The arbitration deadline has passed, and there were a few interesting A's-related developments:
a.) The team declined to offer arbitration to Frank Thomas and Alan Embree.
b.) The Diamondbacks and Phillies decided against offering Adam Dunn and Pat Burrell arbitration. Although both players were Type A free agents, any team may now sign them without yielding any of their own draft picks.
Does that make either player more attractive from your point of view? Is the team perhaps more likely to engage them? Neither player is a good defender, although they both have first-base experience and might be less of a liability at first base than they are in left field.
Please vote below!
0 recs | 176 comments
Granted it's
a. a major longshot
b. possibly unadvisable long-term
c. a defensive hit to take
but you have to like this lineup (in any order):
Sweeney – CF
Furcal – SS
Cust – DH
Holliday – LF
Burrell – 1B
Chavez – 3B
Suzuki – C
Buck – RF
Ellis – 2B
Nico - December 1, 2008
especially if you could persuade Burrell to come home for only 1-2 years
notsellingjeans - December 1, 2008
The second round draft pick never really appealed to me, honestly
I’m just not a crazy fan of Dunn/Burrell, and the future ramifications such a signing may have.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
they say genius only strikes once
once: platoon cust, burrell, dunn at 3rd.
twice: ask if we can have tejada back
thrice: send crosby to AAA to work out that batting mechanics problem hes recently acquired.
four times: trade chavvy for two indian pitching prospects and a player to be named later (A-Rod)
five: celebrate with the bubbly after the As clinch the division, 60 games into the season.
ErikFanClubPres - December 1, 2008
If the A's go outsid to get their 1B, and decide not to go with Barton
then I think it comes down to a choice between Burrell and Dunn.
Burrell will be 32 next seasn and Dunn will be 29.
Burrell is Right Handed, Dunn is Left Handed.
Burrell’s OPS the last 3 years: .890, .902, .874, Homeruns: 29, 30, 33
Dunn’s OPS the last 3 years: .855, .940, .889/.901, Homeruns: 40, 40, 40
There are good arguments to be made for both. I know we need more Right Handed Bats, but Dunn has out produced Burrell, and is younger. Who would be better at First Base? Burrell has never played the position, Dunn has, but Dunn has been worse defensivly in LF. Burrell has pretty good numbers both both Righties and Lefties, while Dunn has a large platoon split, being much better against RHP than LHP.
So when it comes down to it, I think I’d go with whichever I could get. Whichever signs with us for the lowest $.
Zonis - December 1, 2008
Burrell played 500 innings of first base his rookie year
notsellingjeans - December 1, 2008
which was how many decades ago ;)
Zonis - December 1, 2008
I suppose an interesting question to add to your analysis
is, “How would Dunn or Burrell’s 1B defense compare to Giambi’s?” That’s kind of a barometer for minimal levels of acceptability/unacceptability.
Nico - December 1, 2008
You read my mind
I asked Keith Law and I trust his judgment. I’ll let you know when he gets back to me.
notsellingjeans - December 1, 2008
I read your mind,
because I enjoy short stories.
Thank you! I’ll be here all week!
Nico - December 1, 2008
Not our fault we can't read what you don't have
I bet you think Cindi’s really your friend, too.
grover - December 1, 2008
Me. I'm going to play first base.
Poppy - December 1, 2008
It's actually harder than second fiddle, just FYI
Nico - December 1, 2008
No Mark Teixeira on the poll?!
Hey, I can still dream. He’s still a free agent as of this moment in time (to the best of my knowledge.)
Giambi seems more likely every passing day, for reasons I can’t quantify or explain (it’s just this feeling of dread I cannot shake.)
But I’d rather have Dunn than Giambi, or Burrell, and I honestly think Barton might need to get his confidence and groove back at AAA before returning to the MLB club to make good, so I’ll vote Dunn. Nick Johnson is still intriguing, but what are the odds he’s healthy enough to even be traded?
Dunn deal, in the context of this question.
still bills kingdom - December 1, 2008
your second paragraph is probably going to be correct
a source i have (neighbor who works for the a’s) swears that the a’s are hoping that giambi is overvaluing himself and will sign for a lesser contract (a la mike piazza) in a couple weeks, once his cell phone doesn’t ring for a while.
i could definitely see this coming to fruition.
flipgatey3 - December 2, 2008
Interesting inside info there, thanks for sharing.
I could definitely see that happening too; the only other thing I’ve heard, and I think PT has stated it previously a couple times around here, is that the Rays are supposedly in pursuit of the Giambino for DH duties (or at least seriously kicking the tires and considering it.)
All in all, if the A’s are successful in signing Furcal (which I grow more leery of with each passing day, as I suspect he and his agent are waiting around for a team he really prefers to sign with to make a move and clear space to offer him a deal) then I think Giambi will be the next piece of the puzzle, but only if he is willing to take a 2 year deal with maybe a 3rd year option and at a reasonable (your Piazza contract sounds about right for yearly value) price.
