Let's not muse, at this very moment, about the A's chances of re-signing Matt Holliday past the 2009 season. Let's look at the scenario - one of only two possible - in which the A's intend to try. (The other scenario, for those who envy Cindi's GPA, is that the A's don't intend to try.)
In other words, say the A's intend to open up their pocketbook to pay a slugger competitive money to anchor the lineup over the coming years and that their "first choice" is Holliday. Factors like "Scott Boras" and "the market" could still force Oakland to pursue plans B, C, and D, but for now let's just say that the A's intention is to try to lure Holliday into staying beyond 2009 and that current payroll flexibility makes it realistic that they could make a sincere effort.
Should the "potential Holliday factor" influence the team's stance towards current opportunities they may be have a chance to pursue for 90 cents on the dollar - for example, Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell, or any other expensive but useful piece that may be attainable at less than market value in dollars (free agent) or talent (trade)?
I say "no" - to my way of thinking, you have to take the opportunities as they come and not pass them up for "twos in the bush." Even if you have every intention of making a truly competitive offer to Holliday, even if you believe you will have a chance of being successful in that venture, and even if the addition of a key piece now at a bargain price could compromise your ability to negotiate with Holliday, you can't pass up good opportunities now for hypotheticals - and ones that are beyond your control - later.
The A's just can't afford to pass up a great deal anytime one comes along. So as we wait to see what the market bears for Dunn and Burrell, as we wait to see what shortstops, third basemen, sluggers or starting pitchers teams may be willing to trade for less than they should demand in return, I think Oakland has to realize that oppotunities in front of you now are "things you can control," that negotiations with any free agent to be, with any agent, is in the category of "that which you cannot conrol" - and Billy Beane has to be the guy with "the wisdom to know the difference."
2 recs | 37 comments
Hmmmmmmm....
That was just a fancy way of saying “please spend money now.”
brenarlo - December 2, 2008
No, only on "too good not to" opportunities
If Dunn turns out to be way undervalued, or if a player’s trade value is low, yes. Spend just to spend and lose the current payroll flexibility, no.
Nico - December 2, 2008
Agreed. I'd have taken Dunn for 6/$100M. If he's now available for 4/$60M I see no
way you pass that up. If anything it would help the A’s in 2009 and not give Holliday an excuse to pick someone else because he “wants to win a championship”.
Danny’s point that Dunn is worth 20 runs less to the A’s than a team without Cust on it is well taken, but I’m not sure that Dunn is really 20 runs below Barton at 1B. Even if he is and he’s an improvement over Barton overall, I’d still do it on the Bird in Hand principle. Having to find room for too many good hitters is a problem I’d love to have. Dunn on a reasonable contract is most likely tradeable after 2009 if we decide to go the Barton-Holliday-Cust route.
WaddellCanseco - December 2, 2008
I think if you are going to sign Dunn you need to have a trade pretty much in place for Barton
And I think this even at the risk of getting run over by the Barton-to-3B bandwagon.
If we can get Dunn at 4/60 and trade Barton for (lets say) appealing 3B/SS prospects then do it. I don’t buy the argument that signing Dunn doesn’t hurt Barton’s prospects with the A’s down the line.
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
If you sign Dunn
You can send Barton to AAA for a year of seasoning, maybe even try him at third but it’s not necessary. Then next year, when Holliday leaves, Dunn can go to LF and Barton returns to first.
I wouldn’t trade a talent like Barton unless I was positive that Doolittle was going to be an impact player or that Carter was absolutely going to stick there (which I doubt will happen).
NateHST - December 2, 2008
I also don't think you "have to trade Barton"
so much as you listen to all offers until you hear one you like. He can “languish” in AAA until the right trade is there, or play in the bigs when someone (be it Dunn, Cust, or an OFer with Cust moving to LF) inevitably gets injured. So a trade doesn’t have to be in place to sign Dunn; you just go from not wanting to move him to being happy to. Of course, the issue of defense is there, because you can’t hide both Cust and Dunn, same as Cust and Giambi.
