When you sing, "It's that wonderful time of the year..." you're not referring to Christmas. Not unless you like sloppy wet kisses from Aunt Bertha and another pair of socks that don't match the shirt you didn't want last year. No, this is the magical time of the year when important-looking people descend on the same hotel to discuss how they can fill each others' holes and not in a dirty way.
Every off-season has a slightly different flow. This year's pace has been to see a fair amount of activity prior to the Winter Meetings, including several of interest to A's fans. JJ Hardy, Marco Scutaro, and Chone Figgins have all found new homes while the A's left-side of the infield still looks like Cliff Pennington and the rotting immobile corpses of Eric Chavez and his new likeness, Dallas McPherson. Or maybe 3B will be anchored by Jake Fox, and I mean "anchored" in that "can't actually move, weigh you down" kind of way.
Trying to predict what Billy Beane will actually do is like trying to guess whether Andy Pettitte is throwing to 1B or home. Since free agents apparently aren't enticed by Fatapples or money, if the A's want to improve their 2010 outlook Beane will probably be doing it via trade. Enter the Winter Meetings, where groundwork is laid for Xmas surprises to follow...
Dan Uggla? The A's seem fascinated right now by any player who shows some power and a profound lack of mobility. Uggla has not played 3B but his lack of range would play better there than it has(n't) at 2B. Following a low BABIP first half, Uggla rebounded to put together a solid second half in 2009 and his 31 HRs are drool-worthy for a team like Oakland.
Now that I've mentioned Uggla, it is officially guaranteed the A's will not trade for him. You see, being an A's fan is always about being surprised. Billy Beane is the master of the one trade you didn't even imagine, which is what makes December so exciting and scary all at the same time.
Jed Lowrie? Hardy unexpectedly flipped by the Twins? Erubiel Durazo? Rickey?
Nobody? OK, now I'm depressed.
Somebody!!!!!! But who?
0 recs | 226 comments
![](<a href="http://s516.photobucket.com/albums/u323/NicoPemantle/?action=view¤t=horsesjpeg.jpg" target="_blank"><img src=){kind=link}
Nobody knows
Being a A’s fan I can figure out most things Billy does but this year its impossible. Scutaro? Who knew he was going after him that much. One report says Beane will not going after free agenst and another says he will sign free agents. So who do we believe? You would not want to be playing poker with Beane. So here is my 2 guesses for free agent signings by Beane. Jamey Carroll and Branden Looper. This will change if Kevin Corriea becomes non-tendered who will replace Looper. Look for Buck or Cust to be traded this off season.
Arcman - December 6, 2009
pretty good guesses
when you consider that you always have to expect the unexpected with Beane
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
Jeez, if the Rotoworld rumor bin can be believed, they're just gonna non-tender Cust...
…which would bum me right out.
Elvez - December 6, 2009
ball in Cust court
I do believe the A’s don’t want to go to arbitration with Cust so if he signs for a round 3 million he stays. I just don’t see a big trade market for him or if he became a free agent more than a 3 million contract. To many DHs on the market this year.
Arcman - December 6, 2009
I can understand why the A's wouldn't want to pay Cust $4 million for 2010
which is what reports say is likely to be the arbitration figure.
If the A’s prefer to trade him they’ll need to do it this week, since they have only a week to offer Cust arbitration. Since the other clubs no doubt know this they’re likely not going to offer much for him.
However, if Cust agrees to a lower figure they will probably hold on to him.
The above is my head talking. My heart wants the A’s to sign him!
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
$4M is still pretty cheap
Right now he’s our best power threat. That doesn’t say much about us, obviously, but non-tendering him is kinda retarded. Without him we’d rely on Hairston and — who else, Mark Ellis? — for power. Ugh.
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
the A's may not consider $4 million to be cheap
for a DH of Cust’s caliber. They might think they’re able to fill that position more cheaply for the same amount of power production.
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
Question: Doesn't this power production need to be ballpark adjusted?
It is surely in Cust’s favor that he has shown the ability to hit it out at home, whereas other 30+ guys might sputter, right? At least, unless they’re a notch above the $4M range of hitter.
paris7 - December 6, 2009
I've seen plenty of HR's from visting sluggers at the coliseum
including in cold April night games.
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
This is obviously true, but not helpful, right?
Because the question is whether the bulk of power at the Coliseum comes from $4M+ valued hitters, and thus whether we can expect comparable production from a Cust-replacement at under that price.
For myself, I tend to prefer players that can actually play a position, and I’m down on Cust for that reason alone since I expect a bounce-back in ’10.
paris7 - December 6, 2009
my point was that Cust is not necessarily better (or worse)
than sluggers from visiting clubs, simply because he played half his games at the Coliseum – which isn’t a bandbox but also isn’t the worst place for sluggers either.
I agree with you about preferring players who can play at least passsably well a position, since I don’t personally think of DH as a “position.”
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
Thanks for the clarification.
Wish I had facility with stat-research to check this question out; maybe a stat-head will step in to discuss (though it will probably happen once the actual decsion on to tender or not to tender takes place).
paris7 - December 6, 2009
This is a site that could help you out
Link
The numbers vary from year to year in a pretty wild manner, so decide for yourself how much value you want to put into them. Here are the last three years of HR factors (a ratio of HR hit at home as opposed to those hit on the road):
2009/2008/2207
Oakland: .927 / .988 / .786
Miami: 1.127 / .844 / 1.005
Averaging it a bit, it would turn out that Marlins have a HR neutral park as opposed to Coliseum, which seems to depress HR numbers by roughly 10%.
Not sure if that is what you were looking for.
elcroata - December 6, 2009
I've been to a baseball game in the Marlins' park
I’m surprised to see that their park might be considered more HR neutral than the coliseum. I wonder what the numbers would look like if you took it beyond only the last three years?
Interestingly, the coliseum was considered by many to be less HR-friendly before Mt. Davis was built.
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
Definitely helpful!
But, the real hard work comes in tallying who actually hit the homers, and if we could extrapolate some of those $4M+ hitters to 30+ HRs based on their own individual park performances. Sigh. Not worth it…
paris7 - December 6, 2009
That always gets me too!
brian.only - December 6, 2009
Yeah, but, they can't
If they think that, they’re wrong.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
Who?
DeJay - December 7, 2009
I don't know
but in the 14 other threads on this topic, a lot of people are suggesting “Crickets,” whomever that is.