If it comes to pass, I’ll just be hoping for a Giambi renaissance and that his defense at 1B isn’t mind-numbingly awful. Who knows? Maybe a return to Oakland will do him good… after all, as Yogi Berra said, “baseball is 90% mental- the other half is physical…”
still bills kingdom - December 2, 2008
Mmmm thanks for info
I’m somewhat warming up to Giambino, I’d prefer him on a 1 year deal with an option over say… Dunn/Burrell on 2+ years, and Giambi will be cheaper.
They’ll all suck at defense though, which is what I don’t like.
I wonder if Spartacust could play some 1B. He might be an improvement over Giambi/Dunn/Burrell at 1B.
Blicks - December 2, 2008
And the position shuffle pipe dreams continue
Cust cannot play 1B, it has been tried before.
Dunn, on a two year deal (which I can’t imagine he’d sign) would be MUCH better than Giambi on a one year deal (which I can’t imagine he’d sign).
My analysis is that Giambi is likely to want 2-3 years, at 5+ per year. That contract makes no sense for the A’s (Insert my repetitive arguments here). Dunn probably wants 4-6 years, and unless he’s extremely expensive would be worth it. The issue is that I’d much rather have Holliday than Dunn and I don’t see how we can have both. Pre-Holliday, Dunn was my FA target. Now, I think Furcal makes the most sense followed by RJ, Penny, and no signings.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Oh I agree with avoiding Giambi/Dunn/Burrell as a whole. That's my ideal.
The market might force Giambino into a 1 year deal. There are many more desirable FA DH types on the market, and not many teams need one, and now that Dunn/Burrell/Abreu don’t cost draft picks, that makes Giambi even less appealing. I could imagine Giambi settling for one with an option, but not Dunn settling for two.
I’m just tossing out hypotheticals on the whole “Cust to 1B” thing.
Furcal should be the #1 target IMO. I agree.
Blicks - December 2, 2008
Nods
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Agreed
Dunn is great in theory, but the A’s would be awfully bold to sign him to a 3-4 year deal. I’d do two years with a team option 3rd year though.
ChadGod - December 2, 2008
Why wasn't Holliday your FA target pre-Holliday?
If you catch my drift.
The trade really— really— is not going to make him magically love Oakland. He’s going to cost the bloody same as he did before the A’s dealt for him.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
Honestly, I didn't think about signing Holliday until the A's traded for him
It just never crossed my mind. I was strongly against the trade until a good bit of time after the trade went down.
Holliday’s going to cost the same, you’re right. I’d still like to target him.
Blicks - December 2, 2008
Because Holliday wasn't a FA
I wanted the A’s to sign Dunn this off-season.
I reject the notion that there is no chance the A’s could extend Holliday, and imagine that if we do it would involve bumping his 2009 salary.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
I didn't say the A's have no chance of extending Holliday
I said the A’s chances of re-signing Holliday now are practically identical to what their chances of signing him next offseason would have been had they not made the trade.
And why would you want the A’s to sign a worse player for only slightly less money money going into a less competitive season, when in all likelihood the team will be better entering the 2010 season?
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
I strongly disagree
Oakland wouldn’t have even been on Holliday’s map if he had spent ’09 in Colorado.
Now the A’s are at least a candidate to sign him. He’ll have some familiarity, and if he likes it here, there will be a chance of re-signing him.
Anyone who has ever moved to a terrible place, or changed jobs and found their new one to be undesirable, knows the benefits of “the known” vs. “the unknown”.
And signing Dunn might actually help the A’s sign Holliday long-term. Holliday might want to be surrounded by an expensive, good hitter or two.
notsellingjeans - December 2, 2008
Not if it costs him $8 million off his annual paycheck he won't
The A’s can’t afford Dunn and Holliday. Not unless they finagle a trade for Yunel Escobar or something. They certainly can’t afford Dunn, Holliday and Furcal.
As for your other point, if he was a normal player, I would agree with you. Holliday is not a normal player— he is represented by Scott Boras. Scott Boras clients do not re-sign with their teams unless they receive ridiculously favorable offers that outweigh anything they are likely to receive on the market (Lohse, A-Rod).
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
I agree with the first paragraph
Which is why now I don’t want Dunn.
I agree with NSJ about him playing for a year helping him decide. Even if he does test the market, a year of positive experiences (and one of our strengths seems to be clubhouse atmosphere) may help him choose us instead of holding out for other teams (as Furcal seems to be doing).
I’m with Blicks as far as the “not on my radar” as the explanation for wanting to sign Dunn now. Holliday is not the kind of player we usually get to have. Now, however, we have him so keeping him is more likely than it was pre-trade.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
You can't really make those blanket statements.
Scott Boras influences clients, and makes suggestions. They don’t always follow him lock step.
Carlos Pena signed an extension with Tampa Bay, and he’s a Boras client. Greg Maddux turned down more money from the Yankees to become a Brave.
The point is, ulitimately Matt Holliday will decide his own fate. And he’s not Kyle Lohse, and he’s not A-Rod. He really couldn’t be much different than those two – all they have in common is their agent.
