Athletics Nation

Some people are now saying the rumor is completely false

But it would be SO ironic/fitting if the guy that failed was Wallace

Don't tell me you don't trust this face...

Chilango - December 16, 2009 reply

Side note

Why the heck are we trying to sign Jamey Carroll? I want nothing to do with Jamey Carroll.

He's Adam Kennedy Lite

Bleah.

richwol1 - December 16, 2009 reply

I'd call him Adam Kennedy heavy, actually

He actually knows how to take a walk once in a while.

And he can play 3B

Without embarassing himself.

So, Adam Kennedy Heavy D, then?

Who are the Boyz?

http://twitter.com/shannondrayer

Twittered updates, deal supposedly done with press conference scheduled

http://twitter.com/JSalisburyCSN

No word on Wallace/Taylor.

eastbayexpat - December 16, 2009 reply

The more I think about this deal

The less I like it for the M’s.

Why?

they are getting one year of Cliff Lee

And then he goes to the Red Sox. Outside of winning the bitch this year, what else justifies that?

Gillies doesn't impress me

Are you a big fan of Aumont/Ramirez?

I mean, not really but still

The initial reviews, which I bought into, said Mariner’s win big. I just don’t see it. The M’s farm system seems thin to me, but I haven’t really done a bunch of research. So trading from a thin system and getting Clifford is not horrible. I guess I just wonder if they aren’t going for broke without really having the pieces to go for broke. Mayb Jason bay changes that? Or Some other bat.

I ultimately feel most sorry for Philly fans. Sheesh… they didn’t get much for Cliff Lee and the three best prospects between the four teams are going other places.

It’s just a head scratcher all around for me. I get the Wallace/Taylor thing. I have been dropping little “Get Taylor” bombs in threads for a while, never thinking ti would happen. I think the Jays have just got some great talent between Wallace and Drabek.

Anyway… I am rambling now.

One of my buddies who is an M's fan isn't completely sold either

His remarks: “without someone like Bay, we’re essentially the Giants”

Which is looking more true the more this trade is discussed. I figure now they HAVE to go for broke on Bay now, or Zduriencik has a Whoppah up his sleeve.

Eh, the Mariners have great pitching and great defense

They could win the AL West with what they have.

thejd44 - December 16, 2009 reply

TWTGS

(That’s what the Giants said)

Go ahead and ramble

It’s been a long and winding journey.

Well, geez if I have your permission

Ha!

Cuppingmaster just said what I was thinking… The M’s are a lot like the Giants. I’d argue that Felix and Lee are actually a better combo than Cain and Lincecum, but that is splitting hairs. Where the hell are the runs gonna come from? FIggins isn’t that big of an upgrade, is he?

You know, they could just snatch Cust up from under our noses

Way cheaper than Bay, but that would mean one of him or Griffey plays the field. Could be worth it, though.

Don't they have to replace Branyan too?

He's not on their 40 man right now

Do you mean his offense though?

right. his offense

They might be a fit for the Delgado end of the DH/1b pool.

This is what happens when I'm nice to people

You could put in for some sycophants.

I've still been trying to figure out why everyone is so high on the Figgins signing

He’s got zero power at a premium power position (if in fact he spends most of his time at 3rd). His OBP is usually right around .350 outside of last year (fueled by a huge spike in walks, not likely to repeat that) and 2007 (fueled by a huge spike in average, which is a cold bitch of a mistress when it comes to projections). Most of all, he’s 31 and signed through the next 4 years, and his speed-heavy profile is likely to take a sizeable hit as he declines.

I understand that he provides a defensive presence at 3rd. I get that he’ll be one of the better pieces in that lineup. And I know he’s not a bad player. But really? This is all it takes to get people excited?

Joey C. - December 16, 2009 reply

I've wondered the same thing

Everytime I’ve seen him play against the A’s he’s been a huge PITA (I say that admiringly). So I understand his appeal, and he is a good, useful guy to have. But Rob Neyer recently said he is in the “second tier” of superstars along with Evan Longoria.

Say what?

kaweahkaweah - December 16, 2009 reply

Evan Longoria is Second Tier??

Eva Longoria is Second Tier??

Depends on what tier.

A-Rod, Pujols and everyone else?

Buck Turgidson - December 16, 2009 reply

Here's what he said:

(It was a blog about Holliday)

“There’s a top tier of superstars, a tier that includes Pujols and Joe Mauer and Chase Utley and Hanley Ramirez.

There’s a second tier that includes Evan Longoria and Ryan Zimmerman and Chone Figgins.

And then comes Holliday and Kevin Youkilis and Carl Crawford. "

Chone figgins more or less = Longoria and Zimmerman though?

kaweahkaweah - December 16, 2009 reply

yeah

no

Speaking in last year's WAR

nope. Zimmerman was 6, Longoria 7 and Figgins 4… not exactly but I don’t have time to look it up again, ha.

jeffro - December 17, 2009 reply

Wow

I know it’s just a blog but if you’re Rob Neyer, don’t you at least have to think twice before you type something stupid?

easyraider - December 17, 2009 reply

FWIW, I'd much rather have the Polanco contract than the Figgins contract

Half the fiscal risk, similar talent.

Or Cardenas

Meet Placido Polanco: v. League Minimum. Buuuuaaaaaaaaahaha!!!!!

Hopefully.

The M's really didn't give up

a whole heckuva lot thought. Aumont was expendable considering their RP depth, and I don’t see Gillies or Ramirez being true impact players by any means. Useful pieces possibly, but not much beyond that. I think the M’s stole Lee personally.

JPShark - December 16, 2009 reply

*though

JPShark - December 16, 2009 reply

Right. This is like the Matt Holliday trade without giving up Gonzalez.

rebus - December 16, 2009 reply

Two draft picks if he does end up walking at the end of the year also.

zaniac75 - December 16, 2009 reply

plus they can flip him to a contender midseason if they arent' going as well as they thought they were

Process also known as

‘Hollidaying him’.

I mean, they're giving up way less than the A's did for Holliday

and he’s better than Holliday.

If you, like me, think that the Holliday trade was just this side of Brock-for-Broglio-level-stupidity, then I suppose that leaves room for disliking this trade for the Mariners (though I think it’s great for them). Otherwise…

I can't say I hated the original Holliday deal when it was made

But it does look like a serious mistake right now, just like every other fake-contention move pulled in last offseason. It’s not so much CarGon that pains me, since Beane recuperated his value with Wallace and now Taylor but Street. He was basically traded for two so-so prospects when guys with a proven closer label usually bring more.

If we're comparing player by player

Gonzalez vs Taylor
Street vs Mortensen
Smith vs Peterson

It doesnt look so good, yet I doubt the A’s have any regret over trading Street, Smith. Smith was likely a fluke which will get worse in colorado. IMO there’s not much separating him and Eveland. Basically he’s a back rotation sp who ate up innings. Trading Street earlier is a fair concern, but with or without him they have an elite bullpen.

The Holliday trade

was potentially faulted, but for whatever reason, Street was not leaving anyone in Oakland with confidence. Possibly because of residuals from Macha’s overuse…Carlos G. did well in a hitters park; Greg Smith is a AAAA pitcher, period.

And Holiday leaving brought Wallace who brought Taylor; at the end of the yearlong trade season, you ask if Street for Taylor was a good deal. And it probably was/is.

I think if Street were still on the A's

(with 2 years left on his contract), Oakland would trade him for Taylor straight up with no hesitation. Carlos Gonzalez is the key to that deal, and so far so great for Colorado but the jury’s still out.

Well the problem is

if you look at it like that, we’re essentially looking at Greg Smith and Gonzalez for Mortensen and Peterson, which means we basically have no upside to the deal. If Gonzalez busts and Smith never does anything again, it’s a wash. But it’s hard to see us coming out on top of a swap like that.

Street was not the key to the Holliday deal.

Nor was Nico implying that Street for Taylor even resembles what the swap was.

Nate - December 16, 2009 reply

This is a crucial point

If they do trade him at the deadline to a team desperate for an ace, it’s not insane to imagine them getting a better package in return than the one they’re handing over to Philadelphia now (at least from my perspective – that group looks like a whole lot of blah to me).

It also depends on what the market is around that time

in other words, which other frontline pitchers might be made available?

It’s certainly a risk

It does cross the mind

that the Phillies are as capable as anyone at writing the check for Lee when he hits FA in a year. They have a policy of not going more than 3 years, but there are exceptions to any rule.

I think the idea from their perspective

is that the compensation for the Red Sox signing Lee will basically make up for the not-frontline prospects they’re giving up in this trade.

winning the bitch this year is apparently a big deal

ha

Yeah, sorry for that.

Lookout Landing is screaming that the deal is official

There’s supposed to be a Halladay press conference at 2 PM PST.

who the heck is Brett Wallace?

wasn’t he the leadsinger for Winger or something?

Satchmo22 - December 16, 2009 reply

Bret Michaels

Is highly tauted prospect who currently polays 3rd base. There is speculation that his defense may not be good enough for 3rd, but almost univeral acceptance that he is a legitimate Major league batter.

The Athletes aquired him after trading superstar Billy Holliday last year at the trading deadline. Althoughhis numbers were good in oakridge, Holiday did not excite the fan base. Billy came to the A’s in a deal with Colorado that sent Carlos Santana, Della Street and Greg Smith to the Rookies.

And!

he is blown away by the unskinny bop.

Jamey Caroll and Coco Crisp

Carroll chosing between 2 yr offer from LA/Oak
Crisp willing to take 1 yr deal from A’s or Padres

Really not sure

why we would want either. Without already aquiring Miles I could see the Carroll deal, but for two years? Really?? As far as Crisp goes, no thanks. The A’s will likely be dealing OF depth rather then adding more.