Future Ed - December 7, 2009
I really don't get the fascination with cust
ok, so he can hit the occasional home run. is it possible that we are overvaluing him just because he fills a need for power in the A’s lineup? Does he really give you enough to want to re-sign him?
I’d rather see Landon Powell get more AB’s as a DH, but it dosen’t seem likely that will happen.
BleedGreen - December 6, 2009
It's not just power
Cust gets on base a whole heck of a lot more than Powell does.
Nico - December 6, 2009
Can't hit lefties
Cust is just horrible against lefties. This is the reason for the Fox trade. Cust could be a platoon player but then his value goes way down. If Chavez is healthy he would be a DH most likely and as you can see 2 players that mainly hit only right handed pitchers.
Arcman - December 6, 2009
It's only $4M and we seem to have some money to blow
This seems like an obvious signing. The other options to replace his production are a Miguel Tejada (which we should sign anyway — he can’t be THAT bad for only a year) who is aging but still productive, or some combination of cheaper players that add up to his production.
A no-brainer to me. Sure, his production might be able to be had for cheaper — but why is this necessary if we were planning on giving more money to a less productive (albeit more valuable defensively) Scutaro?
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
When you said "he can't be THAT bad for only a year"
I had visions of Jason Giambi.
Nico - December 6, 2009
LOL okay
There is some irony in saying that. But, Giambi’s precipitous decline was unpredictable. I’m just hoping our luck is better than that and going from bandbox to Coli doesn’t hurt Tejada’s power numbers.
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
Well, it was actually predicted by many on AN
I was not one of them because in February and March I am all about blind optimism and only think great things will happen.
Nico - December 6, 2009
Tejada's power took a nosedive this season anyway
His offensive numbers were inflated by a massive and probably unsustainable BABIP.
Hate to keep going back to CHONE projections, but they’re very useful… anyway, he’s projected at just below average with the bat. If he can scratch and claw to -7.5 runs with the glove at short or -2.5 at third, that would make him more or less an average player. But he’s no kind of asset with the bat at this point. Certainly not on a par with Cust.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
Giambi was signed for two years
so he was even more expensive.
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
It's not just the occasional home run.
Like others have said, his OBP is huge. CHONE actually projects him to be our most productive hitter.
danmerqury - December 6, 2009
nontendering a guy with a lifetime 926 OPS in Oakland
does not seem wise.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
Jamey Carroll just makes no sense to me
He’s a slap hitter with absolutely no power who really should only play “utility infielder” — where the A’s have Petit in house and now Aaron Miles. What use could they possibly have for Carroll?
Nico - December 6, 2009
Carroll
He is a cheap DeRosa utility player the kind Beane likes. As for Miles I have a feeling he may be retraded somewhere else like the cards.
Arcman - December 6, 2009
except, like Nico said
he has no power. I tend to think trades/signings for infielders are done unless we go for a one-year 1Bman. We already have a lot of bodies around, and I can’t see how more would help us.
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
Yeah, he's like DeRosa except he can't hit.
Nico - December 6, 2009
I read this as "retarded"
and didn’t flinch. I am an evil person.
elcroata - December 6, 2009
"retreaded' also works
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
Well the difference between him and Aaron Miles is that Carroll doesn't suck
He actually realizes that he’s a bad hitter and keeps the bat on his shoulder until he has to take it off. And he’s a much better fielder.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
Uggla
I don’t think he’s going to be worth whatever the fish are asking (I’ve heard that when the Giants called the price was Bumgarner and probably a few other pieces). He is a hell of a bat but going with the recent track record of NL sluggers going to the A’s (Holliday, Hairston), he’s not worth what we would have to pay for someone who is most likely at or just past his prime.
I actually like what Beane has done so far this offseason, acquiring a stable of players who all seem like candidates for a breakout year. While not all of the signings/deals will pay off, if even one of Fox/McPherson/Miles catch on as everyday players and contribute (a recent binge session with Fox highlights on mlb.com has me very optimistic about his power, even in the Coliseum) then the strategy will be a success.
I am most interested to see what Beane does with the LF situation, where Cust is most likely to be in the discussion. I am willing to give Hairston a fair look in ST and the beginning of the season, but still think it is worthy to explore the options both in the system (Buck, Cunningham, Doolittle?) as well as FA/Trade possibilities. For me, Cust is a decent stopgap, and the best case would be signing him to a fair contract, realize we have too many people in DH/LF and trade him after a month or two (or even in the offseason) to a team that has a sudden opening for a DH.
On another note, did anyone catch Urban’s winter-meetings A’s primer. He seems convinced that all of the A’s “trade-expendible” players are the ones that had down years in 2009. Am I the only one who doesn’t want to see Beane sell low on guys like Zeigler and Hairston?
All of that being said, my Christmas list has one name on it: Matt Stairs. Make it happen Billy.
MaineAthletic - December 6, 2009
No Uggla
The guy plays a terrible 2b and he would be no better than putting Fox out there. Just like you said the cost would be to high. Stairs could replace Cust on the cheap.
Arcman - December 6, 2009
I'm starting to think that Miguel Tejada would be a good solution.
He lost about .50 ISO from his power about 4 years ago, but except for 2008 he’s still been a pretty good hitter since then. His ridiculously low walk rate from last year and high BABIP are red flags, but Bill James predicts his BABIP to regress and for him still to be an above average hitter.
He could move to 3B initially where his career -4.7 UZR/150 at SS might be neutralized, and then if Pennington shows that he can’t cut it, we would have McPherson and/or Jake Fox to give a shot at 3rd, while sliding Tejada to short.
I was surprised by how valuable Tejada has consistenly been the last four years. His bad offensive 2008 must have given me an uneven idea of his production. These are his WAR totals from recent times:
2005: 4.7
2006: 5.3
2007: 2.7
2008: 3.1
2009: 2.6
His ISO decline from the .200 range to the .150 range seems to have happened between 2005 and 2006, though he masked it in 2006 with a ridiculously high BABIP.
Still, he seems to be a reasonable bet to be at least league-average, and gives the A’s versatility at SS as well as 3B.
He has my vote.
King Richard - December 6, 2009
I just love Tejada so I always have to put that into the equation
My main concern is that Minute Maid park has done a lot to enhance his recent numbers. Other than that, I think he’d be solid defensively at 3B and he has been an excellent hitter before. I wouldn’t be shocked if he hit poorly in Oakland now, though.