And none of us are in a place to determine what the A’s can “afford”. It’s the most nebulous aspect of intelligent fandom. You can analyze a player’s defense, you can analyze prospects, you can look at stats. But I don’t much stock in an opinion of what the A’s can “afford”. We don’t see the books, we don’t know the full picture of the A’s revenue and expenses. (Or, their willingness to lower their profit margin in the short-term). We can spitball, we can make intelligent guesses, we can look at previous years’ major league payrolls…but a blanket statement like, “The A’s can’t afford Dunn and Holliday” doesn’t make much sense.
We don’t have the information to say one way or the other.
notsellingjeans - December 2, 2008
I tend to avoid putting unnecessary disclaimers in front of every sentence
but if you force me to, I will: Based on historical patterns of what the A’s have spent in prior seasons and a reasonable estimation of the team’s current revenue… they can’t afford to sign Holliday, Furcal and Dunn.
On Carlos Pena: a. He was not a free agent when he signed his extension with Tampa Bay, and b. any agent worth a damn would have advised him to take that contract.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
PT per you comments above. I am now just waiting for Beane to do the deal of the Century for Escobar.
And it won’t cost us any of our top 20 prospects.
This is my dream and I am keeping it ;-)
“Of all the things I’ve lost, I miss my mind the most.”
Eastbayjim - December 2, 2008
If three guys on the team make a combined $55M annual,
and every other player on the roster is a 0-3 service time guy, it’s still a sub-$75M payroll team. You could have a few players in their first year of arbitration, and it’s still an $80M payroll team. And that’s with three expensive, top-tier FAs (Furcal, Dunn, Holliday).
It is possible. It just requires imagination, and constant trading of assets when they become valuable/expensive.
There are enough pitchers in the system right now that Beane could potentially have an entire staff of $400K guys within a few years, so long as he continually trades off assets in the late arb years (like he did with Street, or the back end of Haren’s deal).
Again, it is possible. It just requires more imagination and creativity than is typically used in constructing an ML roster.
notsellingjeans - December 2, 2008
I still hold a modicum of optimism with the Boras factor
a little more than four years ago, people said that a team would never win a seven-game series when trailing 3-0. And I’d love to see what happens with Beane and Boras in the same room.
scatterbrian - December 2, 2008
Overall
I have read where Holliday says winning is more important to him than a huge contract. Dont know much about Holliday, but have always been a big fan because I think he plays the game the right way. Anyways do we take him at his word for this and if the A’s do indeed have a winning playoff type season and have a core of guys Holliday views as solid, for the course of the contract he would potentially sign, do we think he would take a slight pay cut and stay because he has said in the past hed rather win?
yawedout21 - December 2, 2008
I find it safer to simply never take anyone who says something that self-serving at their word
Call me a cynic.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
+1
Everyone says it, no one means it.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
So it's kind of like
“I’ll call you”?
Nico - December 2, 2008
Interesting scenario:
There’s at least a small chance that the A’s and Giants could be bidding over two key FAs this off-season (Furcal and Burrell).
notsellingjeans - December 1, 2008
And Randy Johnson???
We all know what Sabean thinks of 40+ year-olds.
ervance - December 1, 2008
good point
notsellingjeans - December 1, 2008
That would pretty much max out the A's budget in 2009
And it would make it nearly impossible to hang on to Holliday after the season. I think I’d rather pay $5 million more annual for Holliday than Burrell.
grover - December 1, 2008
they dont sign holliday long term imo
burrell or dunn still gives you a power bat beyond 09 to replace some of the production when holliday leaves or its back to cust and who knows
Asfan4ever723 - December 1, 2008
Why not?
Burrell might come at a bargain basement price of under $15 million annual, Dunn is probably a lock on that number. Why not drop an extra $5 million on Holliday?
grover - December 1, 2008
agreed
Holliday is a better all around player than those two guys for sure…You make a great point however I dont think the A’s view Dunn or Burrell as an option right now. I think that they may decide to try and work something out with Holliday long term. Your point is good though
yawedout21 - December 2, 2008
See my post above this one - I'd be interested in your comments
Nico - December 2, 2008
which post?
yawedout21 - December 2, 2008
The one titled "A Bird In The Hand..."
Nico - December 2, 2008
So if we sign either Dunn or Burrell then Barton is out for at least 3 years?
I seriously doubt either would sign for less than 3 years which means you are giving up on Barton. And paying $15 to $18 mil a year to do that.
Eastbayjim - December 1, 2008
Barton converts to third base.
Simple.
mikev - December 1, 2008
How do you know whether he'll be able to handle the position defensively?
Blicks - December 1, 2008
It's a hunch.
mikev - December 1, 2008
Sigh
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
{brings bandwagon to skidding stop}
{backs up, runs over nevermoor, brings bandwagon to another skidding stop, backs up again so monkeyball can fling stuff at nevermoor, leaves}
mikev - December 2, 2008
{converts to 3B}
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
{convinces A's to sign nevermoor}
oakinboston - December 2, 2008
{commits several errors/game}
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
< admires nevermoor's grit >
oblique - December 2, 2008
So, you take Barton from first because he didn't produce and place him at 3rd where he sucked in AAA and still won't produce up to 3B standards?
Eastbayjim - December 2, 2008
He sucked at 1st in AAA, too.
He was better than average at 1B in the majors.