JPShark - December 16, 2009 reply

35-year-old utility guy?

I don’t get the Carroll interest either. A’s have a roster full of utility guys. Team has no major league power. CoCo is a lesser version of R. Davis. Making moves just to make moves so it looks like they are doing something.

BlueMoon - December 16, 2009 reply

I can see Carroll as being their best option at 3B to start the year. Maybe even SS.

Great!

We can always use another outfielder!

Joey C. - December 16, 2009 reply

Yeah, I definitely can't see Coco in Oakland

But Carroll, he could be coming. It would probably the end of Aaron Miles era before it even started, although I wouldn’t rule out Ellis trade either.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/T/Michael-Taylor.shtml

It would be ironic if the whole deal fell apart after 30,000 posts on AN.

UncleLeo - December 16, 2009 reply

now suddenly Wallace can play 3b!

carp - December 16, 2009 reply

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

i dunno how i feel about this.

vs.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/Players/W/Brett-Wallace-1.shtml

.312/.383/.515 vs. .302/.375/.463.

I love Brett Wallace (saw alot of ASU baseball during college WC) but I was never sold on him @3b. Apparently a’s weren’t either, and if he’s not gonna play 3b his value immediately diminishes

I'm also on the fense

2009 -
Taylor : .320 /.395 /.549 70/48 K/BB
Wallace: .293 /.367 /.455 116/47 K/BB

So Taylor is older but seems to strike out less and seems to have more value defensively. Wallace bats left handed which may be more valuable.

eight months older

why is that on the fence?

all of taylor’s numbers are better compared to wallace. i mean you could factor in position needs, but compared objectively it’s easy to say taylor had the better year and should be the better prospect.

thewhizkid - December 16, 2009 reply

Because Taylor is older and played at a lower level

werd

Wallace was in AAA all year, Taylor spent most of his year in AA

Still Taylor = beast.

cityplANner - December 16, 2009 reply

but isnt taylor

only like eight months older? and everything that i’ve read is that both players are about equally MLB ready, which makes me question the level they played at.

thewhizkid - December 16, 2009 reply

Taylor spent most of 2009 in AA

Wallace was in AAA

So, it's Bud Selig who is holding this up

over six million dollars

Its interesting that all of Wallace's weaknesses are magnified now

SInce he’s been traded, where were all these concerns previously that most were willing to overlook in hope he was the 3b of the future.

They were glossed over by wishful thinking and a nice bat

That hope is now transferred to Jake Fox!

Who’s likely a worse player, older, and probably a 1b/DH too

There's no "likely" or "probably" about it

All of those statements are facts.

Joey C. - December 16, 2009 reply

TWSS

lol

I dunno as much about taylor, but looking at the 2, they look very comparable offensively. So the issue comes down to this, Wallace can or can’t play 3b. If he can he’s a much more valuable asset. By trading him I’m assuming we don’t think so we are opting for an outfielder.

Future Team: 1b Doolittle, 2b: Weeks, SS: green, 3b: Cardenas, C: Suzuki, LF: Taylor, RF: Sweeney, CF: Davis, DH: Carter.

now THATS wishful thinking ;)

I think Taylor is a more valuable asset even if Wallace can play third

I just think Taylor is a better hitter.

I’m not all of a sudden down on Wallace. The discussion before was “Do we like Wallace?” Now the discussion is “Who do we like more, Wallace or Taylor?” The answer to those questions (from me, anyway) is the same as a month ago. “Yes” and “Taylor Taylor Taylor OMFG I want that large black man in green and gold yesplz!”

thejd44 - December 16, 2009 reply

"Yes" and "Taylor Taylor Taylor OMFG I want that large black man in green and gold yesplz!"

We already have Chris Carter. Oh man, the swag out middle of the order could be rocking come 2011 is just awesome. ManRam who?

So with Taylor and Carter we can have the black version of the 80's Bash Brothers?

And.. no steroids
Which will get to 600 home runs first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRNke1atrpQ

The Blash Brothers?

danmerqury - December 16, 2009 reply

A dramatization of what will happen when teams face us........

Can’t wait.

Daniel777 - December 16, 2009 reply

You will find upon looking

A youtube video of Taylor hitting the homerun for Lehigh that finished his “cycle.” Freaking ball leaves like a rocket — no two ways about it. Monster shot. And the guy steals bases. He’s like Frank Thomas redux; I can really get used to the idea of 7 years or more of this guy.

In fact

Just below this post, in the Slusser post, you will find that video….

they'll all be traded by then

9Custs - December 16, 2009 reply

If what you're suggesting is true,

then right now we should be hearing nothing but glowing reports about how awesomely awesome Michael Taylor is, but actually we’re …

… oh yeah. Right.

Those hopes are now transferred to 2010 draft most likely

mlb trade rumors site keeps crashing when I try to go to it

but one snippet I saw had something about an MRI on Wallace’s shoulder?

Anyone else see anything on that?

says no problem with A’s-Jay’s

Slusser

thanks

since last night mlb trade rumors, sports spyder -a’s page and the A’s mlb site keep crashing when i try to access them – both with firefox and with safari.

someone is out to get you!

firefox just upgraded

i checked mlb trade rumors site, and it loaded without a problem.

Not sure why Safari was also crashing

second time I loaded the site it crashed firefox...weird

I had problems with firefox this afternoon too.

Leopold Bloom - December 16, 2009 reply

quit using her computer

I think it's the background ad. It's making my FireFox 3.0 run like Joe Blanton after a few trips to the buffet.

thanks for helping me spit coffee down my chin

LOL

cuppingmaster - December 17, 2009 reply

I post to serve!

ChickenStanley - December 17, 2009 reply

It must be the browser you are using

I’m using google chrome with mlbtr, this site and another open at the same time and I’m not slowed at all. And its not my comp. I have a cheapie comp thats 4 years old with no tweeking. In other words, a POS :)

Hope that helps

Not sure if this was posted anywhere..

But apparently the A’s are planning to move Cardenas to 3B full time according to Susan Slusser.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/SPDD1B4SG1.DTL

Syphon - December 16, 2009 reply

Better link

Link.

Thx.. didnt even see mine was messed up.

Syphon - December 16, 2009 reply

No prob

grover, I read where there is concern that Cardenas doesn't have the arm for 3B

Do you know anything about that?

I haven't heard that

Heading into 2009 BP, BA and Sickels all said Cardenas had the arm to play 3B. Now, this was largely theoretical as he had never spent any time at the hot corner. Now that’s he’s played the position… it’s possible that view has changed.

But again, I haven’t heard anything of that nature.

Thanks.. Also.. I noticed on MLB Rumors that the Orioles are looking for a closer and corner outfielders

I know Devine hasn’t actually come back yet but with Buck and Hairston and even Cunningham available.. I was wondering if they have a good young 3B that they can trade?

Josh Bell leaps to mind

but no chance they do that unless the A’s are dangling Bailey. There might be another option… I’ll take a look.

I must be slipping.. It actually says they want corner infielders not outfielders

Sorry grover

Well, there is a guywho might be worth a flier

Tyler Henson.

Lots of athleticism, needs polish. Not worth it in a 1-on-1 trade for a bullpen arm but might make a good #2 in a package.

Whatever happened with Brent Morel?

Was that you who wanted him acquired, or NSJ or somethin?

That was NSJ of Taj

or Taj

Me no typing goods todae

So Taj is a non-famous locality just outside NSJ?

For the record, I would totally pull that trigger

[Yeah, yeah, TWSS, shut up Monkeyball…]

You can't TWSS yourself, Paul.

Iglew broke it all down in the other thread.

I'm trying to preempt it, not actually do it

Is that not allowed?

There, I did it

Actually the "I really don't want or necessarily care for TWSS" pre-emptive strike

is the one acceptable loophole around the self-TWSSing.

DMOAS - December 16, 2009 reply

At this point, I think references to monkeyball are almost like TWSS once removed

do you doubt his existence?

Leopold Bloom - December 16, 2009 reply

No, he exists

He’s one TWSS-flingin’ monkey, he is.

I think pre-empting is a good thing.

It would be an even better thing if pre-emption weren’t necessary — good ones shouldn’t be pre-empted, and stupid ones shouldn’t be made anyway — but I guess that’s just a pipe dream.

TWSS

When I think about you I TWSS myself

kaweahkaweah - December 16, 2009 reply

I get that a lot.

It’s completely natural.

TWSS

Bell made a big leap in productivity after moving to BAL

You’d have to floor them, probably with a better corner infielder, to get him away at this point.

Still annoys me that we can’t get anything done for Alberto Callaspo. Seems like they have needs we can fill.

She said that

designatedforassignment - December 18, 2009 reply

I would too.

Blicks - December 17, 2009 reply

I endorse this statement,

Signed,
DFA.

They don't

think Cardenas has the arm for SS, or the skillset for 2B, but the 3B he’s juuuuuust right.

Yeah, what I recall is that

Cardenas may or may not have the range for 2B, but that 3B should be fine for him defensively.

designatedforassignment - December 18, 2009 reply

no. Cardenas has the range for 2b but he lacks it for SS.

His arm is sufficient for any IF position.

SFGate URLs always break on the "=/"

when you type them in directly. Better to use the link button anyway.

Cardenas is like a fireman

He’s 2B, SS or 3B prospect depending on what’s the organizational depth chart status on any given day. Personally I think his bat and glove play best at second, but who knows.

Second base and third base have the same positional adjustment

when calculating WAR. If his bat plays at 2B, it will play at 3B.