Nico - December 6, 2009
It's true that Minute Maid is bringing up his HR totals,
but it is depressing his 2Bs by more than that, so it’s probably not too big of a factor in his offensive productivity.
The park factor for HR at MInute Maid was 1.065, but it was 0.873 2B.
Also, wOBA is a park adjusted stat, and his wOBAs from the last four years are as follows:
2006: .374
2007: .345
2008: .313
2009: .344
And Bill James predicts a .340 wOBA for 2010. League average is somewhere around .330, and shortstops who put up league average or better offensive numbers are always valuable, unless their defense is really really terrible.
King Richard - December 6, 2009
I'm interested in Miggy as a 3Bman
Like you suggest, I think his defense would actually improve there (even though he hasn’t played 3B, so it’s a bit of a risk). But even at SS, he’s probably Pennington’s equal defensively and is certainly better with the bat.
Nico - December 6, 2009
wOBA isn't park adjusted unless I'm mistaken
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
Pretty sure you're right
Batting runs is when you go to a player’s value section.
vignette17 - December 6, 2009
Really?
Hold on.
Wow, you’re right. Quick google search confirms. I just could have sworn I remember a Fangraphs post at some point saying that their wOBAs were now park adjusted. Perhaps it was in a dream.
King Richard - December 6, 2009
Oh good. I was worried I was the only guy who dreamed about wOBA
Nico - December 6, 2009
I cant stand miggy
A) he wa playing the worst div in baseball in the lesser league
B) he old, no one knows exactly how old
C) that babip is a giant red flag
D) he will want too much money. Id take him at $2MM but anything more is overpaying for a guy who most likely just had his last decent year.
E) You talk about how he’s a “good bet to be league average”, that’s funny I think the same about Pennington.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
"league average"
I’m not certain, but it seems like you are somewhat confused about the duplicitous nature of “league average”. When James writes that Tejada will be above league average for ALL players (i.e. at every position), then he becomes quite valuable because he can handle the defensive duties of shortstop. Pennington, on the other hand, applies more to the projection of a “league-average shortstop”, meaning that he is capable of a season that is around the middle of production of other shortstops, which is quite a bit lower (somebody probably has a number for us) than the “league average player” because light hitters often find their way into lineups at SS by handling the defensive duties there.
I agree that Pennington can be a league-average shortstop next year, and likely will not be a huge liability for the A’s. However, if we could actually get league-average production out of the SS (with some power too), then there is the potential for a very valuable addition (be it Tejada, Green in a few seasons, etc.)
MaineAthletic - December 6, 2009
"I'd take him at $2MM but anything more is overpaying..."
The last four years, Miggy has been worth roughly the following on the free agent market:
2006: $19.6 mil
2007: $9.3 mil
2008: $14.0 mil
2009: $11.6 mil
Bill James projects Tejada to have a .340 wOBA next year. This is quite optimistic, but it includes his BABIP regressing to regular-good, from unsustainably-good (though still not all the way to his career average, so perhaps there’s room for more regression here, though the Bill James formula takes into account so many years of data, I feel wary suggesting that it’s doing something wrong based on just my quick-glance common sense). His BB rate is likely to regress a little bit too, as BJ suggests, which is a good thing and accounts for him sustaining most of his production despite the drop in BABIP.
Anyways, this .340 wOBA would put him at something like 7 BRAA. If we then assume that his defense will regress towards career average, from an uncharacteristically bad season last year according to UZR (not all the way, as he is aging, so his defense is most probably declining), we’ll put him at -6 UZR/150 (anybody who wants to argue and change this number, be my guest, it is indeed arbitrary for the sake of this post). Assuming he stays at SS, these numbers would make him somewhere around a 3 WAR player next year, and worth about $12 million on the free agent market.
In fact, even if we were to assume that Tejada’s offense regressed to his 2008 rates, and his defense remained as bad as it was in 2009, he would be worth -7.5 BRAA, -13.9 FRAA, +22.5 replacement level, +7.3 positional if he plays the same amount as the last two years, making him worth about 0.9 WAR in the worst case scenario, and worth about $3.6 million on the free agent market.
King Richard - December 6, 2009
And he's Miggy!!!
Nico - December 6, 2009
+1
That counts for a lot with me.
worldblee - December 6, 2009
and not uggla de uggla dah
ak_A - December 6, 2009
life goes on
Nico - December 6, 2009
Couple things...
1. By saying “The last four years, Miggy has been worth roughly the following on the free agent market” you appear to think using fangraphs dollar value amount is somehow valid in determining a real dollar market value. It isnt, and I believe they even warn readers not to use it as such.
2. Regarding projections, when a NL→AL move happens and the AL part is in the leagues hardest stadium to hit in, dont you think the raw numbers are going to decrease? Its a SSS but we saw it (kinda) with Holliday&Hairston, 2 guys in their primes. Its vastly different hitting in Houston than it is in Oakland. Look at MIggy’s BABIP in Oakland vs everywhere else he’s played. Now apply that .260-.280 to Bill James projections….still interested?
3. He could really be 38 or 39 and no one knows. Meaning: his production could really fall off a cliff badly at any given moment.
4. Laughed out loud at the “His BB rate is likely to regress a little bit too” part, he walked 19 times in 635 ABs last year, that is horrifying! Not to mention hes a regular MLB leader in GIDPs (the worst thing a hitter can do regularly).
5. Defensively, you will never be able to convince me he will be a better defensive SS in 2010 than Pennington. Sorry. I dont agree with how fangraphs uses defensive metrics, but Miggy stunk at SS even in Oakland the first time, we all saw it. Its absurd to think that he’s going to be better in his mid to late 30s than in his 20s.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
Tejada's real age has already been discovered.
Are you suggesting that the new one is a fake too? There’s no reason to believe so.
1 WAR is indeed worth about $4 million in value, though I feel like I remember reading that it’s gone up since that number.
And indeed people use that rate of exchange to analyze contract values all the time.
As to my saying his walk rate would regress, I meant in a good way. He’s never walked that little before, and particularly if he came back to the A’s, I’d bet he’d bring that horrible number up a bit.
And as to raw stats: yes, we know the Colliseum has a negative effect on hitters… Indeed, it affects them all in the same way. Pennington too. So i’d rather have it affect someone who will likely have an above average wOBA than someone with no track record of being able to hit.