He’s got a good arm as a former catcher, and it’s not uncommon for catchers to switch to third base.
Besides, if you’re convinced that Barton isn’t going to improve offensively, why the hell leave him at first base, where standards for being average are even higher than at 3rd?
Basically I’ve yet to see any reason for him NOT to try third base again. Something happened last season and his defense got a lot better than scouting reports said it was — who knows, maybe he actually started listening to coaches or something because he realized that playing at the MLB level is kinda hard compared to the minors?
Not only that, but Barton to 3rd actually makes a LOT of sense for the organization. There’s nothing as far as 3B prospects in the system, but there are Doolittle, Carter, and Donaldson on the 1B/DH horizon. Unless you think that Barton is destined to be trade bait — or a bust — there’s going to have to be some sort of move, whether it’s him or one of the other prospects.
mikev - December 2, 2008
unless Carter to 3b works muuaaaaaaahahahahaha!
also donaldson at 3b seems to be plausible for all the same reasons you listed.
designatedforassignment - December 2, 2008
Barton's arm was one of the reasons he was converted from C to 1B
Sickels from 12/04:
scatterbrian - December 2, 2008
OK, that was from 4 years ago when he was 18.
His arm seemed just fine this year, didn’t it?
mikev - December 2, 2008
His arm seemed just fine ...
every time he had to throw across the diamond? Which was how often from 1B?
The point is that 3B or C have farther to throw, right?
iglew - December 2, 2008
obviously the distance is the same
the frequency of throws is the main difference. But third base is a just a much harder position to play. Hot corner and all…
scatterbrian - December 3, 2008
I agree but it will take awhile for him in AAA to get up to speed at 3B and hopefully he will regain his stroke at the same time
Eastbayjim - December 2, 2008
Barton is only out if we sign Holliday to an extension
If we can somehow end up with Holliday and Dunn/Burrell
-then yeah Barton becomes a trade chip. However, if Holliday does not come back, then Dunn/Burrell slide to LF and Barton comes back at 1B.It is mostly moot anyway, as I think we only sign Dunn/Burrell if they come at a discount. Since a discount is less likely to happen now that they do not cost draft picks, I see Barton very much in our future (maybe after a 1 year Giambi experiment this year).
AsFanInLA - December 2, 2008
See below for my take on Burrell in LF
which applies similarly to Dunn, although he’s more Laurel and Hardy than wounded hippo.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
Agreed
I’m only willing to sign a 1B if every plausible option at SS and 5th starter is off the market (or Holliday refuses to even discuss playing for the A’s beyond 2009, which is a possibility)
PaulThomas - December 1, 2008
Hard to imagine Beane or Geren pissing off Holliday this early in the season...
grover - December 1, 2008
I REALLY would like Holliday after the 2009 season plz
or at least a fair shot at getting him.
Without doing something stupid like skimping on arbitration/skimping on the draft.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
This.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
OK, so I figured "FTW" out all by myself, but I'm at a loss here...
Please explain this “this”.
Elvez - December 2, 2008
It's another way of agreeing with whatever is being replied to.
mikev - December 2, 2008
I still don't understand FTW
I heard that it’s an alteration of WTF, and I know what WTF means. But it still doesn’t make sense when it’s just tagged on to the end of a noun phrase with no punctuation. When I see that, I think “WTF does that mean?”
iglew - December 2, 2008
FTW = for the win
As in “Beane traded Crosby for a bag of baseballs, Beane ftw!”
nevermoor - December 3, 2008
The Giants really really really really really really shouldn't sign Burrell
Really.
He navigates LF with the speed of a wounded hippo.
PaulThomas - December 1, 2008
Isn't that pretty fast?
A hippo can run up to 25 mph on land.
miggyk2 - December 1, 2008
Not if it’s wounded…
Assume it’s an amputee or something.
PaulThomas - December 1, 2008
15 mph then
Zonis - December 2, 2008
Wearing a fielders glove?
mikev - December 1, 2008
Wearing Prince Fielder?
Blicks - December 1, 2008
same size.
mikev - December 1, 2008
are you forgetting the previous LF?
He moved about as slow as a dead hippo…The guy was a joke in his last couple years in left. HORRIBLE AT DEFENSE, I would assume they will forgive defensive transgressions(or others) if Burrell could hit. In my opinion he is an OK hitter nothing all that special
yawedout21 - December 2, 2008
I'd love for the A's to sign one of those 3 guys before Teixiera lands somewhere
I have a bad feeling that, if the Angels miss out on Tex and Sabathia, they’ll be ready to throw around stupid money to Burrell or Dunn or Giambi, and there will be no sound bargains to be found anymore on the 1b market.
notsellingjeans - December 1, 2008
I like the idea of the Angels throwing around stupid money.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
+1
Nothing would make me happier than the Angels signing Burrell to a three-year deal.
jeepers - December 1, 2008
Screw 2, I'd like him locked up for the next 4 plz.
