 12, 2008 reply

Or a politically correct version of a terrible movie that inexplicably spawned several sequels.

RJ has said he wants to play on the West Coast

Hey, the A’s are on the West Coast!

And whoever signs him gets a fair bit of extra income as he’s 5 wins away from 300. I don’t think he’d be as good as he was last year in the AL (and maybe not as good as Lowe), but I’d be willing to go 1 yr/10 mil or 2 yrs/15 mil.

Sign RJ/Lowe and make a trade for a SS/3b and I’d say the A’s are very close to competing.

vignette17 - November 11, 2008 reply

Sadly, probably a lot of teams can say,

“Add a pitcher, add a hitter at a tough position to fill, and we’re close to competing!”

Johnson had about a 100 ERA+ for the Yankees and about 118 for the Diamondbacks the past

4 years while facing much worse hitters. I’d expect him to get closer to Yankee levels in the AL, and he has a bad back. I’d rather trade for an innings eater and maybe sign Penny or Pavano or someone like that for the minimum. I’d also rather trade for a SS than sign Furcal, but you’re probably tired of seeing me post that.

Is it possible that several of the minor league prospects are major league ready?

Maybe Billy Beane likes what he sees out of Cardenas at SS and Cahill and Anderson could be ready for the rotation opening day. It seems so odd that Beane would acquire Holiday and not have more signings lined up or major league ready players in the system . I can’t wait to see how this offseason developes.

I stand by my unwelcome prediction that come June/July, 2009

one of Cahill/Anderson will be pitching in Oakland’s rotation. My guess is Anderson.

I was not trying to steal your thunder.

I just think either Forst or Beane thinks they have a couple of studs ready to go opening day. Possibly Cardenas being an upgrade over crosby for 2009 and an opening day rotation that looks like Duke, Gal, Anderson, Eveland, battle for the 5th spot. Then Cahill/Maz coming up at the Allstar break.

I'm guessing Cahill in July and Anderson in August. And they'll do well and world won't come to an end.

And we’ll get on CSN and build a stadium and be able to sign them to long term deals including their FA years and not have to worry about service clocks.

Does the Middle East crisis also get solved in this scenario?

I mean, as long as we’re wishcasting here.

Eventually yes.

Iraq stabilized by 2015.
Iran diplomatic relations by 2015
Israel/Palestine resolved by 2035.
Afghanistan (not sure if you count them as “Middle East”) probably around 2115.

I’ve rounded all dates to five years to avoid any connection to US election cycles and therefore avoid any political overtones. If I’ve failed to avoid politics I apologize profusely since I’m one of the most ardent opponents of involving politics in AN. Please feel free to CGV this post if I’ve not avoided it here.

When does the Bobby Crosby crisis get solved?

Oh sorry – I thought you said Middle Least.

I find it really hard to believe that SS isn't solved by Jan 1.

Crosby is not part of the solution so he’s part of the problem.

Too bad you're rounding to multiples of five,

meaning that in fact we not only have Crosby in 2009 but decide to extend him for one more year “just ’cuz”.

2009 on the Gregorian calendar is Year 0 ABC

It's true - that network really has been our savior

Yet at the same time

he is with us, but the way he plays he seems to be against us.

5Aces - November 11, 2008 reply

We have met the enemy

and he is Crosby.

"We have nothing to fear except Bobby himself"

Does he have fangirls?

Yes he's an excellent jeans salesman.

Ask BCG.

Wishcasting, ah yes.

Do the Tigers have a CF prospect blocked by Granderson? Crosby to Detroit, CF Prospect to CWSox, Swisher to A’s. Barton to AAA taking grounders at 3b.

The Tigers have no prospects of any kind other than Rick Porcello

who’s not going anywhere.

Let me rephrase that.

Any CF prospects better than Willy Taveras?

Put an "are" after prospects,

and change the question mark to a period.

Haha

Believe it or not, no

Oh. And we'll sign Holliday to a 8 year $160M deal.