Now, honestly I’m fairly high on Pennington. I like him and think there’s a chance that injuries have slowed down his learning curve with the bat and that he really might turn out to be an average SS. But there is no logical reason to assume he will be better than Tejada next year.
King Richard - December 6, 2009 via mobile
He used the FG dollar amounts right
They estimate how much a team should pay a FA given that they pay league average $/WAR. One might be able to argue that the A’s need to get premiums on their FAs of course.
Ballparks affect all players nearly equally. The coliseum may lower Tejada’s rate stats but it will make those same stats more valuable.
vignette17 - December 6, 2009
Dave Cameron disagrees
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-dollar-value-of-a-win
Guys, I know Im not PT or dfa, but I am not a total dumbass and know a LOT more than you think. I respect fangraphs, but not everything they do is perfect. Lots of you seem to blindly follow the numbers on there are word from god, and theyre not. Hey, Id love them to be watertight and unbreakable, it would make things a ton easier, but they just arent.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
No, he does NOT disagree
Jesus, that article is like 5 days old and it’s already like the most mis-cited article in AN history.
It is entirely the correct approach to evaluate a player’s talent, predict the number of WAR that he will provide, and then compare his contract $$ to the projected value of that contract to see whether the team apparently won or lost.
What that article is critiquing is the notion that “Player X was worth $25M last season, and he signed for only $10M, what a steal!” Doesn’t work like that. You have to actually project players’ performance rationally to come up with a real projected value for the next season.
Example. Miguel Tejada is projected at 1.4 WAR by CHONE. WAR seem to be selling rather cheaply right about now, so let’s say that they’re worth only $4M this offseason. His projected value for next season is therefore about $5.6M. On a two-year deal, he’s likely to be worth less the second year (say, 0.9 WAR) but the price will probably rebound a little, so he would probably be worth about $4M for a second year.
What with rounding error and whatnot, I’d be willing to give Tejada $6M for 1 year or $10M for 2 years if I thought he would improve my team and I had the money available.
Projecting WAR isn’t the only aspect of determining whether a contract is a good one or not, but it’s the first and most important step.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
Sorry but this looks like disagreeing to me
PL78 - December 6, 2009
..........................
Yes, it is not predicting that Chone Figgins will get $27M a year as a free agent.
The calculation
Contract Value = (Projected WAR)($ cost of free agent WAR) – Salary
is, however, correct. And that is, nitpicking over his exact language notwithstanding, exactly what King Richard did.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
Isn't backwards-looking the key?
Next year, at this time, another valuation of Figgins will be made that says his production was worth $20M (or whatever) in 2010 because he was 5 WAR.
How does this help you predict RIGHT NOW, what the result of that calculation will be next year?
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
The actual "value calculation" is not particularly helpful
The price-of-WAR calculation is helpful.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
Paul. You're wrong. You need to come to terms with that.
The point of the article is that “Projected WAR” is a projection and therefore carries more risk than Historical WAR which is a fact. You cannot use the past salary/WAR ratio to apply to Projected WAR without discounting it.
The only one “mis-citing” this article is you.
WaddellCanseco - December 6, 2009
boom!
goes the dynamite
PL78 - December 6, 2009
This is patently illogical; indeed, it's wrong almost by definition
The price of WAR shown on Fangraphs is the price that was actually paid for WAR.
If teams are in fact “discounting for risk,” then the true price of a hypothetical risk-free 1 WAR upgrade would in fact be significantly MORE than $4.5M a year. And I suppose that could be true, but it doesn’t exist in the real world so there’s no way to measure it. In the real world, teams pay a certain price for free agent talent. We know what that price is. It’s $4.5M as of last offseason.
And risk cuts both ways. Players have the “risk” of overperforming as well as underperforming. A player’s risk profile is going to affect what money he gets— a team that needs 3 WAR to be competitive might give a $6M contract to a player (let’s call him Rich Harden, for simplicity) who projects to give them only 1 WAR because he MIGHT hit 3. They’re “overpaying,” but it makes sense given the risk profile.
It’s possible that teams actually would pay more for a spread of outcomes than a risk-free outcome. Economically unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible, and surely it happens in some edge cases like the Rich Hardens of the world. If that was the case you’d see a “risk premium” and not a “risk discount.”
If the price has gone down this offseason, that’s one thing— every contract looks less favorable if every player is signing for less bucks in a certain offseason. Sometimes a contract that once looked great will look less great, or a contract that looked horrible will come to seem not that bad. But that’s an entirely different issue.
At the very least, 1. it is impossible to state exactly how much money a putative “certain 1 WAR” or “certain 2 WAR” player would receive, and 2. regardless, actual free agents get paid actual wages at the actual rate that people like King Richard use to measure how good a contract is.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
I know what you're saying
but I fail to see how having such variation helps us really do a good projection at all. All we can really say, then, is… he was x value this last season, and is going to have x +/- y value this upcoming season
cuppingmaster - December 7, 2009
No
If a player was x value last season, he’s y +/- z value next season. There’s no inherent connection between x and y (although they are loosely correlated).
The “value” stat is not useful for doing projections. The right way to do a “value projection” is to figure out how many WAR you think someone is worth (on average) using some kind of other projection scheme like CHONE (or “half-assed guessing,” for that matter), and then how many dollars you think an average WAR is going to cost on the free agent market. If the product of those two numbers is less than the size of the contract, it’s a bad deal; if more, it’s a good deal.
PaulThomas - December 7, 2009
Here's the funny part:
Better try again, Dave.
iglew - December 6, 2009
Right
He’s not using it to predict what Tejada will get. He’s saying that’s how much Tejada should have received had he been a FA on a one year deal during each of those years. That is backward looking.
My own post is rather poorly phrased. The way one needs to evaluate a FA signing is calculated his xWAR and then applying the dollar amount conversions (discounting long term contracts and others).
And this is the second time you’ve called me blindly following numbers. Frankly it’s insulting. Just as I assume you’re not a dumbass (I’m sorry if for some reason you think this), please extend me the same courtesy.
vignette17 - December 6, 2009
that was more at King Richard
not you, sorry if you took offense. Thanks for clarifying your phrasing, it makes more sense now.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
Well then,
despite that being the first time you called me “blindly following numbers,” I still don’t appreciate personal insults. Especially after I go to the time to use the most reasonable statistics and methods at hand to predict as best as I have the resources to do what Tejada should be worth on the free agent market, in order to respond to your points.