NateHST - December 16, 2009 reply

WAR is not an answer to everything

Pardon the pun. Historically, MLB third baseman have hit about 10,000 home runs more than MLB second baseman. Current numbers might be more even since there is an unusual number of great slugging second baseman playing, but third base is traditionally power position. And Cardenas is not a power guy, if he can constantly reach double digits in HRs we should be happy.

And second base is harder to play, although some players can have trouble moving from second to third.

Except the two positions are exactly equal in terms of defensive value

The reason third has traditionally been a power position is because for a long time, third base was considered “the other first base.” This is obviously not true, as the defensive value of third is much greater than it is for first.

Or, think of it another way: The more value a position has defensively, the less you need from it offensively.

thejd44 - December 16, 2009 reply

I'm not wasting my time.

WAR said it. They are equal in value.

Just because third base is

traditionally a power position doesn’t mean you have to follow tradition, especially when tradition calls for a player like Jake Fox rather than Adrian Cardenas.

NateHST - December 16, 2009 reply

2B was the traditional power position before 1920.

Ross Barnes lives!

No

Second base and third base have the same positional adjustmentwhen calculating WAR. If his bat plays at 2B, it will play at 3B.

This is a misunderstanding of WAR. Even if you assume that 2B and 3B have equal defensive value—a conclusion I think is based on flawed methodology—that doesn’t mean the two positions have equal batting value. Third basemen hit better than second basemen, and it’s easier to find a good hitter at 3B than at 2B. They A’s will have an easier time fielding a good offensive team—all else being equal—if Cardenas plays 2B than if he plays 3B.

The logical conclusion from the idea that 2B and 3B have equal defensive value isn’t that it’s immaterial which position you put a guy at. Rather, the logical conclusion is that the average 3B is more valuable than the average 2B.

FWIW

In last ten years MLB 2B have OPS-ed a .753, while 3B have had .787

elcroata - December 17, 2009 reply

And in a non-statistical evaluation

The tools required to play each position (arm strength, quickness, lateral range) are also different.

Right, which is why the 2B=3B defensively is questionable

That conclusion was reached by examining players who played both positions and seeing that they perform about the same at each position. The problem is that this is a selective sample of players, ones specifically selected by managers and coaches who thought these particular players had the skill sets to handle the transition. It doesn’t tell you much about the vast majority of 2B and 3B who have never been asked to play both positions.

This would appear to be the case if the average player improved when switching positions

If that was the case, we could say that players are being sorted to the “right” position by their teams, which would imply that there is a “right” position.

As far as I know— and I’ll admit that I’m not 100% confident about this statement— the effect defensive analysts have observed is a net zero, not a net positive.

Not necessarily

If teams are unreasonably prejudiced against giving good-glove-poor-bat players an opportunity to play at third base, then that will both drag down the average defensive performance at third (not reflected in something like UZR, which has a baseline of league average) and drag UP the average offensive performance (which IS reflected in wOBA).

And I have to say, the notion that teams are more willing to let good-glove-poor-bat players play 2B than 3B sure sounds plausible to me.

OK... so prove it

He doesn't need to prove it, he's just saying that it's possible.

Here’s what I’m trying to figure out: Supposing that this prejudice does exist, what would it mean to WAR?

It sounds like if this theory is true, then the UZR for all 3Bs, both good and bad, will slightly overrate them compared to what is really out there in an unprejudiced world. Since UZR goes into WAR, does that mean all 3Bs are similarly slightly overrated by WAR, or is the effect canceled out by some other factor? And does it suggest that all 2Bs are similarly underrated?

I’m hoping that someone who has a better grasp of WAR than I do can talk me through the logic

2B=3B defensively is an underlying principle of Fangraphs' WAR

The two positions have the same positional adjustment because Tangotiger and Cameron believe they have the same defensive value. If you believe the average 2B is a better fielder than the average 3B, then you would use different positional adjustments for each position.

The evidence they use to support the 2B=3B idea is

1) That people who transfer between the positions put up similar UZR at each position.
2) The average 3B is paid more than the average 2B, which would reflect the fact that they are equal defensively and the 3B is a better hitter.

I'm not sure how point 2 proves defensive equalness

And how big of a sample is there to support point 1?

Again, I think the methodology is sketchy

1) You’ll have to Google around for Tango’s study to see what the sample size was.

2) It purports to support the idea that the average player at one position is not necessarily equal in value to the average player at another position, which allows for the claim that 2B and 3B can be equal defensively but not offensively.

I cut myself short in my previous comment

Point could reflect what Tango and Cameron suggests it does, especially if the sample size of Point 1 was sufficient.

But without the overwhelming support of Point 1, it seems to me that the financial evidence of Point 2 could be evidence towards a couple different scenarios. For example, the average 3B could be paid more than a average 2B because he’s a slightly worse defender but is thought to be a significantly better offensive player.

Now, that may not be what the actual data says when you compare the offensive stats of 3B vs. 2B, but we’re talking about the perceptions GMs have and not hard data on contract worth vs. production. Every year Cameron vents about some dumb contract a GM just offered a player (historically Bavasi was the target of his venting) so we know that there continues to be mis-evaluation of market costs even today.

2b vs. 3b

I always thought the “2b = 3b” statement was based on runs saved by those positions as a whole, not on a study of the individual players who played them. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I misunderstood the original premise. If they (Tango, Fangraphs, whoever) have actually done more research into this, I’d be really interested in seeing those results, if anyone can find them.

fps31520 - December 17, 2009 reply

2 should not be a controversial idea

and is a bad assumption that some (like Dial) use. SS vs. 2B strikes me as an obvious refutation. Also, CFs used to outhit corner OFs.

I agree that the methodology and conclusion are sketchy, and I think the fact that 3Bs hit so much better than 2Bs is fairly strong prima facie evidence that the positions are not equal in defensive value.

mikeA - December 17, 2009 reply

Using salary is kind of screwy though

because defensive skill is severely under-rewarded in salary on the current marketplace.

PT this is actually related to your FanShot yesterday

Your terrific FanShot points out a recent finding that extra slugging leads to a team beating their pythagorous win-loss prediction. Unfortunately, I think only two readers have found your FanShot buried on AN. So here is some stuff I almost wrote there, but will instead here.

You just stated that defense is underrewarded. Pythagorous theory predicts wins and losses based on runs allowed vs runs scored. Or, in other words, defense versus offense.

Your FanShot showed that slugging is more valuable toward winning than OBP, if I read it correctly. In other words, slugging leads to more wins than stats predict.

Or, in more other words, offense with an extra dose of slugging is more valuable than defense.

Could it be that baseball general managers already know this? Perhaps intuitively, if not statistically?

Perhaps GM’s put more value on offense, ie. real offense, namely slugging, than they do on defense, because they already know that one can win more games with slugging than with defense.

You see, I really think that the conclusion from your FanPost, that extra slugging leads to more wins than expected, could lead to a much more peaceful debate about stats versus tradition.

Old school guys like me intuitively always believed that slugging is not the same as getting walks or having better defense. It always seemed somehow more important. It appears that your FanPost shows that stats, namely Pythagorous Win Theory, has now evolved to agree with my gut feeling.

Old fart that I am, I always depend on technical and statistical analysis in my work. I just am always aware that statistical analysis is always a model of reality, not reality itself. From your FanPost, that model of baseball has just improved a little bit.

Good for everyone. Stats just got a little more accurate.

redtopcowboy - December 17, 2009 reply

good points!

MMunoz33 - December 17, 2009 reply

Not really

That study showed that an extra .080 in SLG was worth an extra win over Pythag, but it also showed the converse was true—an extra .080 SLG prevented by your pitching/fielding was also worth an extra win over Pythag.

The study also assumed that consistency is always a good thing, which it’s not. If you allow more runs than you score, then you’ll win more games by being inconsistent.

thanks

just looked over at the fanshot

But then

Wouldn’t preventing slugging (I dunno, limiting HRs and 2bs or something?) be equally as valuable, then?

Yep

It’s just not as easy to prevent slugging specifically, as opposed to preventing run-scoring generally.

A fast OF can hold down the number of 2Bs, especially in a big park

Nick - December 17, 2009 reply

I actually did see that FanShot, and I appreciated it.

I almost never notice FanShots, because they don’t appear on any of the pages I spend much time on.

My typical visit to AN starts on the front page, but then I go to whichever FanPost is of most interest to me. Then from there I shuffle around through the other FanPosts that have new comments by way of the sidebar, so I never see the front page again.

Which is why I asked PT to prove his theory

’Cause if the theory is false, why go through the headache of figuring out your follow-up questions?

My reasoning was that we'll never know if

the theory is true or false, but since it’s a known unknown we should know what the ramifications are of the known unknown.

Right, if you don't believe 2B=3B defensively

What you’re saying is that the average 2B would be +5 (or whatever positive number) defensively at 3B.

No, I'm talking about a situation in which 2B and 3B are actually equal, but teams believe them to be not equal

I don't understand

If teams believe that 2B is tougher defensively, then they will put better defensive players there. If they put better defensive players there, then the average 2B will be a better defensive player than the average 3B.

If the average 2B is a better defensive player than the average 3B, then they should have different positional adjustments in WAR.

This may be a bad analogy but...

I see it like two simple math equations.

15-5 = 10
5+5 = 10

You’re getting the same answer but you’re using two completely different equations, so basically the identical answer is merely a coincidence.

I thought positional adjustments were intended to be a measure of actual difficulty, not just perceived difficulty

If every team had a simultaneous brain cramp and decided to switch their SS and 2B, would that switch the positional adjustment, too? That can’t be right.