All the while being completely ignored by ESPN

and Oakland ticket buyers. And Derek Jeter will be named AL MVP despite missing the last 147 games to a severely sprained butt cheek.

Madonna turned A-Rod down?

For what position?

he definitely got to third base

oakinboston - November 11, 2008 reply

I like what Harold Reynolds said " 5 years 90-100 million"

I think he is wrong on both they years and price, but I hope he is correct. Maybe if the A’s go deep in the post season he will want to stay in Oakland.

Yes and if they match the highest bid and if he's confident about the exposure and stadium

Short answer: No.

Mazzaro and Outman in the rotation wouldn't surprise me.

I suppose Simmons could be the Greg Smith of 2009. Cunningham by June would be cool too.

That is most likely true, but why makes this trade. The most likely reason is Holiday is worth more at the AS break than the 3 the A's traded.

Holiday is just part of the full throttle rebuild. Holiday represents the new SS and/or 3b for the A’s.

Congratulations

I now have no idea what your position is.

Haha sorry.

That was me throwing ideas against the wall trying to figure out why Matt Holiday is an Oakland Athletic. It seems to me that he is going to net a very valuable midle infielder for the A’s some point during 2009.

I find that scenario highly implausible

Fair enough.

So, 2 draft picks or hope to resign him? Of course he could be traded for any number of other positional prospects, but I would hope BB would trade him for a stud SS or 3b prospect as the centerpiece of a deal.

It seems to me that the most logical explanation for Beane trading for Matt Holliday

is that he, in fact, wants Matt Holliday to play for the Oakland A’s in the 2009 season.

Which brings me back to my inital comment, which you simply answered "no" to.

What is the next step. I don’t think Matt Holiday alone makes the A’s a playoff team. Not enough pitching and still a fairly anemic offense.

Put Davis in CF with the best defender you can find at SS

Sign Dunn for 1B. Sign Hinske or Blake to play 3B in case Chavez isn’t available.

I answered "no" to the question "are there secretly a bunch of MLB ready prospects on the farm?"

The next step is, pretty clearly, to acquire one or two more significant upgrades through free agency or, if the price isn’t too steep, trade.

Is this a teaser for you upcoming rosterbation post?

I don't know that I need to do one... there's been plenty of discussion on these threads...

But you know you want to

Can you shorten your answer please?

G

cust hater

oakinboston - November 11, 2008 reply

Walk worshipper

That's not productive

Productivity worshipper

I don't know how anybody here could worship something they sacrifice on a daily basis

Sacrifice worshippers!

thejd44 - November 11, 2008 reply

There are plenty of old-school baseball fans who worship sacrifices...

Gallagher's Watermelons - November 12, 2008 reply

Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

How about D. Lowe and Kenny Rogers.

My two least favorite pitchers ever.

Only if they stage a cage match to the death and the winner is at the mercy of the crowd's thumb

Wasn't Fidel Castro a pitcher?

miggy = communist.

thejd44 - November 11, 2008 reply

Nothing to do with my political affiliation. I just really despise the other two.

Agreed. Lowe for crotch grabbing and Rogers for running down Oakland.

Rogers for pine tar in the ALCS

Nah I hated him the minute he demanded a trade from the A's after we resurrected

his career

Trade target

What about Aubrey Huff? He’s 32 next year, so he’s probably still gonna put up similar numbers. He put up monster numbers last year, so if the O’s want the world, obviously he’s not worth it. But he can “play” 3b and he does have a mid-.800 OPS bat. His salary is 8.5 million and he’s a FA after 2009.

I’d rather have Beltre personally, but Huff could be a solid pick up.

vignette17 - November 11, 2008 reply

Rebuttal: Ty Wiggington can "play" 3B as well as Huff "can,"

would be cheaper (talent-wise) to acquire, costs less, and bats right-handed. Better target?

Ugh on both. I'm not sure which ugh is more.

Yes, if he comes on a 1 year deal.