King Richard - December 6, 2009
how did I insult you personally?
Doesnt seem personally insulting you in the slightest. Its more of a PSA.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
I take "blind faith" as an insult, I guess it's true that many people would not.
King Richard - December 6, 2009
"blind faith" is just faith in Angel Hernandez.
Nico - December 6, 2009
And a sort-of OK late-60's super-group.
Elvez - December 7, 2009
Cream was significantly better.
Leopold Bloom - December 7, 2009
Well, that goes without saying.
As does Derek and the Dominos.
danmerqury - December 7, 2009
As was Delaney & Bonny & Friends...
Elvez - December 7, 2009
Beane still in the market for infield depth
That they were willing to sign scutaro and now mentioning the need for more 3b depth, it obvious A’s are not quite sold on their current SS/3b situation.
Fox trade sealed cust’s future in oakland. They are likely more than willing to give him 3mill, but anything more they’ll non tender or trade him.
If they sign a FA infielder hopefully its not carroll, the only realistic option is tejada IMO. If I were A’s I would not trade away anymore prospect depth and use cust + reliever depth (ziegler or wuertz) to upgrade the IF positions.
MagicMike23 - December 6, 2009
I get sad when people mention trading Wuertz...
He was such an upside to this last season! Every time he came in, I felt, well, so comforted. If set-up guys are the dime-a-dozen everyone seems to think, can’t we just keep ours and dump the other guys? Why not Devine, Ziggy? After Zig’s super-start, he doesn’t give the same sense of security, does he? Your thoughts, please be kind.
paris7 - December 6, 2009
Wuertz is really good, but two things have to be considered
One is inevitable regression — it’s unlikely Wuertz or Bailey will ever have a season quite like 2009. A bigger one (since Wuertz can regress and still be quite good) is that Wuertz is a Calero-like arm injury waiting to happen.
Nico - December 6, 2009
plus, we are the A's
we dont care about relievers, they are literally a dime a dozen and Beane can always find the shiniest dime out there at any time.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
The A's appear to care about relievers
more than they appear to care about shortstops and 3Bmen.
Nico - December 6, 2009
ha!
good (but sad) point.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
Pet peeve coming up
Relievers are not LITERALLY a dime a dozen. What’s the point of using literally in that sentence?
vignette17 - December 6, 2009
If "dime" = "league minimum"
then it rings true.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
Well 12*league minimum per dozen
Still don’t see the need for the word literally in the sentence.
vignette17 - December 6, 2009
its literally the most overused word of the latter part of this decade
literally.
PL78 - December 7, 2009
Because relievers can literally carry a team
If they’re really, really large, of course.
Nico - December 6, 2009
Wuertz is about twice the size of Breslow
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
And they're both ten times the size of Blevins.
danmerqury - December 6, 2009
Wow, that's a MASSIVE difference!
iglew - December 6, 2009
aren't most of the really heavy pitchers starters?
think Sabathia, Wells . . .
maybe we should get elcroata to do an analysis of obese pitchers . . . although hardball times already has done something:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/does-size-matter-part-6/
eastcoasta'sfan - December 6, 2009
dennys reyes sez "morf"
*he would say hi but his mouth is full
PL78 - December 7, 2009
If that's the case,
Broxton says “morf” as well…
rrryanc - December 7, 2009
I'm on the verge of accepting
that “literally” simply does not mean literally anymore (which is to say, hardly anyone uses the word “literally” literally).
It is a special word in that it is commonly used to mean exactly its opposite. I can think of some other phrases like that (eg, “needless to say”, “no pun intended”), but no other single words.
iglew - December 6, 2009
"Frankly"
At least when some people say it!
Nick - December 6, 2009
In my humble opinion, you're both morans.
Irregardless of the circumstances.
Nico - December 6, 2009
Ooh, excellent!
I hadn’t thought of “frankly”. I suppose “with all due respect” belongs in that category, too.
Another phrase: quantum leap. By definition, a quantum leap is the smallest possible increase, but is generally used to indicate a large increase.
With “quantum leap”, “massive”, and “literally”, there is a common theme: a desire for generic emphasis, irrespective of actual meaning of the words.
iglew - December 6, 2009
Shrug. I could care less.
Nico - December 6, 2009
I sorta disagree with you on the quantum leap part
the ‘quantum’ part of quantum physics refers to the fact that measurements of things like charge, spin etc are ‘quantized’; in other words, they are integer multiples of a particular value, and not a continuous range.
Of course, you are correct when you say that it only matters, for the most part, on atomic levels. Though, of course, a light wave with a very low frequency would have a correspondingly large wavelength, and hence a ‘large’ photon packet.
huhhuhhuh. I wrote large packet.
bobnothing - December 6, 2009
I think in order to settle this we really need to ask Scott Bakula
Nico - December 6, 2009
or maybe Ziggy...
DeJay - December 7, 2009
Well, look at it this way.
Suppose an atom absorbs a photon and an electron jumps up to the next quantum state. Could it have possibly jumped less?
iglew - December 6, 2009
I don't know
Whenever I look at it, it doesn’t do that.
Nick - December 6, 2009
You just can't see it
because you’re too drunk on beer.
We call that the “Heineken uncertainty principle”.
iglew - December 6, 2009
Should I be sad or happy I got this joke?
vignette17 - December 6, 2009
yes.
the answer is yes.
Gaijin_Suketto - December 6, 2009
You are either sad or happy,
but which one is not determined until your emotional wave function collapses.
iglew - December 6, 2009
not happy or sad
just uncertain
bobnothing - December 6, 2009
most of that's the beer.
Leopold Bloom - December 7, 2009
well, true
but it could have also jumped two quantum levels, depending on the size of the photon being absorbed.etc
quantum ddoes n ot equal smallest possible
bobnothing - December 6, 2009
Yeah.
I suppose the phrase “quantum leap” should mean “fixed distance” or something similar.
danmerqury - December 6, 2009
I'm pretty sure they just picked a name for the show that sounded cool
and then it’s all gone from there
bobnothing - December 6, 2009
That new show he's on looks okay.
Leopold Bloom - December 7, 2009
Star Trek?
bobnothing - December 7, 2009
men of a certain age
Leopold Bloom - December 7, 2009
I'm with bobnothing
Quantum leap is definitely an imprecise use of the term quantum, but I think the main thing that people are going for is the idea that a quantum step is finite, rather than infinitesimal. So while everyone else is inching along the number line of all rationals, the quantum leaper happily jumps from integer to integer.
colin - December 6, 2009
....
did you think about these things more or less when you were in South America?