And Jon Garland signed to a long-term extension.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
+1
iglew - December 2, 2008
options
a. furcal/dunn
b. renteria/burrell
c. crosby/barton
Asfan4ever723 - December 1, 2008
no to b or c, and maybe not even a
flipgatey3 - December 2, 2008
d. furcal/barton
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
+1
jbxchico - December 2, 2008
i'm cool with that
flipgatey3 - December 2, 2008
Burrell
I picked him pretty much because he’s right-handed.
1-Furcal SS
2-Buck RF
3-Cust DH
4-Holliday LF
5-Burrell 1B
6-Chavez 3B
7-Suzuki C
8-Ellis 2B
9-Sweeney CF
That’s an offense that can get us to the post-season.
brenarlo - December 1, 2008
I'd take Dunn
because he’s the better hitter.
But I honestly doubt the money is worth it with either of them. Assuming it doesn’t affect Furcal at all, it still handicaps the A’s with Holliday.
walk off bunt - December 1, 2008
+1
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Barton
And I think he’ll be pretty damn good, too.
Burrell and Dunn are a waste of time, as far as I’m concerned. They will require a lengthy and expensive commitment, are a liability defensively and on the basepaths, and aren’t especially worth the years that will be involved. They also block a position that’s one of our organizational strengths.
I’d rather buy a pitcher if being competitive next year is the goal.
jeepers - December 1, 2008
Actually,if you've been following the Top Prospect List
The A’s really only have 2 1B Options in the minors; Doolitte and Carter, and Carter is currently penciled in at 3B.
Right now, the organizational strength is Starting Pitching, Relief Pitching, Center field and Middle Infield (shockingly enough). Corner Infield is actually not one of the organization’s strengths anymore.
Zonis - December 1, 2008
When you say Middle Infield, you really mean 2nd base
grover - December 1, 2008
Cardenas, Weeks, Coleman, Christian, Leyja
thats 5
Zonis - December 2, 2008
though if you notice, 4 of them were drafted this year, and 1 was traded for after said draft...
Zonis - December 2, 2008
2 legit prospects in the minors is more than most teams
and it would become 3 if you sent Barton back down.
PaulThomas - December 1, 2008
Doolittle and Carter are our best pure hitting prospects
and I’m counting Barton as a strength, last year notwithstanding. That’s depth.
jeepers - December 3, 2008
I agree,
those two are not worth going after.
mikeA - December 2, 2008
STRONGLY AGREE
The more I consider what the A’s might do the more I am interested to see what Barton could do with a better offense around him. Look lets assume the A’s sign Furcal and the lineup looks somethign like:
1. Furcal SS
2. Sweeney CF
3. Cust DH
4. Holliday LF
5. Chavez 3B- Hope he’s healthy
6. Ellis 2B- could hit seventh? I dunno actually probably should put him at seven
7. Barton 1B
8.Suzuki- C
9. Buck LF- IF he turns back into 07 buck he is an awesome option at 9 hitter but could move up
I am not opposed to the idea of signing someone on the cheap in case Barton doesnt hit, maybe a Giambi because then if Giambi struggles or Barton Struggles you can play the one who is hitting better. Not opposed to maybe a lower level guy or waiting til the season starts to possibly pursue a trade. I vote Nick Johnson though if we have to replace Barton and I vote wait as long as possible to make the trade. Like to see Barton given a chance
yawedout21 - December 2, 2008
I agree that Nick Johnson would be the best,
because you have to pay Giambi a lot not to play (if Barton is good) or to play bad defense (if Barton is bad), whereas Johnson can be played “until he drops” – to be replaced by Barton if and when.
In your lineup, though, I’d bat Suzuki 6th.
Nico - December 2, 2008
Yea
6-9 in the A’s lineup seems everchanging and I think a lot of teams experience this because some of those bottom guys dont play everyday. If Johnson is in the fold he definitely probably would hit sixth id imagine or seventh, sometimes the a’s fall in love with the Left/Right thing
yawedout21 - December 3, 2008
barton for beaen's man crush milledge - yes
for nick johnson – no
1B | Daric Barton | Oakland Athletics | Fantasy
Chico Harlan, of The Washington Post, reports the Oakland Athletics appear unwilling to part ways with 1B Daric Barton. The Washington Nationals may ask for Barton in a potential trade for 1B Nick Johnson.
Asfan4ever723 - December 1, 2008
Oh fuck no. No no no no.
Nick Johnson shouldn’t cost more than a bag of balls/Herrera/Robnett/some fringe AAAA guy.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
No worries, Harlan doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about
grover - December 1, 2008
For 5.5 million? I'd like to keep my baseballs, thanks.
Oakland’d be doing them enough of a favor by just eating the contract.
PaulThomas - December 1, 2008
Spitballs, then.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
Is the Nats want Barton, OK.. straight up for Zimmerman
Eastbayjim - December 1, 2008
Done deal.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
If we're going to upgrade 1b...
I’d rather not spend a key portion of our budget on it. We have Barton, Doolittle, and Carter at the position. One of them is bound to stick at the position and be league average. Which all leads me to the conclusion that either we upgrade the position for only 2009, and not using many of our resources, or we leave Barton at the position. So of Giambi, Dunn, and Burrell, that leaves only Giambi. Despite the lack of buzz surrounding Dunn and Burrell, neither is likely to sign for less than 4 years or less than 13 million a year. Giambi could however sign for 2-3 years and 7-10 million a year.