It's based on the actual skill of the players

If the average 2B is a better defensive player than the average SS, then 2B should get a larger positional adjustment than SS.

If every team put a lumbering DH at SS, the average SS would still have a 0 UZR. If you didn’t alter the positional adjustments to reflect that the average SS was now a poor fielder, this new set of SS would look far more valuable by WAR than they actually are.

Thought that was always the plan

Congratulations, Brett Wallace

on being the first player to be a part of deals involving both Holliday and Halladay.

oblique - December 16, 2009 reply

It's the holiday season

What did you expect?

Wallace might enjoy the poutine in canada

Not a good combo

mmmm

gravy and cheese curds
best non-alcoholic winter food ever

jakarta - December 16, 2009 reply

When I was in Prince Rupert a couple years ago,

my wife and I went to a Vietnamese-Canadian restaurant and ate pho and poutine. It was grand.

I liked Wallace

Sorry to see him go. Although getting Taylor is great.

I wonder how bummed Wallace is to head to cold Canada instead of sunny California? If I were a young prospect, I think it would be exciting to play for a team like Oakland amidst a group of A+ prospects on the way to greatness. A bit of hyperbole, but you get the idea.

So long, Brett, and happy trails.

redtopcowboy - December 17, 2009 reply

Yeah I actually feel terrible for Brett Wallace

So close to breaking the majors with his childhood dream team, and at the eleventh hour he gets dealt away.

Heartless business, this.

Even stranger given that Beane has done what he could to ensure guys go places they want to be

ie Huddy to Atlanta

Beane's history of that is mostly with guys

who are further along in their career.

It still could be he was reluctant to move Wallace. Reports say he took a few days to agree to Wallace-for-Taylor, and possibly that reluctance is part of why he didn’t jump on it sooner.

Agreed

I wonder if he ever got to meet or talk to his favorite A’s player Eric Chavez?

micdog2001 - December 17, 2009 reply

He can talk to the dead?

He sees them and talks to them.

They don’t even know they’re dead.

Sometimes I wish everyone I encounter in everyday life

could not talk to Ed people.

I agree with that

I liked the idea of him getting a chance to play in the bigs with the A’s, especially after how he hit in Sacramento. I’m sure he’s going into 2010 thinking he’s definitely going to get to Oakland and bam: traded for someone who ended up going to Stanford.

It’s a business – this shows it as much as any trade that’s been made – but it sucks for Wallace in terms of getting more of a chance to play locally.

Flashfire - December 17, 2009 reply

On the plus side, at least he'll be safer walking the streets of Toronto.

Nico - December 17, 2009 reply

Scene: Sacramento RiverCats Training Room

Travis Buck is slumped down in a metal folding chair, staring at the floor; bandages are wrapped around his head, thumb, wrist, and stomach. In front of him sit Billy Beane and Buck’s agent. Beane just informed Buck that Oakland has traded Brett Wallace for Michael Taylor.

Buck: It wasn’t me that f#%&ed up.

Beane: Oh really? So who did? Why the f#%& are we here in Sacramento?

Agent: Listen, all you need to do is keep your head through spring training. Billy’s promised me that we’ve got a good shot of bringing you back to Oakland.

Buck: Then what? Hm? Who you gonna put in left field next year, Taylor or me?

Beane shifts in his seat. Buck stares at Beane.

Buck: Where’s Wallace at? Where’s Brett, B?

Beane: Travis, shut your mouth.

Buck: Where’s Wallace? That’s all I wanna know.

Agent: Kid, you better think.

Buck: Where the f#%& is Wallace? Huh? B! Look at me, B! Where the f#%& is Wallace?! Huh?! (jumps up, wobbily, and points at his agent) I don’t want this Payless-wearing motherf#%&er representing me. Who do you think I am, Ryan Christenson? I’m gonna get a new man. So just get back in your car, and get the f#%& back down south.

Beane: A’ight, you stupid motherf#%&er, you made your decision.

Buck: Yeah, I made my decision. Where’s Wallace at? Where’s Wallace?!

Beane and the agent get up and head for the door.

Buck: WHERE’S WALLACE, B?! B! WHERE THE FUCK IS WALLACE?! HUH?!

Fade to black.

Spass30 - December 18, 2009 reply

A's supposedly watching Escobar pitch

Link.

As a reliever though?

What use would he be there? Unless there’s a deal already in the works to ship out Ziegler or Wuertz.

streetisclosedin08 - December 16, 2009 reply

As a starter? Please.

Now that all the good Although I’m majorly for a deal that ships Ziegler or Wuertz out for the right return.

Blicks - December 17, 2009 reply

Why Coco Crisp and Jamey Carroll

neither makes sense?

Coco doesn't. The A's OF was crowded before the trade, so it is even more so after we acquired Taylor

But Carroll is a utility player that could back up McPherson and Chavez when they get hurt at 3B or Ellis at 2B. He’s basically Aaron Miles but much better.

NateHST - December 16, 2009 reply

Hopefully he choses dodgers

OnlybuyBeaneJerseys - December 16, 2009 reply

Key word

WHEN they get hurt! He’s be playing a lot of 3rd.

He'll instead of He's

OnlybuyBeaneJerseys - December 16, 2009 reply

Maybe some other team has interest in Miles if the A's pick up part of his contract?

Maybe…?

franks a lot - December 16, 2009 reply

Or the A's could just eat the $1.7 million and release him

And pray someone picks him up for league minimum

I just saved $400,000 on my car insurance!

Philip Christy - December 16, 2009 reply

x + 1.7MM for Jamey Carroll to be your utility infielder

That’s assuming that Miles and Carroll are considered as redundant. players Of course, it would be nice if either Miles or Carroll could play a little shortstop to backup Pennington. But it doesn’t look like it.

Where’s the backup shortstop in all of this? I would rather just install Petit in this backup role, since he could play most of the infield spots plus save you money during these rebuilding years.

franks a lot - December 16, 2009 reply

+1 to the Petit comment. Is he that bad of a hitter that we’re willing to give Carroll a 2-year deal? I don’t get it.

I think Carroll could handle SS, maybe even better than Pennington.

Water under the bridge now -- he a Dodger!

I wonder what $1.7 million tastes like

victory

and hookers, but only if it's in smaller denomintions.

I know that Crisp stated that he would prefer to choose between Oakland and San Diego

But is there any evidence that Oakland has actually made him an offer, or even shown significant interest? Or is this Crisp just wishcasting?

Don't mind Coco

The only outfielder I am truly comfortable with is Ryan Sweeney and even then, I can take or leave him. Rajai has a half season of success. Hairston was pretty bad for oakland, i assume he’ll bounce back. Cunningham, Buck haven’t proven much at major league level. Desme, Corey Brown etc. seem a whiles away. Taylor may be ready come spring training, he may not.

Coco is a switch hitter who can steal bases. For a right price he could be valuable

Like I said, he basically IS Rajai Davis

The two are functionally indistinguishable in every way. Bad hitters, steal some bases, play good but overrated CF defense, look good in a uniform, increase racial diversity of team.

I don’t really get acquiring him (on a major-league contract, anyway) if they aren’t moving Davis.

GreenNGoldSooner - December 16, 2009 reply

But only one sounds like a breakfast cereal

That’s gotta be worth something!

Raj Krispies?

How does hitting .290 translate

into being a bad hitter? And how does stealing 30 bases in just over a half-season translate to “steal some bases?”
(note: Rajai Davis is a LOT better than Coco Crisp.)

You'll have to forgive me

When I use the term “bad hitter,” I tend to use it to refer to “person for whom bad things happen when he stands near the plate with a piece of wood,” and not to refer to his performance on some arbitrary subset of those things.

Coco Crisp is 30 and has a career wOBA of .325. Rajai Davis is also 30 and has a career wOBA of .330. Within the kind of sample sizes we’re talking about, that’s a statistical tie. I could see some kind of fractional preference for one of them but the notion that either one is “a LOT better” than the other one is frankly silly.

Rajai's played in much tougher parks for a hitter though.

His career RC+ is 102 and Crisp’s is 92. That doesn’t look like a statistical tie to me.

Oops I meant 97 not 92....but still it's not a tie.

Save your metaphorical breath

PT has long since proclaimed that Rajai’s 432 PAs in 2009 were an anomaly, and that the “real” Rajai Davis was the one seen in the much larger sample of PAs that preceded this year, (all 458 of them.) His .782 career minor league should also be disregarded.

Nate - December 17, 2009 reply

Thank you

for that update…as a relative newcomer to this blog, I had not been apprised of such inherent bias. i was, of course, aware that Davis is a late bloomer, and Crisp is, well, toast, and Crisp is the sort now-non-tendered while Davis has a job nailed down….

I bow my neck for the mercy stroke.

Produce this quote

I have no recollection of saying anything of the sort. Nor does searching my user history turn up anything of the sort. Given your documented history of lying, I’d say the burden of proof is squarely on you at this point.

Now, as for the actual subject matter of the thread: The correct method is not to use either the 432 2009 PA standing alone or the 458 old PA standing alone, but rather an average of the two. Which is, of course, precisely where that .330 career wOBA that I alluded to above came from.

His minor league MLEs are godawful. I really don’t think you want to rely on them for support.

would you mind coco on some sort of nomar type contract?

cause i doubt we offer more than that

tafkasam - December 17, 2009 reply

Right, if we assume a (weighted) average

Which really means that we think he’s unlikely to perform better than his MLEs suggest no matter what and I’m not sure that’s the case. There is SOME difference between his pre-2009 numbers and 2009 numbers — what we really need is another year to tell us if he’s crap or not. We can at least draw a decent trendline then. Right now, all we have is a suckitude followed by an outlier.

cuppingmaster - December 17, 2009 reply

WHOAAAA porkchop!!!!