Huff...

has to be the most frequently mentioned possible trade target in the history of AN.

Cutthemullet - November 15, 2008 reply

beane is not Dunn yet

and Furcal of you cust haters!

That was Lowe,

but I’m still willing Teixeira pun with you.

Well I am not gunna Huff and puff on this Holliday.

Zonis - November 11, 2008 reply

So your're not a Randy Wolf?

no tupping aloud

BOBBY CROSBY!!!!

QOTM

thejd44 - November 11, 2008 reply

Anyone Remember Lowe...

Saying Suck it to the A’s bench in the playoffs. I’d be a bit sour seeing him in A’s uniform.

StewEck - November 11, 2008 reply

Lowe..

Hell NO!!!

StewEck - November 11, 2008 reply

'just say no to lowe', or sign him to whatever he wants and flip him in a year

Lowe: Doing Home Improvement.

ba dum dum

Only you can prevent (David) Forst Fires!

Tony the Tarrasco

He’s grrrrrrrrrrrrreat!!!

personally, i'd prefer to 'dye another day'

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I don’t think any number of free agent additions are going to make the A’s competitive next year, although they’re in excellent position to be competitive in 2010 if Holliday sticks around (or if Beane successfully holds somebody hostage for him over the summer).

I like the Brad Penny option best. I’d give him a one-year deal with an option for a second. Then, he can be a piece of 2010 if the gamble pays off. The Unit is a decent short-term option, but he’ll probably need to be replaced after next year.

Lowe has too much downside at his age to be worth more than a three-year commitment, and he should get one pretty easily. I’d be happier if one of those three was an option, too…anyway, Lowe’s not going to sign the bargain contract he signed last time.

jeepers - November 11, 2008 reply

Are you serious?

No combination of free agent signings could possibly make the 2009 A’s competitive?

I’m impressed. I used to think I was a pessimist.

pessimism is the new optimism

Were you optimistic when you thought that?

Sigh. Probably not.

Hmm

If the A’s signed Manny Ramirez, Rafael Furcal, and Mark Teixeira would probably make them competitive. It won’t happen, but it would make them pretty tough to beat.

thejd44 - November 12, 2008 reply

Not unless they signed Sabathia too. And Rodriguez.

I would cry if K-Rod were on the A's.

Blicks - November 12, 2008 reply

I meant Ivan Rodriguez

I was thinking Alex.

mikev - November 12, 2008 reply

Uber-Rodriguez

The world’s greatest over-the-hill catcher turned slick fielding SS/3B turned overrated closer.

Lowe for a 1-year deal would be okay...

doubt he’d take that, though.

On another topic, Holliday is really good:

STAT OF THE DAY

NL Left Field VORP Leaders, 2008

Player, VORP

Matt Holliday COL, 60.4
Manny Ramirez LAN, 47.6
Carlos Lee HOU, 43.9
Ryan Braun MIL, 43.6
Pat Burrell PHI, 33.6

And he's a way better defender than any of those guys too.

Although Braun’s supposedly average now.

green star oakland - November 11, 2008 reply

Where's Byrnes on that list ?

Oh yeah …

Yeah...

I don’t think guys who played less than 1/3 of the season (some of it hurt), were eligible for the list. I could be wrong… but, none of ’em made it.

green star oakland - November 11, 2008 reply

224 plate appearances gets him on the list

86/87th with only Wily Mo beneath him to cushion the fall.

Wily Mo is quite the cushion

But I don’t think Byrnes needs it. He’s gritty and grindy and hardcore. He wants to fall.

thejd44 - November 12, 2008 reply

god, I could swear there were more than a few ANer's...

calling for Billy to trade for Willy Mo a few years back. I’ll have to go back and look them up. I was probably one of ‘em, so maybe I won’t. ;-)

God, I could swear that there was someone on this very thread

claiming that Eric Byrnes was a good outfielder and someone the A’s should have been giving more playing time to.