Leopold Bloom - December 7, 2009
"No offense, but..." is another phrase like the ones you mentioned
Nick - December 6, 2009
I think people really mean that one.
There’s this weird belief that saying “no offense” gives you a free pass, kind of like crossing your fingers behind your back makes it OK to lie or break a promise.
—No offense, but you’re a dick.
—Hey! Don’t insult me.
—What? I said “no offense”.
iglew - December 6, 2009
And then Billy Beane overhears and says,
“No offense? OK, I can see to that.”
Yes, folks — the past 3 years have just all been a misunderstanding.
Nico - December 6, 2009
NO DISRESPECT
signed,
Bill Parcells
mikev - December 6, 2009
I'm confused
What does having no offense have to do with him being a dick?
DMOAS - December 6, 2009
Wait.
What does being a private detective have to do with not being able to score runs?
Nico - December 6, 2009
This is what I'm saying.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Sure as hell has nothing to do with offense.
DMOAS - December 6, 2009
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to make cents off your dick.
Leopold Bloom - December 7, 2009
twts
(that’s what tiger said)
eastcoasta'sfan - December 11, 2009
Quantum leap
indicates a step change. Quanta is a discrete amount. It doesn’t have to be small. So gradual improvement is smooth, whereas a quantum leap is a sudden jump in improvement.
the word quantum indicates nothing about size of the quanta
ohmangoAs - December 6, 2009
So tell me about penum leap.
I have new-found hope.
Nico - December 6, 2009
Huh?
One says that something is “needless to say” when it is extremely obvious. That’s not the opposite— the opposite would be something which needs to be said; i.e. it’s hidden or not obvious or taboo.
One says “no pun intended” when one makes an inadvertent pun which is not intended. It means exactly what it says.
Both of those are fairly straightforward phrases. Of course they can be used sarcastically or ironically, but any word or phrase can be used that way.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
This has nothing to do with winter meetings.
mikev - December 6, 2009
needless to say.
Nico - December 6, 2009
did we trade for Pooholes and Lincecum yet??
Sorry I’ve been in Dizzneyland for a week
mikev - December 6, 2009
If you see a huge mouse, shoot first and ask questions later.
Nico - December 6, 2009
I didn't do that
but I DID take a picture of myself giving the bird to Angel Stadium in Thousand Oaks
mikev - December 6, 2009
next best thing...
Gaijin_Suketto - December 6, 2009
please post
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
didn't come out as well as I'd hoped. the truck sorta got in the way :(
mikev - December 6, 2009
awesome
it’s the thought that counts
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
Are you, um, driving?
Leopold Bloom - December 7, 2009
Not likely on the 57.
Prolly waiting in traffic.
Future Ed - December 7, 2009
Sure, and one says "literally" when
one actually intends the literal meaning of a phrase instead of the metaphoric or idiomatic one. That’s the correct usage, but in actual fact people routinely use it wrong.
Similarly, people routinely say “no pun intended” when it’s damn well obvious that they did intend the pun. Similarly, people routinely attach “needless to say” to something that really did need to be said. (And if it truly is needless to say, then don’t say it.)
None of these are sarcastic or ironic; they are just wrong. But they’re wrong so often that soon they will be considered right, sort of like “could care less” and “massive”.
iglew - December 6, 2009
I don't get that with "no pun intended" at all
The vast majority of the times I hear it, it’s being (correctly) used in reaction to an unintentional pun. I’ve even seen deliberate jokes referred to as “pun intended” many times.
“Needless to say” is such a verbal nothing that I don’t really even notice it most of the time, so maybe people really are repeatedly misusing it, but if so, I apparently don’t care.
PaulThomas - December 7, 2009
Ah, OK. It sounds like you and I are
interpreting “intentional” differently. To me an unintentional pun is one you don’t realize you’re making. If a pun is truly unintentional then how would you know to flag it?
If you write an unwanted pun then notice it afterward, you can either edit your sentence to remove the pun, or you can decide to leave it in and append “no pun intended”. But if you make the latter choice, you’re not really saying the pun is unintended; you’re really saying “I hadn’t thought of this pun originally, but now that I see it, I’ll leave it there and even point at it for you”.
Even that is generous, I think, because it assumes that people are actually going back and editing their sentence after they write it. I think most poster just write as they think, in which case any time they write “no pun intended” they know the pun is there even before they write it.
iglew - December 7, 2009
I can see you haven't taken first-year Criminal Law :p
In some circumstances, the difference between intentional action and merely “knowing” action is actually quite large.
If one makes a pun knowingly but not intentionally, the phrase “no pun intended” would be appropriate…
PaulThomas - December 7, 2009
I am familiar with the difference in law.
I just wouldn’t apply it here. But I can see how you might.
I’m probably influenced by my years as a copy editor, where we are trained to purge verbal tics like these.
iglew - December 7, 2009
I think most times people say "no pun intended,"
it shows they are aware of the pun as they make it. Thus, the pun is intended.
Nico - December 7, 2009
No, that's the point of the distinction
The difference between intent and knowledge is that intent requires action with a conscious objective (i.e. I put this pun in my post because I want there to be a pun there) whereas knowledge only requires awareness of the situation (I see there’s a pun in my post, gee, well, didn’t mean to put it there but it’s sorta amusing, so I’m not going to bother taking it out— guess I’ll write “no pun intended”).
I suppose if we really wanted to get ridiculous we could have reckless and negligent puns too…
PaulThomas - December 7, 2009
I prefer to think of the puns that are prefaced with "no pun intended"
as being “reasonably foreseeable.”
Nico - December 7, 2009
Dude, you crack me up.
You’re treating this whole thing as if a pun constitutes criminal activity.
Even if we go by this silly standard, I still think you have it backward. If I say “(no murder intended)” as I hand you a cup of tea laced with cyanide, surely my comment demonstrates the presence of mens rea, not its absence.
iglew - December 7, 2009
Speaking of which,
with the season over, I need a new sigline. I think you’ll like it…
PaulThomas - December 7, 2009
:-)
iglew - December 7, 2009
Thanks, Nico!