Lying? I’ve had a total of MAYBE a dozen posts on this blog in the past year, and before that, none for maybe 2-3 years, and you’re suggesting I’m LYING? Pray tell, oh Wise One, are you confuddled, or merely chronically paranoid?

I realiize we’re not supposed to use derogatory terms here, PT, but pick yourself out about a half-dozen and call yourself out. And then, try to make an argument on its own merits, rather than engaging in your oh-so-typical ad hominem attacks.

As for not having any recollectioni yadda yadda …. Of course not. You merely post BS, and everyone else is supposed to bow to your effervescent perscipacity. Sheesh.

Um... you're about to feel like an ass

PT was calling out Nate… not you.

Damn grover

I’ve felt like an ass before, right?
But reading it in context, it sure looked like he was chomping on me for making my case. Certainly the personal attacks were on me, and not Nate.

1) click “up”

2) click on the link (history) and you would have seen that it has absolutely nothing to do with you

xbhaskarx - December 17, 2009 reply

Posting 3 days in a row?

What are you, on vacation?

I am embarrassed

I stayed away for a long time because of my proclivity for getting involved in flame wars. So I thought a brand-new name, a fresh start, haven’t ticked anyone off yet….

That didn’t last long, did it? ;o(

There's always a chance to reform one's ill-favored approach.

Though you haven’t exactly gotten off to a brilliant start, increased effort may generate some results.

paris7 - December 17, 2009 reply

It's nice of you to jump in with the defense

that the personal attacks were directed at me and not BoyHowdee. Glad to know that’s ok.

Nate - December 18, 2009 reply

No one said anything about personal attacks in your direction being OK

BoyHowdee was setting himself up as a target for no reason and as I didn’t realize he’s a re-do I thought I’d step in and help a noob out.

I figured you could handle PT without my help.

grover - December 18, 2009 reply

In the context of this chunk o' thread...

PT was being his usual charming self in his initial reply to you. The lying bit was spefically directed towards Nate.

Sorry. I'm a mite sensitive

to unwarranted chop jobs like “silly” etc. So when the chop job, unwarranted or not, LOOKS like it is on me….knee jerk time.

I will make every attempt to perform better due diligence, and heartily apologize for any and all injured feelings.

If PT is a conservative, I will even bring salve.

What "personal attacks"?

YOU SAID I LOOK FAT IN THESE PANTS!

HE JUST WANTS YOU TO TAKE THE PANTS OFF

We're not selling jeans

eastbayexpat - December 17, 2009 reply

well, one of us isn't, at least.

You spelled signs wrong.

No more signs, Mikey.

I said, no more signs. Maybe you didn’t hear about it, you’ve been away a long time. They didn’t go up there and tell you. I don’t sell signs anymore.

WORLD. UPSIDE. DOWN.

designatedforassignment - December 19, 2009 reply

what do you do now then?

and why does it keep you in Florida

Davis' minor league ANYTHINGs

are completely irrelevant. Your logic is like saying "That kid about to graduate college with a degree in engineering was really a dope when he was a senior in HS.

Somehow, you add three apples and say THERE!!! I proved it’s four oranges.

Not quite

That kid about to graduate with a degree in engineering is not like top of his class and may very well have graduated based on minimum requirements. It’s not quite an appropriate analogy since maturity of the brain isn’t quite the same as the maturity of physical ability and you can study harder and harder and improve while training can only make up so much when it comes to physical ability. But minor league numbers do tend towards telling us his major league capabilities, especially when they don’t have a significant major league sample.

I would submit

You simply have to take both of them as you see them. The sample size for Davis, for whatever reason, is ridiculously small; he was being held back for reasons we may never know. All it takes, of course, is to have one player better than you ahead of you, and you stay where you are …. if you’re not arb-eligible. (I think; maybe you could retire a year and start over: any experts out there?)

Bottom line, Crisp has been starter at other clubs, and has been moved on. (There’s nothing to see here.) It is very possible Beane will do the same with Davis while his perceived value is high, but I think not; not when the A’s are just now starting to get back to the basics of what, over the past 10 years, has been snickered at as “small ball.”

Flagged

Try to argue points without resorting to personal attacks. I realize that you consider them to be the same thing, but try nonetheless.

Nate - December 18, 2009 reply

Observing (with evidence) that someone is a liar is not a "personal attack"

It’s entirely relevant to their credibility.

Also, I have to say, this is pretty rich coming from you. I’d really encourage everyone to read the thread I linked, and also the sub-linked thread in the post I commented on, if you want to get a sense of this guy.

You finding “personal attacks” to be an offensive concept is almost laughably hypocritical when your history is filled with lines like:

When FF and you agree you must of course be right because the only time either of you have the capacity for being wrong is when you are in opposition to each other. I appreciate the effort in pushing the bounds of fallacy.

I’m never quite prepared to deal with the monstrous level of self-absorbtion on the other side of the proverbial table.

Which is odd, as I’m pretty sure intangibles are the only reason he gets banned as infrequently as he does.

The difference between our “styles,” if you will, is that when I say that you are a liar (which only came up because you did it again in an argument I happened to be participating in), I can point to a specific instance in which you deliberately misled mods in an effort to avoid a CGV. You, on the other hand, just post unprovoked, insulting one-liners for your own amusement. I flatter myself that there’s something of a difference between the two.

The differences between our "styles"

is that mine never got me kicked off of AN.

And yes, that is now two references to your banning, or three by your reckoning, but given that that includes one instance where you asserted that I meant something other than what I said I did, I don’t count it, despite your default position that anything you assert as fact is.

The difference between our “styles” is that you’re disrespectful to anyone who disagrees with you, something that hasn’t changed since you returned from your exile. You disrupt entire discussions with your dismissive and arrogant attitude. It gets ignored, far more than it should, because like most good trolls you tiptoe on the line that separates blatant insult from simply being a jerk.

Me? I just happen to not like you, and lack an interest in concealing such. You can pretend my disdain for you represents my posting “style”, if you wish. As is your goal, it’s rarely worth the effort needed to attempt to correct your misconceptions.

Nate - December 18, 2009 reply

You're free to interpret my actions however you want

I don’t mind you not liking me. I have a polarizing personality (although, really, “trolling”? Laughable. Trolls don’t write 20-page-long analyses of trade proposals…). Them’s the breaks.

I do care, however, that people not think that I actually said the nonsensical bullshit that you imputed to me.

No matter how much I disagree with PT on some things...

…and no matter how heated it may get, he is not a troll.

That is ridiculous to claim.

Flashfire - December 18, 2009 reply

I'm sorry,

but where exactly was the personal attack?

CaliforniaJag - December 19, 2009 reply

Ah, down this aisle on the left hand side.

Next to the muffins.

Nico - December 19, 2009 reply

Muffins?

CaliforniaJag - December 19, 2009 reply

OK, and he's also played in what are at least suspected

to be much easier parks for defenders w/r/t UZR… so maybe the resemblance is slightly more superficial than it seems and Crisp is actually better on D while Davis is better on O.

Still not seeing the “LOT better” distinction here.

Crisp is done

Davis is getting started. Did Crisp hit .290 last year? If it is risky to use last year to judge a player (and PT, you seem to impute that is the case re: both Davis and Crisp) how much more dangerous is it to project future perfomance — good or bad — on what the guy did THREE years ago?

Does KC have someone really strong coming up they have no interest in keeping Crisp? Because 290/340 good defensive CF just don’t grow on trees. I can see someone who never watched Davis not being up on him…but if you watched him grow as a player over the past couple years, you could not help but see the curve is UP for Davis.

Similarly, if you’ve traced Coco’s career, you would be aware he is going further and further into the sticks…

So, perhaps in order to avoid irritating the All-Knowing, I’ll submit I’d take Davis 2010 over Crisp 2010 — straight up, irrespective of compensation — without any hesitation whatsoever.

(Peeking up from under bushy eyebrows) Please, make it quick and merciful.

Hmm

Because 290/340 good defensive CF just don’t grow on trees.

They’re not really that uncommon either. By some estimations, the A’s already have 2 players like that.

rebus - December 17, 2009 reply

I wish the A's

simply had two players ANYWHERE who could perform at 290/340

Baseball players do not "curve"

They are not mathematical functions.

You’re correct to state that using 2007 data to project 2010 performance is less reliable than using 2009 data to project 2010 performance, but that’s off-point, because using 2007-2009 data is vastly more reliable than either one…

There are essentially two reasons why Rajai Davis is worth more than Coco Crisp. One is that Davis is not a free agent. The other is that Crisp had an injury last year and might not be 100% this year (or ever). Those aren’t descriptions of their player type though— they’re ulterior considerations.

Well, I wasn't arguing

“player type.” I was pointing out why Davis is worh, in my opinion, a LOT MORE than Crisp. Because Crisp does have a consistent, downward trend — whether mathematical or not — while Davis is trending upwards — mathematical or not. Call it Crisp “downside” and Davis “upside.” WHY Crisp is trending down is important for future consideration; same same for Davis looking better. No way in heck to I average in questionable performances in the minors when I see what he did over 4 months of the ML season, when he had a full-time job.

While I don't disagree with saying Davis is worth more than Crisp

(and most of that has to do with PT’s points, with the reality that he’ll provide basically the same service only much cheaper), but 4 months is way too small a sample size.