Nick Johnson has very little value. He’s a guy who’s played 38 games in the last two years and costs 5.5 million. Unless it costs the A’s literally nothing (well maybe Robnett/Gray), I wouldn’t trade for Johnson. If we’re looking to trade, I’d rather target a guy like Adam LaRoche (average fielder, 123 OPS+, 1 yr of club control on a non-competing team), than Nick Johnson.
vignette17 - December 1, 2008
This.
If the A’s can get Johnson for a bag of balls/fringey guy, we should stay far, far away from him.
Blicks - December 1, 2008
If the A's CAN'T get Johnson for a bag of balls, I mean.
+late typo fix+
Blicks - December 2, 2008
What if the A's can't get Furcal
Would it be an option to keep Crosby and plug Dunn or Burrell in at 1st?
Dalesman - December 2, 2008
If the A's can't get Furcal I think keeping Crosby is the only option that makes sense
I don’t think I’d necessarily spend the money on Dunn/Burrell though. Better to use it for RJ, or even Lowe.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Lowe actually makes some decent sense
granted he’s not too expensive/asks for too many years.
He’s a groundball pitcher. The A’s have awesome infield defense, ala Mark Ellis. Lowe could be several shades of dominant.
A couple of the A’s young pitchers could become trade bait, obviously not Anderson/Cahill though.
Blicks - December 2, 2008
Don't act so surprised
I think Lowe would be cheaper than Furcal (and would help the team slightly less because Crosby sucks). If Furcal is out of the picture, though, Lowe is likely to have several more seriously good years ahead of him.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Why not both?
Furcal and Lowe?
Granted, I’d probably rather have Brad Penny on a 1 year incentive based contract, but Lowe on a 2 or 3 year deal would be okay as well.
I damn sure would rather give $10M to Lowe for 2009 than to Giambi.
mikev - December 2, 2008
Because then it becomes very unlikely we can sign Holliday
And Holliday > Lowe.
I damn sure would rather give $10M to almost anyone who costs that much to sign than to Giambi.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Uh...
Even if we don’t sign Lowe (or anyone for that matter), you do realize that it STILL is very unlikely that we can sign Holliday?
Way I see it, if we don’t sign anybody, we have a 1% chance of signing Holliday.
If we sign somebody, we have a .5% chance of signing Holliday.
lenscrafters - December 2, 2008
Because the A's do have the payroll room for a big contract
Chavez will be off the books before the young players hit arbitration, so that balances out.
Blicks - December 2, 2008
So?
That doesn’t mean they’ll be willing to pay Holliday (or any one player) 22+ million annually for 6 or so years.
I’d like to see it happen, but let’s face it, the odds of that happening are small (and that’s understating it).
lenscrafters - December 2, 2008
And you base this (especially the pseudo-specific percentages) on what exactly?
I would have said it was very unlikely we trade for Holliday too.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
I'm basing my stance on the same thing you're basing your stance on.
Assumption.
I’m assuming the A’s won’t cough up 22 million dollars annually for six years for one player.
You’re assuming that the A’s have enough payroll room for that money, that they’re going to actually spend that money, and furthermore, that they’re going to concentrate all that money into one player (Holliday).
Now let me ask you: honestly, which scenario is more likely?
lenscrafters - December 2, 2008
Honestly, I don't see us making this trade to let Holliday walk
I.e. either a trade or re-signing.
I’m assuming the A’s have enough money based on Wolff’s statement that they can do $70M/year
I’m assuming they’ll actually spend that money because they have a new stadium coming up, and Holliday is exactly the kind of franchise player you want.
I’m assuming they’ll consider concentrating a lot of money into one player because they have so many cheap players and they traded for him in the first place.
Why are you making your assumption? Why do you think your assumption is so strong as to be 99% – 99.5% likely?
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
There could be many reasons why the A's traded for Holliday in the first place
They could’ve felt the need to boost attendance. They could’ve felt that they were getting a deal too good to turn down. They could’ve saw a considerable chance that the A’s could compete this year, etc. Who knows. Fact is, neither of us know. All I’m saying is that there can be a lot of reasons for why the A’s traded for Holliday for this year (and this year alone). It’s not as simple as “Oh the A’s traded for Holliday, therefore, they MUST intend to resign him.”
And, I’m assuming that even if the A’s really, truly intend on having a 70, 80 million dollar payroll, they’ll decide to spread that investment out over a couple of really good players (rather than one franchise player). I assume that the A’s feel like this lessens the risk of having one big contract potentially crippling the team. Because even though Matt Holliday might currently worth the 20+ million he’d earn annually, and even though he might seem as sure as a sure thing as possible, there’s still no telling what might go wrong in that long of an investment. See Chavez, Eric.