That will make the loss a bit it easier to take when it inevitably comes. I didn’t know about the injury-proneness. And it makes me wonder, among all the SP options, whether some will be unable to sustain the SP role and will be serviceable relievers. That would increase the shiny dimes we already have in pocket.
paris7 - December 6, 2009
You missed the most important one...
He’s only under control for 2 more years and is in arbitration for both of them.
Ziegler and Bailey have 2 more years at slave wages and 3 more in arb; even Devine was only a Super Two this season and barely got a raise at all anyway, so he’s almost starting from zero when his three “real” arbitration years start next offseason.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
"We must consider two things:
He’ll regress and he could get injured. And he’s eligible for arbitra — Three things! …"
Nico - December 6, 2009
aha! Climate Change as dirived from human action is a myth!
bobnothing - December 6, 2009
Referring to $400K+ as "slave wages" always makes me giggle.
UncleLeo - December 6, 2009
srsly.
mikev - December 6, 2009
I'm waiting for someone to trot out the phrase "relative slave wages".
danmerqury - December 6, 2009
If my slave wages were relatively half that
I’d be a very happy slave.
DMOAS - December 6, 2009
depends upon the work.
Leopold Bloom - December 7, 2009
Injury...
Really good point. Wuertz was over-used in 2009. I think it would be very surprising if he didn’t wind up injured some time during 2010. He’s the perfect example of sell-high on the A’s right now (if you don’t count Rajai Davis, and I don’t).
richwol1 - December 6, 2009
The way he was overused in the first half,
while being such an integral part of the bullpen’s success, it almost seemed like the A’s didn’t intend to have him long-term. If they intend to keep Wuertz through 2011 then they did a pretty lousy job of protecting his long-term health.
Nico - December 6, 2009
"Fox trade sealed cust’s future in oakland."
(Insert obligatory Fox is not even close to being as good as Cust is with the bat, the A’s would be stupid to replace Cust with Fox rant here)
lenscrafters - December 6, 2009
BTW, regarding Cust, correct me if I'm wrong:
If the A’s non-tender Cust they can still sign him for any amount, correct? Perhaps that’s the A’s thinking if they don’t settle before arbitration — that he’s not worth as much as he’ll get in arbitration but that Oakland can still make the best “FA” offer to keep him at $2-3mil.
Nico - December 6, 2009
I think they did that the last time they signed Calero
of course I guess there’s a risk that someone else will offer more money to Cust.
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
I'll take that risk
Don’t see a lot of teams beating down the door to get to Cust.
worldblee - December 6, 2009
Im with you
Unless a team wants to play him in LF, how many DH spots are even available now? Detroit?
PL78 - December 6, 2009
Cust is better than the current DHs for...
…LAA, SEA, TEX, KC, NYY, TB, and TOR, and most importantly OAK. He’s arguably better than the DHs for BOS, MIN, and CLE as well. Of course, there’s a lot of good hitting FAs out there right now, but they haven’t signed yet. Frankly, I could see a place on almost every AL team for Cust and it would help the current incarnation of each club.
vignette17 - December 6, 2009
well I didnt ask if he was better than
I was asking about open spots. You assume Matsui+Vlad will get 2 open ones, what jobs are even out there for a no glove DH?
Im thinking a team will put him in LF and not worry about the D, it works for Bay, Manny, Ibanez etc.
PL78 - December 7, 2009
yes
if the A’s non-tender him, they become equal with every other team on the FA market and can sign him if they so desire. As others have said, Cust is probably worth keeping around at a lower amount, if only because he has shown an ability to stay healthy and produce at the Coliseum and in the AL West. However, Jack would also fit in well on a lot of other teams, who might be willing to give him a bit more money (or Cust might want to go to a hitter-friendly park for a year or two to pad his stats for a big final contract).
MaineAthletic - December 6, 2009
a bit more money?
A lot more money, I suspect. For a team that needs a DH or “a guy that can hold a glove and pretend” in the outfield and hit for power, he’s perfect. I’m sure he’ll also do at least marginally better playing 81 games in somewhere that isn’t the Coli.
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
not necessarily
Petco Park, ATT Park, and Citi Field — to name three – are not more HR friendly than the Coliseum, and in fact may be less friendly. I would also argue that there are several more ballparks as well that wouldn’t necessarily help him.
What would help Cust is being in a lineup with more power threats.
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
I'm just saying that MOST places are better than the Coli for power hitters
But you’re right, him not being THE guy in the lineup for power would help him, as well. See Holliday, Matt.
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
No it wouldn't, see every lineup study ever conducted
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
Raiders' game is having an amazing fourth quarter
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
OMFG
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
No kidding
Always love me some Stiller FAIL.
doctorK - December 6, 2009
Awesome win!
lynnzgal - December 6, 2009
DH by committee options
They aren’t lacking any potential choices. It depends on how much drop off they have with a $4-5 mill Cust to a couple league minimum players on offense. Also would they even be able to find a comparable hitter to Cust if that money is reinvested in free agency or taking on another contract through following trades.
1. Fox
2. Chavez (To keep him healthy and gt-et any remaining value out of him)
3.Powell and/or Everidge- a platoon wouldnt be a terrible idea (Also depends if the catching position and if they are willing to give powell more AB’s)
4. Use of the extra OF as DH. Depnding on how many OF’s on the roster. On games they decided to have Patterson, Buck,or Cunningham in LF. Hairston can DH.
5. The A’s seem committed to give their next wave of hitting prospects in 2010 a chance. Depending on the use of a Wallace, Carter, or Doolittle. It might push Barton to some AB’s at DH.
6. Outside chance that McPherson turns his terrible health track record and great minor league stats into an opportunity
MagicMike23 - December 6, 2009
Basically all of these guys are below replacement level at DH
with the possible exception of Fox. And I guess Barton, but it would be patently idiotic to put him at DH and a worse fielder at 1B.
PaulThomas - December 6, 2009
I kind of hope we just sign Troy Glaus and Carlos Delgado
Rather than trading for Uggla or something bad like that, you gotta figure one of these 2 will come back strong and give us another Big Hurt in 06-type year. It sucks SO much Glaus cant play 3B anymore, his defense was actually not bad, not gold glove but not hurting you either. He would have been exactly what we need.
An outside the box thought: put Glaus in LF against righties?
PL78 - December 6, 2009
It's an interesting thought but I'm not sure he has the mobility
I think the most you could hope for from Glaus is to play 3B against LHP and maybe DH against RHP (which doesn’t make sense if you keep Cust).