4 months is, indeed

a small sample size, but I’m balancing that opinion I’ve formed with the fact that after some exposure to Crisp, three teams have now taken a pass. I don’t know; maybe he tells off-color jokes or maybe he carelessly evacuates methane in the dugout.

Teams that passed on Crisp

didn’t really pass on him. They traded him in order to get other parts back.

While Davis, on the other hand, was traded once (for Matt freaking Morris), and then subsequently was waived by the Giants.

I was responding more to the idea that Davis is on an up swing

We really don’t have enough info on where Davis will really fall in. We do with Crisp, and it’s not necessarily good, Davis is still a question mark.

But Davis is OURS and therefore is better

Also, there's the matter of the high socks...

Nick - December 17, 2009 reply

Definately undervalued.

I didn't introduce minor league performance into this thread!

I agree, at this point it’s of questionable relevance except as a very back-of-the-envelope guess at his perfect-world upside.

That being said, we’ve got real projection systems like CHONE and James to tackle his major league performance track record, and on those, there is no significant distinction between him and Coco Crisp.

The other difference is that Davis was healthy in 2009

and Crisp was not. I could see Crisp being useful if Hairston were traded and Taylor was deemed not ready. I could even see him if Rajai were traded for an IF.

I already referred to that a bit higher up

Yah, Coco's from LA

He prolly just mentioned the west coast teams he figured weren’t any good and might throw him a bone in desperation.

buildang - December 16, 2009 reply

I recall the A's have been linked to Crisp multiple times in the past

But unless he can play shortstop or third, I don’t see the fit.

franks a lot - December 16, 2009 reply

Before Rajai stepped up they were interested, but I don't see any point now

buildang - December 16, 2009 reply

Why not?

Beane has liked Crisp going back 3 or 4 yrs now and tried to acquire him multiple times. Maybe they view crisp as more of a sure thing than 3 months of rajai.

Rajai's very tradeable

Still, it’s a silly idea, particularly since suddenly Rajai becomes expendable and his price drops.

richwol1 - December 16, 2009 reply

Is he that tradeable?

Dave Cameron did a piece last september about the glut of center gadeners. The point being that there were 26 good or great centerfielders in the league. Davis was metioned as one of the goods, as was crisp. If you buy the argument, there is not much room to move Davis.

+1 for use of the phrase "center gardeners"

-1 for misspelling it.

-10,000 for reminding me of the thrice-damned Holliday trade again.

If he's not tradeable...

Then there’s absolutely no point in signing Crisp. None.

richwol1 - December 16, 2009 reply

Brokerage Fee?

Do the Jays still make this move if Beane doesn’t offer them Wallace for Taylor? I know the Wallace/Taylor news broke well after the other rumors had been confirmed, but it was widely speculated that the Jays really were not interested in Taylor at all. They wanted Drabek and/or Brown. To suddenly change their stance and accept Taylor seems odd.

I’m completely speculating here, and I have absolutely no sources to back this up, but is it possible that this trade would still be in the “discussion” phase if Beane didn’t offer Wallace for Taylor?

fps31520 - December 16, 2009 reply

via Drunk Jays Fans

this is what the BJs GM, Alex Anthopolous, says about the Taylor / Wallace swap:

drunk jays fans

AA says he likes Taylor a lot, and he was talked about a lot, but they felt very strongly about Wallace—and had spoken several weeks ago about the possibility, knowing the A’s had a logjam at 1B/DH and needed OF help.

More...Pretty much ends nay chance of wallace playing 3b

"This is a special hitter, a student of the game, and really an impact bat—and one we see playing first base for us going forward," Anthopoulos says.

"We think this guy is going to be right in the middle of the order," he says. "All of our scouts have been saying that this is going to be a very exciting young impact bat to go along with some of our other young players: Snider, Hill, Lind."

Philip Christy - December 16, 2009 reply

Nice find

Thanks for that.

fps31520 - December 16, 2009 reply

Don't think I've seen this posted yet...

…but it’s now all official. No more speculation, Taylor is now with the A’s. I say, Hooray!

Yep, it's done and hooray

Bring on spring training!

worldblee - December 16, 2009 reply

Hooray

Welcome back to the Bay, Michael Taylor!

Also, hooray for me because I just registered for a spring class at a junior college. Priority registration in the fall is mine!

Rated-R Superstar - December 16, 2009 reply

WB 2 DA BAY, TAY.

Was totally an invitation to do that.

I wish I had priority

Luckily I’m starting my major classes so I can stop taking classes that I have no interest in such as learning to become an elementary school teacher.

Helloooo 1st - December 16, 2009 reply

OH BOY.

You sunk my blankenship - December 16, 2009 reply

3b

With all this Caroll/Miles stuff can anyone tell me if Adam Kennedy signed with someone else? He is only 30 just seems like he’s been around longer so not likely to drop off a cliff.

He's unsigned

but IIRC there have been offers for him.

Will ther be 1000 comment threads on the impending Caroll signing?

Kennedy is 34.

So funny it was Wallace who tripped up on the physical

and he never actually failed it, they just needed to test out his shoulder again to double check.

PL78 - December 16, 2009 reply

LOL, good stuff

Well good luck to him…unless he’s playing us! I’m glad I was able to catch him in Sacramento a few times…seems like a good kid.

Just a question

Does getting Taylor make Carter expendable to Bean? They seem to have similar buzz by AN besides the fact Taylor can field LF and Carter is projected as more of a DH type by some.

No

Way to be original

You son of a biatch!

I thought it was funny.

You'd have to

No one else would

No

Way to be original

You son of a biatch!

I thought it was funny

jeffro - December 17, 2009 reply

You'd have to

No on else would

I hope not

A line up with Taylor and Carter has the potential to be ferocious. Especially combined with the skills of the other feloows not far form the big leagues.

It’s almost time to dump the disease from the Petri dish and see what vengeance hath been wrought upon the American League. 2010 will probably be about the same as last year, but 2011 is looking like the second coming of 2000.

I hope not as well.

I was just curious what others thought. I grew up with some really great Oakland offenses and really miss those days. Hopefully this new group of kids pans out.

I hope not

but you never know with Beane.

A few days ago I speculated that if Beane could get a young stud 3B or SS in a trade for Carter he might do it.

Yunel Escobar?

Hanley Ramirez?

would you do that trade?

Carter for Ramirez would be a gigantic humungous ridiculous steal for the A's

Taylor and Buck for Escobar?

Oh could we keep a piece from the Holliday trade for, say, an hour?

Geez!

It was a 3000 post hour though

Ahem

BEANE
BEANE
BEANE
BEANE
BEANE
BEANE
BEANE
BEANE
BEANE
BEANE

Don't blame me if...

he doesn’t spell his name correctly.

Ha!

That was actually pretty funny.

ChickenStanley - December 16, 2009 reply

So Flash you're saying he spells his name Bean then?

sirbed - December 16, 2009 reply

I hear

he just likes to be called Beanie by friends and Beanie Baby by the wife.

THERES 2 BILLYS!!!!

1. Our dude, the guy who runs shit. His name is BILLY BEANE (born William Lamar Beane). He looks like this:

2. There’s another dude named BILLY BEAN. (born William Daro Bean). He was the player who came out as a homosexual in his book. He looks like this:

ARE WE ALL CLEAR NOW?

PL78 - December 16, 2009 reply

"Who can turn a gay baseball player...

into a straight GM…? Silent ‘e’…"

LOL Nice, Billy Bean the GM

OK player one has an 13.5 shoe, 34" inseam and lacks in the bulge. Player two 14 shoe, 36" inseam and …“oh my!”

Ovale Fan - December 17, 2009 reply

xbhaskarx - December 17, 2009 reply

I remember my wife picking up the book thinking it was THE Billy

She gave it to me and was reading the back of the book and I almost drove us off the road….Beane

ryanmoser - December 17, 2009 reply

trade insight from Jays GM

The Blue Jays GM was just on Sportsnet Ontario here in Canada and they asked him about the Wallace part of the deal. He said that they had identified Wallace as a player they really liked and he knew that the A’s had interest in Taylor. When he was still talking to several teams regarding Halladay and Taylor’s name was on the table from Philly, he asked Oakland about a potential swap. He said that Oakland did not jump at the opportunity and that the two teams actually went back and forth for a couple of weeks (he didn’t elaborate on what). Finally, when the main trade was basically set he “formally” proposed the Wallace for Taylor swap which Beane agreed to a couple of days later.

Larry E - December 16, 2009 reply

the Jays drafted Wallace in 2005 but Wallace chose college instead

Jays initiate trade

I read that too. I just thought it was interesting to hear that it was the Jays, at least this time, who initiated the trade and it took the A’s some time to agree to it.

Larry E - December 16, 2009 reply

My understanding is that Beane pretty much never initiates trade talks

He prefers to let GMs to come to him. So when Hendry inquires about Harden, for example, Beane will say “ok but we want Gallagher” and when it doesn’t go down he’ll say “ok, call me if you change your mind.”

So the Devil Rays called Beane and said "I want Ben Grieve".

What if we could get you Johnny Damon?

catfish hunter - December 16, 2009 reply

He never asked out girls either

Always waited for the Sadie Hawkins dance, I hear. Or maybe I’m thinking of Billy Bean.

worldblee - December 16, 2009 reply

Carrol just signed with the Dodgers

phew. dodged a bullet on that one.

+1

TBRMKane - December 16, 2009 reply

They should sign Crisp

to fill the void Pierre left.

Today is a good day.

vegAN ryAN - December 16, 2009 reply

suh-weet!