Who could it have been?

ericbyrnesgirl?

I've done that. I still think he was better than Payton.

I’d rather have kept Byrnes and Bradford and not had Kennedy, Payton and Witasick.

well in hindsight, sure.

I'm great at hindsight.

hmmm...

didn’t take me hindsight.

that’s like crosby winning the MVP next year and bobbycrosbysgirl saying “i told you so!”

yes...

except… I actually said it before it happened:: Everybody is so positive…

instead of reading a foolshdiary, i’ll just add this to my previous comment:
and “bobbycrosbysgirl” turns out to be the secret identity of peter gammons.

lol...

nevertheless… I thank you for making me go look up what turned out to be near prophecy.

I'd be more impressed if you correctly predicted "Jairo" = "Santiago"

Regarding your update

I like the idea of getting Lowe. Sure it’s cool to bring back old friends. Reggie came back. Stew did. Rickey did more than once. Even good old Joe Rudi made a return. But how often do the A’s go out and get a guy that is more or less universally disliked (at least in these parts)? Sure, talking about what Lowe can (or can’t) bring to the A’s makes good copy, but I enjoy thinking how people might react come Opening Day when he is introduced before the natives, and suddenly October 2003 comes back to them.

I can imagine the reaction, and Lowe already previewed it in 2003.

He should turn that to his advantage. He could do it after each ground out, and twice on DPs

He’ll get a rooting section of crotch grabbers in the bleachers. Someone will invent the electric spongy crotch grabber. It’ll sell like hotcakes! Why do hotcakes sell like hotcakes anyway?

Name all the people you know who have ever bought a hotcake

OW!!!

Stupid electric spongy crotch grabber.

Not supposed to use it in the bathtub.

My crotch?

NOW you tell me.

Sorry

I thought you were talking about hotcakes.

Maybe that's my pet name for --

Eewww. Never mind.

You have a pet ewe named Hotcakes?

Does Cindi know about this?

http://www.boston.com/sports/b…extras/thebuzz/

Lowe is good

But man it would be hard to cheer for him after he made Miggy (and me) cry when he grabbed his balls after the playoff win.

niallmack - November 11, 2008 reply

interesting

could mean…

that A’s overpaid or give credit to the depth they have accumulated that even what we consider “expendable” players still beat everyone’s offers. or beane was the only gm willing to take that risk

still makes you wonder, so loaded with depth but a never ending search for a 3b/ss
it has to be a priority eventually

Last updated: 11/11, 5:25 p.m.
Red Sox explored trade for Holliday
The Red Sox were briefly involved in trade talks with the Colorado Rockies on Matt Holliday according to a major league source, but bowed out once they heard Colorado’s steep asking price, the Globe’s Nick Cafardo reported.You could only imagine what the Rockies were seeking from the Sox given that they settled on an Oakland A’s package of reliever Huston Street, outfielder Carlos Gonzalez and pitcher Greg Smith. What would be the equivalent? Justin Masterson or Manny Delcarmen? Jacoby Ellsbury? Either Clay Buchholz or Michael Bowden? You can bet those players were likely discussed. The Red Sox certainly would have had the resources to sign Holliday long-term and agent Scott Boras would have likely preferred Boston over Oakland as a destination. Of course, there’s always the possibility Oakland flips him at the trading deadline next July if they’re not contending for a wild card/or AL West title.

Asfan4ever723 - November 12, 2008 reply

I'd take Masterson, Ellsbury and Buchholz for Holliday right now.

I’m not sure what I’d do for hitting though.

if someone speculates about roster composition involving Masterson, does that make it ...

monkeyball - November 12, 2008 reply

Hold on

I have to go the bathroom.

67MARQUEZ - November 12, 2008 reply

Jon Garland

On the idea of bringing in someone like Derek Lowe, but not necessarily Derek Lowe, I’ll throw Jon Garland’s name into the ring. He’s usually good for 200+ innings, around 15 wins, a reasonable ERA, and provides a veteran anchor to the #2 spot in the rotation. Thoughts?