Granted, I only used the 1% chance of resigning Holliday as hyperbole to illustrate how small the chances of resigning him are (and how signing other FAs this year have a negligible affect on the chances of resigning him). But hey, everyone on this site uses hyperbole ;)
lenscrafters - December 2, 2008
Not sure but
I think they might have some intention because of the fact that mr. Chavez does come of the books in the next 2 years i believe(not positive and dont care to look) You remove his rather large contract and it makes 22 million per year more reasonable. Again I am not sure but I would say the A’s plan to at least try and resign him and again I think that if the A’s prove to Holliday they are committed to winning he will take some type of small pay cut maybe 20 million i dunno. I have just read where Holliday has said winning is more important than money, i get his point cuz what would you rather have a chance to make the playoffs every year and make 15 million or make 20 million and not sniff the playoffs. Remember 15 mil is a lot of money especially if you are halfway decent with your money, not to mention endorsements etc. I am truly surprised more players dont covet winning.
yawedout21 - December 2, 2008
There is no way Holliday can be had for 15 million a year
He wouldn’t take a deal like that even if it meant playing on the best team in the history of MLB.
Also, it’s downright naiive to believe an athlete when he makes the “winning is more important than money” comment.
And even if he does truly covet winning over money, then what makes you think he’ll sign a below market deal with the A’s? Why not just sign a below market contract with say, the Red Sox?
lenscrafters - December 2, 2008
Lowe would not be cheaper than Furcal.
I don’t see why DLowe wouldn’t get 4/60.
As soon as CC is off the market, someone will snatch up Lowe for a huge contract. I don’t see him getting less than 14-15MM/yr. Yes, that could get ugly into his age 38-39+ seasons, but he’s very effective.
And he’s a Scott Boras client.
Blicks - December 2, 2008
I suppose we'll have to see
Either way I think their salaries are going to be pretty comparable (and high)
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Absolutely not...
If the A’s can’t get Furcal they have to pursue Cabrera or Renteria. Are they inferior options? Yes. Are they better than Crosby? Yes. Are they better than having doodly squat in 2010, other than “hoping Petit progresses a lot”? Yes.
They aren’t going to get 3 year deals in this market… hell, the Tigers thought Renteria would take a one-year arbitration deal. And on a 2-year deal they’re nothing like crippling.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
The 2009 team doesn't much care who plays SS in 2010
There is plenty of time between now and then to address it.
I think the cost of upgrading Crosby to non-Furcal (via FA, there are certainly appealing trade targets) outweighs the benefit.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
I emphatically disagree
It’s pessimistically worth a win to get Cabrera, and it’s likely to cost less than the going market price (c. $5 million) to get that win. I think it’s actually closer to 2 wins to get Cabrera, because I think Crosby is barely above replacement level and my analysis a couple of weeks ago actually overrated him.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
I guess my feeling there is that your analysis was better than you think
And paying market rate for one win while assuming future costs seems less efficient to me than paying below market for several wins (see, RJ).
Plus we don’t have to deal with dumping Crosby. We can just offer arbitration after 2009 and get draft picks.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Uhhhh
Take a look at what happened this offseason.
Do you really, honestly, expect to get a comp pick (not picks— there isn’t a bloody snowball’s chance in hell he is Type A) for Bobby Crosby? The way things are going for him, he’d probably be better off taking arbitration.
As for Johnson, the two are not mutually exclusive or even particularly close to it.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
I still don't understand so many teams declining arbitration
Maybe it’s economic fears. That wasn’t my point so much as it is a silver lining, because signing Cabrera gets us a small upgrade and forces us to deal with Crosby which is (at least) inconvenient.
Even if RJ isn’t mutually exclusive, the point remains that there are likely more efficient ways to spend money than $5M (in a multi-year contract) for one win out of SS.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
I think the A's should stick with Barton
If he really struggles for an extended period of time (1+ month) then make a move. I understand it would be harder to do during the season but I think they should address other needs first. Unless they can sign Giambi on the cheap for 1 or 2 years which is doubtful.
micdog2001 - December 2, 2008
food for thought:
Giambi was pretty unlucky last year
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batters-and-babip/
oakinboston - December 2, 2008
ALBERT PUJOLS!!!!
details forthcoming.
mikev - December 2, 2008
If by details you mean the kind of dope you are smoking
I want some… as a famous man said don’t bogart the weed, (I can’t remember his name because I was stoned).
adragon - December 2, 2008
I'll play first
carp - December 2, 2008
BA on carter
From BA:
11. Chris Carter, 1b, North Shore (Athletics).
Carter led the minors in total bases and extra-base hits and ranked second in home runs during the regular season. He got off to a fast start in Hawaii but slowed as the season went along, failing to adjust to a steady diet of breaking stuff. Carter also appeared to tire a bit but still showed the raw power to all fields that makes him such a dangerous hitter. He showed good athleticism and the potential to be a solid to above-average defender at first base.
Asfan4ever723 - December 2, 2008
This is Barton's Year
Why waste money on Dunn, Giambi, or Burrell for a year? Nick Johnson is terrible and on the downswing of his career. Yeah, Barton should have done batter last year but he still has a bigger upsaide than any of the guys the A’s could deal for. Plus, isn’t projecting upside what the A’s are all about?