Jamey Carroll

I was hoping the A’s would sign Carroll. I live on Ottawa and several years ago we had a triple A team called the Lynx. For most of its existence the team was part of the Expos farm system. Jamey Carroll was likely the second most popular player ever to where a Lynx uniform behind the one and only FP Santangelo. The two are the only Lynx players to have had their uniform numbers retired.

After the 2002 Lynx season Carroll was not called up to the Expos and so he goes back home to Indiana. As it happens the Expos are in Chicago on the weekend of the 9-11th of Sept and so Carroll, his brother, and a friend decide that they are going to drive to Chicago and buy tickets to see the game(s). Shortly before they leave, Carroll gets a call from the Expos, who have run into some injury problems, and they tell him that they want him to join the team in Chicago. So instead of being a paying customer he plays in the games and hits .310 in 71ABs the rest of the season.

Larry E - December 16, 2009 reply

I liked him too

Wait a minute, I just realized something.

Brett Wallace is from Sonoma, which is not too far from the Coliseum. Michael Taylor went to Stanford, which is not too far from San Jose.

This trade is all part of Wolff’s scheme to move the team from Oakland to San Jose!!!

and Taylor said in the news conference today that he went to school only 40 minutes from the coliseum

Whoops.

So much for my San Jose theory.

it still works

stanford is closer to SJ than oakland, but not by much

thewhizkid - December 16, 2009 reply

Lew Wolff = Dr. Claw?

“We’ll get them to move to San Jose after all, Mad Cat”

"But Bud, we have a player from REALLY near there!"

“Oh ok, fine then.”

I just noticed Matt Whitney on the sidebar.

Who the hell is Matt Whitney?

Former bust

OK, he’s still a bust.

Really off topic but

Id LOVE to see the reaction of a lot of posters on here when they find out the reason why the Mets value Jason Bay over Matt Holliday defensively. I’ll post the quote but I’d rather not repeat it, as its the worst, illogical, IQ-deflating thing I’ve ever heard.

PL78 - December 16, 2009 reply

His enormous, bald head exerts its own gravitational field strong enough to alter the trajectory of fly balls, leading him to misjudge and drop them in the playoffs?

No

that’s not illogical

I heard there were 3 moons orbiting around Holliday's head

Was that just rumor?

No-that's BEAN....

5Aces - December 17, 2009 reply

Holliday's frowning and looking like he doesn't care repels the baseball from him when he tries to make a play on it?

GAMER

GRITTY

HE JUST GOES OUT AND HAS FUN OUT THERE

HE PLAYS THE GAME THE RIGHT WAY

PERFORMANCE ENHANCING PERSONALITY

PEP

HELPING THE TEAM OUT CONTRIBUTING.

HE HAS SO MUCH RESPECT FOR THE GAME

cityplANner - December 16, 2009 reply

SELFLESS PLAYER AND HE DOES ALL THE LITTLE THINGS

I'M JOE BUCK

9Custs - December 16, 2009 reply

MY CONDOLENCES

"He's a BASEBALL PLAYER!"

mrod - December 17, 2009 reply

The answer is:

Because Jason Bay played CF like a million years ago.

Daniel777 - December 16, 2009 reply

It's science!

I'm blind!!!

ChickenStanley - December 16, 2009 reply

Daniel777 has got it

Jason Bay played 30 games in CF 5 years ago. The Mets brass thinks that makes him better at defense than Matt Holliday.

Even though its a SSS, Bay in CF is as bad as you think.

Sometimes….you really have to get on your knees and thank whatever diety you worship and thank them we have someone who’s not a complete moron running our team. He might not be the best or make all the right moves all the time, but everything he does is rooted in logic and isnt based off a 30 game sample from 5 years ago. God the Mets suck.

PL78 - December 17, 2009 reply

Dear Mets,

Please sign Jason Bay and play him (even a couple of times) at CF.

Regards,
Daniel777

Daniel777 - December 17, 2009 reply

If Jason Bay played Center Field when the Mets came to AT+T park

I would be in the Center field bleachers faster than you can say Nate Schierholtz in the park home run

bobnothing - December 17, 2009 reply

I'm getting pretty excited about this season

They may only play around .500 (fingers crossed), but its starting to feel like it will at least be interesting and may just turn out to be a fun year. Now I wish I could head to spring training.

woah, Dallas Braden on tv just blamed his foot injury on being allergic to a foot brace he was wearing

Is there no way to get injured that the A’s haven’t explored??

Yes

Michael Taylor will be splitting his time between baseball and UFC.

Nate - December 16, 2009 reply

Taylor's suffering from split time?

kaweahkaweah - December 17, 2009 reply

wtf

xbhaskarx - December 16, 2009 reply

I remember hearing that in September

And I remember thinking, “thanks, medical staff!” at the time.

Nico - December 17, 2009 reply

I heard Dallas Braden went to Barry Zito's "strikeouts for troops" dinner last night

is that why he was on TV?

micdog2001 - December 17, 2009 reply

Yeah, he was on chronicle live

bobnothing - December 17, 2009 reply

Just caught a blurb on MLBTR

that Mark Derosa has lowered his asking price into the 3 year $18mm range. Is it just me or does that seem well within the range that the A’s could, and should strongly consider making a run for his services? He’s extremely versatile being able to play the OF/IF corners and seems like the exact type of player Beane should be trying to snatch up for $6mm a year. Thoughts??

JPShark - December 17, 2009 reply

I agree

But I also don’t see it happening based on the “don’t sign aging free agents policy”, but then again Billy might just be waiting til those old guys are cheap enough. I like DeRosa though…

DrDoom - December 17, 2009 reply

Didn't realize he was going to be 35 next season

so a 3 year contract might be a tad too much, but still seems pretty reasonable at $6mm a season.

JPShark - December 17, 2009 reply

$6 million annual is reasonable enough

3 years is a deal killer.

Ya, for some reason I was thinking

DeRosa was only 32-33. Obviously i was a little off. He seems like the type of player that someone could always find use for, so as long as he stays healthy and doesn’t completey fall off a cliff performance wise I suppose we could always deal him down the road.

JPShark - December 17, 2009 reply

2 years, tops

2/$14m seems okay, given his age. 2/$12m is obviously better, but i’d be okay with us going a little above to get him for one less year.

Placido Polanco is better and younger than DeRosa

so, uh, not a fan of giving the same contract to a worse player.

i heard wallace might be getting traded!

haha…okay, serious question about taylor. is he pretty much fully-built at this point and time? seems like the HR issue is because of his line-drive swing, which is why i guess the winfield/dye comparisons are made. but could he still get a little bit stronger, keep the same swing, yet hit more HRs? 250 is big, but he’s freaking 6’6, so i have to imagine he could actually fill out a little more (but not too much – i remember the ruben sierra “bulking up” experiment all too well), which could increase his power numbers without sacrificing his batting average.

You probably saw this link already, but it is

worth seeing maybe again. http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/20090619_Bill_Conlin__Phillies_prospect_Michael_Taylor_a_heavyweight_five-tooler.html

Stanford teaches a flat swing; he can tweak that as he gains more experience in the bigs. Other than that, he pretty much looks full-growed.

Taylor is supposed to have plenty of raw power

Since I’ve never seen the guy bench press or anything, I assume the HR total is a product of his swing path. Even now the scouting reports say he doesn’t have much loft in his swing, which is why I wouldn’t be surprised to see Taylor in AAA to start next season as he works on making the adjustment to his swing.

How much adjustment do

you see him needing? A spray-hitter — from what I’ve seen on youtube he’s a pretty savage line-drive hitter — would be pretty valuable in the Coliseum, no?

Granted, HR’s are nice, but a lineup of doubles hitters excites me a lot more, quite honestly.
Unless the ALL hit 30 HR’s a year.

Adjustments take as long as they take

Especially the part about the hitter doing something different and feeling comfortable with it. There’s a good chance the A’s won’t try to make adjustments to his swing… I was just trying to answer the question on how to get more HR out of Taylor.

I am

merely wondering if those adjustments could not be made in the comfort of the #9 position. We settled last year for Eric Patterson, who no doubt is a fine young man, but but but but

I could have sworn I read that he already changed the "Stanford swing"

Which is exactly what led to his power increase last season.

Oh, and for BoyHowdee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDZqtBpcWWw

That’s one hell of a line drive.

You don't need a "Stanford swing" to have a level swing

Part of the Stanford is (supposedly) an inside-out approach, so there’s a lot of tinkering that can be done (as I understand swing mechanics… not my forte) that would move Taylor away from his college while still maintaining a level swing path.

I know.

and I’m furiously googling to find the article that I read saying it, but what I recall was whatever swing it was that Stanford molded Taylor’s into didn’t translate well (for him) to wood bats. When he tweaked it, he got better.

I know nothing of the swing that Stanford teaches, and I’m sure plenty of people have had success with it, but apparently it wasn’t right for Taylor once he got to the professional leagues.

Yes, he changed his swing after college

I had posted that link somewhere here earlier...

But yeah, it actually was a line drive. Took about 3 seconds to be bouncing around in the upper deck 400 feet away. No “towering shot”, the ball just left the yard.

You can find other video of the lad in earlier reincarnations, and he usually just tags the ball; his strength makes it go zoom.

Once he DOES develop the loft, we should have Frank Thomas redux. Which would be a good thing.

yeah, i know about the stanford swing thing

i’m just wondering if he was a little bit stronger, maybe he wouldn’t need to alter the swing at all to get more HR. i hope we are VERY cautious about tinkering with his swing. maybe if we get just a little more lift, it’d be enough, but the kid seems like a hitting machine, and i wouldn’t want to have him uppercut to the point that it affects his hitting everything else. if he can hit over .300, with 20 HR and tons of doubles, i wouldn’t exactly complain.