Nico - December 2, 2008
If Holliday is a better-than-average LF
Is there any thought that he could play a passable RF? Or would that hurt his value too much to be worth it. Dunn and Cust, I’m alright with them goofing around in LF but I’d rather not in RF.
NateHST - December 2, 2008
I think Holliday is considered a very good LFer
His arm, IIRC, doesn’t play well for RF.
Nico - December 2, 2008
Cust
IIRC does have a good arm so if he could somehow play a passable RF coupled with a good arm we could be in business. Of course that’s like saying IF Chavvy could play 150 games next year or IF Barton can put up an .850 OPS or IF this post can mercifully end.
Helloooo 1st - December 2, 2008
Cust has a strong arm
It’s not very accurate, though. And he’s slow enough that the time spent getting to balls negates a lot of its value. I suspect the A’s would be better off putting Holliday in right, even though his arm is fringe-average.
A Cust/Holliday/CF outfield wouldn’t be godawful, but it would be below average unless Rajai Davis is manning center, because Cunningham and Sweeney and Buck are not plus CF options at this point. And having Rajai play kind of negates a lot of the offensive benefits you just got by adding Dunn…
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
But wouldn't
Davis’ defensive skills combat his poor offense? For shits and giggles lets say Davis is at 0 or even -5, wouldn’t adding Dunn then be a big boost? All of this is purely hypothetical of course.
Helloooo 1st - December 2, 2008
They don't
Rajai Davis reasonably projects as something like 10 runs below average as a full-time starter. Really, you’re better off with Buckingham out there and a shitty outfield defense— you’ll score enough extra runs to make up for it.
PaulThomas - December 3, 2008
Good to know
And who knows, maybe Swuckinghamy can develop some CF skills. It’s been known to happen…
Helloooo 1st - December 3, 2008
It was interesting they played Cunningham in the corners
when he picked up his cup of coffee. I always figured him to be a CFer.
Buck can’t play CF. He’s stretched in the corners due to his Byrnesian routes. Sweeney’s probably the best bet out of the three, but he’s a RFer ideally.
OldhamA - December 3, 2008
The thing with Sweeney
Is that if he could turn into a decent to solid CFer then you could live with his offense. I’m one of the people thats high on Sweeney and I don’t want to be disappointed so if he can improve at least one area of his game then I’d be very happy. He’s definitely athletic enough to play center so now its all about working on his reads and routes.
Helloooo 1st - December 3, 2008
Buck is actually substantially above average as a corner OF
He’s a tweener defensively— 5 RAA in a corner, 5 RBA in center. Or thereabouts.
I’d be high on the guy if he could ever stay $&$ing healthy.
PaulThomas - December 3, 2008
He really doesn't have a strong arm
mikeA - December 3, 2008
whew...for a minute I thought you said
the A’s were siging a Byrd — as in Paul …
OaklandSi - December 2, 2008
signing...siging would really be scary
OaklandSi - December 2, 2008
A bird in the hand is like a man in the sand.
When in Rome, don’t forget to grab the hand of a badger’s dad.
Gallagher's Watermelons - December 2, 2008
Just say "No" to Pat Burrell
NateHST - December 2, 2008
I rec'd this
Because you didn’t mention a certain player. And because I find your approach uncharacteristically logical, helpful and non-goaty
nevermoor - December 2, 2008
HAY GUYZ WHAT ABOUT JASON GIAMBI
VORP is too nerdy - December 2, 2008
Nico has a goatee?
I always pictured him as having two little pointy bits of mustache, like Boris from Rocky & Bullwinkle
oakinboston - December 2, 2008
He had a goatee, but now it's shorn
JediLeroy - December 2, 2008
The market bears?
Could Cal have the answer?
lynnzgal - December 2, 2008
I'd call Boras and Holiday with a short term offer
Tell them that the market is gonna be shitty for a couple years until the economic situation calms down, and offer a 2 year $40 million extension, along with the promise to not offer arbitration when he finally goes. That way he can still land a major money, long term extension when the economy turns around and he will still be young enough to make a team go for up to 8 years.
connie mack - December 2, 2008
Not a bad idea at all
Boras has tremendous influence on his clients, and on the game, but seemingly just a little less so today than a few years ago – these kinds of scenarios feel more plausible than they once were. Times are changing and both Boras and Holliday may see that and be open to such an idea. Or not.