Ellis – 2B
Furcal – SS
Barton– 1B
Holliday – LF
Cust – DH
Chavez – 3B
Suzuki – C
Buck – RF
Sweeney – CF
headfirst slide - December 2, 2008
i meant better*
headfirst slide - December 2, 2008
hmmm
Nick Johnson is not terrible, just often injured.
jahs34 - December 2, 2008
Dunn on 1st is worse than you all think
From a Reds fan who experienced Dunn trying out 1st base during spring training a couple years ago – that would be a big adventure! As much of a liability as he is in LF (which, by the way, last year he was middle-of-the-pack defensively), he’d be much, much worse at 1st base. Sorry, Dunn’s not an option. My guess is that Burrell isn’t either.
JJ - December 2, 2008
Barton may suck again next year...
There is an enlightening article over at THT on a new formula calculating BABIP based on more than just simply adding .12 to LD%. This new formula (you can go read the article if you’re so inclined) has a lot stronger correlation between actual BABIP and expected BABIP. Unfortunately, though, it knocks down Barton’s expected BABIP from .308 to .279. Since his BABIP was .263 this past year, there is a lot less ‘unluckiness’ than one might assume based on Barton’s perceived talent level and his actual on field production. Therefore, it leads me to conclude that he may not be quite as good as everyone is still trumping him to be. I’m really hoping we sign someone for 1b and let Barton get the reps down in AAA before continuing his MLB un-Excellent Adventure.
DyeLongJustice - December 2, 2008
Wait - you mean all deviations in BABIP
are not uniformally explained purely by luck?
Dang, this baseball thing is proving to be more complex than I reckoned!
Nico - December 2, 2008
Maybe you should burn the straw man who told you otherwise.
andeux - December 2, 2008
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
OTOH
It says Giambi was nearly as unlucky as Swisher. Some of that can be explained by the Giambi shift though.
vignette17 - December 2, 2008
Good Pro-Barton arguments (I'm pro-Barton) would be that he'll be a lot better than he was last year, not that he was actually good but really really really unlucky
mikeA - December 2, 2008
+1
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
I just don't think he was that unlucky
I think he just hit a LOT fewer balls hard, INCLUDING his line drives. Not all line drives are equal, and Barton scorched the ball in Sept ’07 but hit a lot of “dying quail” soft liners in ’08.
Nico - December 2, 2008
Hence the "He'll be better next year" attitude trumping the luck argument
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
Yeah, except it's not luck when someone
hits the ball less hard – it may be an injury or it may be evidence of not-good-itude. Which would predict worse results going forward, not better. Luck corrects faster than flaws.
Nico - December 2, 2008
September Barton says hi
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
The reason Barton's expected BABIP from Bendix's formula is lower
than it is from the line drives formula has nothing to do with anecdotal observation of his batted ball velocity (a sketchy evaluation at best) and everything to do with the other variables they checked out, in particular the facts that he’s slow, doesn’t have much power at this point, and hits a lot of fly balls.
I imagine you’ll find the same three factors to be problems for Jack Hannahan, although I can’t immediately check it out because I don’t have Excel on my machine.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
Which is why I'm not sure Barton has/will reach the ceiling everything seems to imagine is there.
DyeLongJustice - December 3, 2008
Shrug
He’s more athletic than Kevin Youkilis, who was much worse at the same age. He just has to develop an approach at the MLB level that actually works for him, which he hasn’t really done yet.
PaulThomas - December 3, 2008
I'm trying to figure out why his bat seemed slower through the zone
in 2008 than in his 07 callup. Injured hand? Heavier bat? Hangover?
But enough about me.
Nico - December 3, 2008
staples
Zonis - December 4, 2008
Pat Burrell (GO BELLS!!!)
that would be cool but i think it will most likely be Daric Barton.
idunno723 - December 2, 2008
Hells to the Yeah
Burrell was a senior when I was a freshman. Not that I knew him or even really heard of him back then. Too busy trying to keep from getting stuffed into lockers and whatnot.
But if we sign him, I’ll be sure and dig out the ol’ yearbook and scan the senior pic for all of you wonderful people..
Sixto - December 2, 2008
He played at Bellarmine...
when Eric Byrnes was at Saint Francis. Great West Catholic rivalry.
notsellingjeans - December 2, 2008
Byrnsie, he was a Catholic boy,
redeemed through pain, not through joy…
skutch - December 2, 2008
I do not like the "if we sign Burrell/Dunn, we can't resign Holliday!" argument
You do not hurt yourself in the short term because you will damage your already slight chances of resigning a player who will, in all likelyhood, not resign with you anyways.
And even if you do want to resign Holliday, and lets say we do end up succesfully resigning him, you can always then trade Dunn/Burrell to free up cash for Holliday after you made sure you got him. Or you can try to dump other contracts (like a certain expensive 3B who currently is w/o a spine or shoulder).
Zonis - December 2, 2008
+1
lenscrafters - December 2, 2008
Chavy can't be traded w/o his permission though
he’s a 10 and 5 guy.
notsellingjeans - December 2, 2008
True, but he and Beane have a good relationship
Yeah, the A’s are unlikely to get his assent to dump him on some crap team, but those teams were unlikely to be looking to acquire him to begin with.
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
So this is where the idea for Nico's post came from...
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
As a matter of fact, yes!
Nico - December 2, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.