It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that swing.

It's not about strength

You need loft to hit HR. Sure, sometimes guys hit it on the screws and send one out that never goes higher than 20 feet but usually you’ve got to get some air to hit the ball out.

well

i was assuming he was getting some lift on the ball, just not uppercutting it…but you’re right, if you’re hitting line drives, very few of them are high enough to be HR. there are a few line drive homers, but not many. so i guess the real question is, how much do we tinker with it? if we can get him comfortable with just a little more lift, maybe he won’t lose his .300 hitting. whatever, this is a very good problem to have.

This is the first I've heard of the "Stanford swing"

but it sounds a little like the Charlie Lau approach to hitting, and if so, it’s not necessarily a HR-killing swing. George Brett learned a “level swing” from Lau (in fact, he was Lau’s prize pupil), and hit plenty of HRs. Lau’s disciple Walt Hriniak taught Dwight Evans the level swing he used later in his career, when his power numbers took off.

In any case, Taylor’s SLGs look fine from the last 2 seasons, so whatever his swing looks like, he’s hitting plenty of XBHs.

Nick - December 17, 2009 reply

He supposedly changed back to "his" swing after his first year in the minors

and if you look at his minor league numbers after 2007, there is a ridiculous jump

wait...

back to the stanford swing or back to his pre-stanford swing? my understanding is that he changed away from the level swing somewhat in the minors and his numbers improved.

Correct.

Whether he switched back to his pre-Stanford swing, or just tweaked his Stanford-taught swing I don’t know, but he made adjustments after leaving college.

Well...pre-Stanford

equates to “High School”. I’d have to seriously question if going back to a swing he used 4 years earlier was the reason his numbers jumped.

Inglewood Jack!

What’d I say?!

I'm pretty sure

if you study Ted Williams’ swing, it was relatively level. Worked for him, anyway.

Williams didn't advocate a level swing, at least after retiring

The “level swing,” for example, has always been advocated. I used to believe it, and I used to say the same thing. But the ideal swing is not level, and it’s not down, and I’ll tell you why as we get to it.

That’s from The Science of Hitting. The rest of the book isn’t available online, but I think Williams advocated a slightly uppercut swing, partly to increase the chances of hitting a HR, partly because the pitch comes in at a downward angle and swinging slightly upward means the bat is swinging through the same plane as the ball for a longer time.

Nick - December 18, 2009 reply

Taylor will be in SacTown to start the year

Think Longoria…..Don’t want to make him a super two right off the block…Will be up in May

ryanmoser - December 17, 2009 reply

Yeah that worked out great with Cahill and Anderson

Wait.

Actually it did work out OK with Anderson. I still don't get the use of Cahill early in the year.

Unless they trade a couple of OF, I’d think Taylor should start in AAA.

this

if even for the service time game

Not to be a smart ass

But service time? Pray tell, when was the last time the A’s had to worry about that? If the player is good enough to cause concern, he’s gone by trade long before it hits the A’s checkbook.

Another year of service is a huge increase in trade value.

danmerqury - December 18, 2009 reply

I appreciate that

And I understand why you’d drag your feet bringing someone up, if they’re of middling value.
BUT
If your team needs the player, or if your player needs the MLB experience, then no amount of trade value offsets the potential of the financial return of the playoffs. It is not a huge increase; it IS a significant one.
I’ve seen Beane time and again drag his feet, and most of the time, it was pointless in the entirety.

Time and again?

I actually cannot think of a single recent A’s prospect who had his promotion delayed for service time reasons. Anderson, Cahill, Bailey, and Buck (hell, even Landon Powell) all played full initial seasons, which is a vanishing rarity now that teams realize how much smarter it is to find some excuse to keep a guy down for three weeks at the start of the year. Gio Gonzalez came up as soon as he could plausibly be called ready. Barton got a month callup at the end of a season and then went straight into the starting lineup the next year. Crosby got about 13 ABs before his rookie season before being tossed straight into the thick of it the next year. Blanton opened 2005 in the majors after barely a cup of coffee the prior year. Dan Johnson was called up as soon as Hatteberg was benched, and was only sent down because of an epic slump.

I’m running out of recent rookies that this description could possibly fit. The evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary— Beane has stubbornly refused to take service time into account AT ALL when dealing with prospects.

thanks.

I’ve gotten tired of hearing people (mainly the sports talk guys in KC) talking about how they have to hold off on calling up prospects and I couldn’t think of an A’s prospect who was held out the way that many others have been recently. (The Rays being the most notorious)

I’d just hate if my team decided to play inferior players for 2 months because they were concerned about potential contract negotiations in 4 years. Sheesh. What a way to tell the fans that winning isn’t the goal.

ChrisCEIT - December 20, 2009 reply

Well, I completely disagree with this...

If winning is your goal, you should maximize the number of wins you get. The way to do that is by keeping good players on your team longer, and paying them less. The way you do THAT is by not calling them up when you aren’t sure they’re ready.

I find the impatience displayed in the promotions of players like Anderson and Cahill to be profoundly irritating.

PaulThomas - December 21, 2009 reply

Worked out great for Anderson.

So so for Cahill.

... no it didn't

Anderson was awful in April and May. He did nothing to help the team win baseball games.

I don't agree

He pitched better than the raw numbers suggested as he settled into figuring out how to get major league hitters out. The A’s, IMO, made the right call with Anderson (and the wrong one with Cahill).

Nico - December 18, 2009 reply

Imagine that, a rookie struggling his first two months in the bigs

I’d say those failures there helped him improve to the extent he did by the end of the season more than starting out successfully would have. He had to deal with poor games right away and learn from them.

Flashfire - December 19, 2009 reply

He didn't even struggle nearly as much as it appeared

As loathe as I am to chalk everything up to “luck” Anderson was a great example of luck playing an effect.

His first start he was victimized by one “big inning” full of bloops and bleeders, in which he pitched great, shutout Seattle for 5 of the 6 innings, yet left charged with 5 ER in 6 IP. Then he faced Boston and went 7 IP, 2 ER. Soon after, he had starts against Texas where he was dominating but had to leave with a blister and one in Detroit where the defense was comically bad (leading to 6 unearned runs). And so on.

There were also some bad starts, such as a stinker in NYY and the start against the Giants in which Anderson learned that you can’t get into patterns like “coming inside with the first two-strike pitch.” These are the lessons rookies have to endure at the big league level in order to adjust and take off.

Anderson did not dominate the first two months but he pitched far better than his stats suggest, and he used the experience to become the dominant pitcher he was in the second half.

Nico - December 19, 2009 reply

+1

The only time service time should be a consideration with roster decisions is if you’ve run out of other good criteria for a decision, such as the player’s development, whether he’s better than other options for the team (Anderson clearly was), etc.

Anderson was the right call.

jeepers - December 19, 2009 reply

Good clarifications

Flashfire - December 19, 2009 reply

I searched and found these comments of mine from May 15th-May 20th

Here, here, here, and here

So I had the same opinion that I’m expressing now, when I was eyeballing Anderson’s starts 6 weeks in and he had a 6.03 ERA.

Nico - December 19, 2009 reply

The notion that he had to be promoted to the big leagues to "learn," when he had like 15 career innings in AAA

is preposterous.

I agree that he was better than his superficial stats. He was merely replacement level instead of actually being (as he appeared to be) WORSE than replacement level. So his service time was merely being pointlessly wasted, rather than wasted and actually injuring the team’s chances along the way (which Cahill’s was).

Whatever. I hope you’re still singing the praises of this decision in 2015 when Anderson wins a Cy Young for the Yankees.

PaulThomas - December 19, 2009 reply

That's not what Nico said

He said that Anderson “learned” how to pitch to big league batters during his two months of struggles. Nico did not suggest that Anderson couldn’t have learned some things in AAA, he pointed out that the result of his struggles led to the development of a legit big league SP.

grover - December 20, 2009 reply

Exactly. I also was mainly disputing

your comment, above, “Anderson was awful in April and May.” No he wasn’t.

Nico - December 20, 2009 reply

Johnny Damon or Vlad for 1 yr deals?

How much pt for Buck now that Taylor is in the mix????

MMunoz33 - December 17, 2009 reply

Neither.

Vlad is broken and Damon is asking for like 3/30 from NYY.

Damon and his agent know they won't get more than 2yr deal max,

and if Matsui sign for 6.5 mil, then I can see their contract price around the same area…

just my opinion…

MMunoz33 - December 17, 2009 reply

vlad's decline is kind of sad

he was an absolute monster. his body has just fallen apart. i know he’s getting older, but still, he’s not that old.

unless his stated age is incorrect

micdog2001 - December 17, 2009 reply

They did tests

his knees are actually 118 years old.

He already let his real birth date slip

His current listed age is very likely to be correct.

Brother Wilton's Birthday

is listed at 10/24/1974

Vlad’s listed 2/9/1975

Talk about Irish twins.

Well, if they monkeyed with one, they presumably had to monkey with the other one too

so I’d assume his brother was actually born in 1973.

Unless it's 9/2/75

Which might be true — simple error

cuppingmaster - December 17, 2009 reply

Olney sez we're talking to Beltre

But arent willing to go 5 years at $10MM a year like he wants.

PL78 - December 17, 2009 reply

5 years is ridiculous

DDroney - December 17, 2009 reply

Good, if he wants five years someone else can give it to him

Flashfire - December 17, 2009 reply

Well, I mean I'd give him 5 years and 10 million dollars

but not 5 years and 50 million

I'd give him the same deal Seattle gave Figgins