Nico - December 2, 2008
I'm voting for "not"
The bird in the hand principle applies equally well to Holliday as to the A’s…
PaulThomas - December 2, 2008
the short term offer is the bird in the hand offer
for Holliday and Boras. We’ll know after the other offers come in, but they will have a good idea of the financial shape of the market after SB goes through the negotiations with his other players. There is a strong chance that one year from now there will be less money available for Holliday, not the same or more.
connie mack - December 3, 2008
Billy Grant Me the Serenity
to accept the players I cannot change;
courage to change the players I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one season at a time;
Enjoying one inning at a time;
Accepting light-hitting infielders as the pathway to relative success;
Taking, as Billy does, this small market
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that he will make all things right
if I surrender to his will;
That I may be reasonably happy with this season
and supremely happy with him
and the A’s in the next.
Play Ball!
GreenNGoldSooner - December 2, 2008
...
Dunn is better than Burrell. I pray that the A’s would seriously never consider Burrell. Personally just think he is overrated and has had an easy go of it surrounded by guys like Utley and Howard. Dunn is decent but again not a guy I see the A’s signing for numerous reasons, too much money for the level of production and plus to assume he can make some type of seamless transition to first base is a big assumption. Unless he has played the position before at some time I am not aware of I dont think that the A’s would just invest that type of money in a guy and hope he can workout. Most think he is a DH which to me takes him out of the A’s plans because they dont need another one of those guys.
Overall though I am all for taking a guy if he is undervalued and if it is the RIGHT fit. You cant just go out and start scooping up every undervalued free agent, but if they will work in what you are trying to do and the price is right then I am all for the idea. This is why I really think the A’s are highly like to sign Giambi because I think he is gonna realize he isnt worth that much and settle on the A’s and the A’s will take him gladly at the right price. However if the plan is to slot him in at first I would hope that theyd look at Nick Johnson hard. If Giambi turns out ot be the “undervalued” piece the A’s add I see some type platoon situation where Giambi sees some DH/1B, Barton sees 1B(assuming we keep him), Cust sees some DH/LF(until Geren cant take the pain of watching him fumble his way around out there), Buck RF. This would make the most sense to me to get them all an adequate number of at bats and rest, the rest specifically for Giambi.
yawedout21 - December 3, 2008
I would disagree
simply because the A’s likely do not have the resources to sign Dunn and Furcal and a starting pitcher (RJohnson?). If we were the Yankees, sure, but the A’s need to use their available money to make the biggest upgrades possible (getting rid of Crosby).
As for plan B if Holliday goes elsewhere; I’d much rather have a 2010 team with Cunningham and Buck in the outfield corners and the flexibility to go after Beltre or another infielder than to have Dunn/Burrell blocking one or more of Barton, Cust, Cunningham, Buck, Carter (2011), Doolittle (2011).
Oh, and I’m biased against signing anyone who can’t field to a big contract. Especially when we have Cust starting and Carter, who’ll likely be ready by 2011.
(my first post here)
Josh Deletchi - December 3, 2008
Weclome
I agree with you on the reluctance to sign non-fielding players to big contracts because you usually don’t get much of a discount for it.
If we assume for the purposes of debate that Dunn will be sufficiently discounted to price in his lack of fielding ability I don’t mind nearly so much.
nevermoor - December 3, 2008
ok
If he comes down in price enough not to scuttle our financial flexibility, I guess I could see it. I’d be shocked if that happened, though.
Josh Deletchi - December 3, 2008
Saying something positive about Adrian Beltre in your first post?
Nice start.
Welcome.
PaulThomas - December 3, 2008
Welcome!!!!!!
I pretty much agree.
The furthest I’d be willing to go with non-fielding players would be a 1yr deal with an option for Giambi, and I’m still not a big fan of that.
Yes plz to Beltre, btw. He’s awesome.
Blicks - December 3, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.