LiveAdam - November 12, 2008 reply

NO

Every leading indicator suggests that he was a horrible pitcher last year— I mean, genuinely horrible, “worse than #5 starter” horrible— who was simply lucky.

DyeLongJustice - November 12, 2008 reply

How about Carl Pavano

closetasfan - November 12, 2008 reply

how about not...that guys sux and his arm falls off...he's the antithesis of what u want from a pitcher

a.) I think Beane is content with his SPs...and b.) I think he consciously "creates value" in players

Let me start with B…

I think most of us would agree that Greg Smith had a higher perceived value around the league after the ‘08 season than he did after ’07. He went from a no-name throw-in in the Haren deal to becoming an acceptable back-end AL starter. And then, he became the final ingredient in acquiring one of the game’s best hitters.

The A’s had a hand in that. They gave him opportunity and good defense and in doing so, they effectively created a stronger market for him than was there before. They created some value out of Greg Smith that was not there previously, or, at the least, built upon his previous level of perceived value.

As for A, I don’t think Beane would’ve traded away Smith if he wasn’t content with his current SPs. It would be very un-Beane-like to trade away an SP, only to put yourself in a bidding war for a 60MM-plus SP.

Between Duke/Eveland/Gallagher/Braden/Gonzalez/Outman, they’ll have an opening day rotation. That even allows for one of them to struggle or get hurt (since there’s six guys there).

Four of those guys – Duke, Eveland, Gallagher, Braden – have absolutely nothing to gain in AAA. And Beane has spoken publicly about liking the idea of leaving some roster wiggle room for young guys and for competiton. Outman and Gio are there to compete for #5, with the loser waiting in the wings in AAA. And if they both falter in the first two months of the year, maybe then you’ll see Mazzaro/Simmons/etc., if they’ve dominated AAA by then.

But the thing about signing Lowe/whomever is that you’ve created absolutely zero SP roster competition, and less opportunity to build or create value in players.

Right now, Gio Gonzalez is perceived as a fringe starter, maybe even a long reliever. If he goes back to Sacramento, he can only change that perception ever so slightly. If he (or Outman) can somehow succeed as the A’s fifth starter, clearly their perceived value would go up…just as Smith’s did when he was given the same opportunity.

I think Beane likes leaving open opportunities for things like that to happen.

I’d also like to point out that, to varying degrees, Lowe/Penny/Randy Johnson could all be described as abrasive people, to put it nicely. One of them quit on his team last year, and one of them doesn’t even travel with his team if he’s not pitching. Talk about creating a “24 + 1” mentality. I know we’re just saberdorks and all, but to me, you factor that in when you bring people into your clubhouse. None of us like working with rude, abrasive people at our jobs.

notsellingjeans - November 12, 2008 reply

like your idea about B

not sure Im with you on A though. couldnt it be that regardless of whether or not Beane was content with the SPs, he figured Smith was not going to help the situation (a distinct possibility considering his nibbling tendencies)? In which case, you trade him at high value, and that has no bearing on the work that still needs to be done (or not done) on the rotation.

following that up, I think our rotation is ok or perhaps above average (boosted by park and defense), but I do not think this is a rotation that would push the A’s to the playoffs, let alone advance in the playoffs.

oakinboston - November 12, 2008 reply

It's totally consistent to trade away a #5 starter and then attempt to obtain a #2 starter

If your #5 and #6 are the same, both 10 runs below average, and you deal one of them because he’s redundant, and you later have a chance to sign a 10 RAA #2 starter, I can’t fathom the argument for not signing him if you’re trying to compete. The fact that you’ve previously traded off a worse (or even better) player is irrelevant.

As for A, I don’t think Beane would’ve traded away Smith if he wasn’t content with his current SPs.

not if beane has decided smith is a bad pitcher and doesn’t want him in the rotation.

Or if he really loves Holliday