Nico - December 6, 2009
oh, im working off Cust not being around
1B: Glaus
2B: Ellis
SS: Pennington
3B: Chavez
C: Suzuki
LF: Hairston
CF: Davis
RF: Sweeney
DH: Delgado
Bench: Barton, Powell, Patterson, Fox.
Barton would get a lot of PT as Glaus+Delgado would get rested a lot. Has anyone ever asked if Barton is mobile enough to hold down LF? Anyway, I dont think thats too bad a team.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
If the A's do trade Cust (or nontender him), then signing one of Glaus/Delgado makes sense.
But signing both and relegating Barton to the bench in a thoroughly non-contending year doesn’t make any sense.
lenscrafters - December 6, 2009
that is true
it also doesnt make sense to have a lefty-masher/righty whiffer on the team in LF.
PL78 - December 6, 2009
Big difference between Delgado and Cust recently: health
Nick - December 6, 2009
Delgado is about to start playing winter baseball in Puerto Rico
the Mets are likely to try to sign him for one year, if this winter he looks like he’s healthy again.
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
another thought: why are we so self-involved right now?
The Mariners look like theyre going for broke and if they stack themselves with Bay, Lackey & Figgins they will be deadly. The Rangers are one step ahead of us in rebuilding and are going to be better, LAA you can never count out either, my question to AN is: is competing even going to be an option this year?
PL78 - December 6, 2009
Probably not
The A’s are probably at high 70s wins now. To have a good chance at competing the A’s need another ~10 wins. It’s very unlikely the A’s do that.
vignette17 - December 6, 2009
Unless we make some big trades or signings
I agree with that. I’m not looking to win the division. Just be around .500.
worldblee - December 6, 2009
I think I wrote something at the beginning of the season about expectations, and the like
but essentially, in a non competing year, all I ask is that I can buy a ticket for a game in the knowledge that there’s a roughly 50% chance they’ll win. I’ll watch games on tv, regardless, but 500 at home is what I’m after.
bobnothing - December 6, 2009
what about picking up Marte...or Peralta?
who does Cleveland have manning the hot corner – Perralta? I know he’s not played well at all in any of the opportunities he’s had, but he’s still relatively young, and I think a decent defender.
from MLB site:
The 26-year-old Marte might have done so, as he hit .327 with 18 homers, 66 RBIs and a .963 OPS in 82 games for Columbus. He was the International League player of the month for July, when he hit .385 with nine homers and 24 RBIs.
What’s Cleveland in the market for that we can afford to give up? FWIW, Peralta might be available as well, is only a year older than Marte, and while he’s getting 4.6m, had a bad year last year, so might be buying lower than usual..
catfish hunter - December 6, 2009
Cust - Sign the Guy..
Cust is Billy typical player- buy him low, hits HRs and walks a ton…so we trade for Jake Fox who hasn’t proven a thing and want to trade Cust who hits in the middle of our horrible offense – stupid! The only way I would think about trading him is if we get a “can’t miss prospect” and I doubt Billy can fetch that.
We spent 2+ on Russ springer last year
1.8 for Miles, regardless if it was for Mr MVP Jake Fox
4+ for “gettin’ the band back together” for Giambi
and we can’t spend 4.5-5 Million for Cust -Cheap!
ryanmoser - December 6, 2009
Mmmmm
Fat Apples. Bring on the ollalieberry jam!
ChickenStanley - December 6, 2009
Sort of OT: At least we don't have Ozzie determining who's the DH
This is good for a hearty laugh:
Omar Vizquel would automatically rival Yuniesky Betancourt for worst regular in the majors if he was used as the DH.
Sometimes I’m amazed at how inept and clueless Ozzie is….but then I look at my sig.
lenscrafters - December 6, 2009
When I'm looking for a DH,
I generally start with my Hall of Fame fielders and then go from there.
Nico - December 6, 2009
If you don't care about wins in 2010 and use it just as an audition year for 2011, I can
see using DH to give ABs to Buck, Cunningham and Fox, and later Carter, Wallace and Doolittle.
Another way to spend Cust’s salary would be to get a real 3B, or on Chapman. I hope they do one of those.
WaddellCanseco - December 6, 2009
Except that a real 3B or Chapman will likely be a whole bunch more money than Cust would get
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
Brandon Inge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is all.
Nico - December 6, 2009
Between him and Cust we will DOMINATE the SO catagory, Woot- Go A's!
brian.only - December 6, 2009
YES!!!
OaklandSi - December 6, 2009
you got me excited for a second there
thought we had acquired him
cuppingmaster - December 6, 2009
On MLB network's Classic Games right now: Nolan Ryan's 7th no-hitter (against the Blue Jays in '91)
Nick - December 6, 2009
i say keep cust
cust/fox/chavez if healthy/ is a nice 3-4-5 lineup but, but maybe look what is out there. cust has alot of intrest from the mariners and the mets. the coach of the mariners is always looking at the a’s because he knows them and coached them.
sports with steve - December 6, 2009
Timeout
How do Cust, Fox and Chavez get in the lineup together?
Rated-R Superstar - December 7, 2009
Duh.
RF Cust
3B Fox
DL Chavez
danmerqury - December 7, 2009
Ah
I knew it wouldn’t be possible without the outfield or the disabled list.
Rated-R Superstar - December 7, 2009
1B: Chavez
3B: Fox
DH: Cust
PL78 - December 7, 2009
Garrett Atkins
The A’s are talking with Colorado, according to one of the rumor sites. Dude had a crap year in 2009, but was very good before that. This is the last year of his contract. (2009 salary: $7M)
Question: What would the A’s give up, and would it be worth it for one year? I’m thinking minimum Barton + Ziggy.
richwol1 - December 7, 2009
He was merely league-average in 2008 as well.
His BABIP was crazy low this year, but it was fine in 2008, and that worries me. Add in the fact that UZR rates his 3B defense anywhere from below-average to horrible, he’s moving into the stronger league, and his contract situation. I like the idea of picking him up as a show-us-you’ve-still-got-it project (his wOBA in 2006 was north of .400!) but not for Barton + Ziggy + $7MM.
danmerqury - December 7, 2009
No hit outside coors
If he can’t cut it with the rockies he will never make it in the AL. No defense too. Wallace is better at third than this guy.
Arcman - December 7, 2009
All that stuff people said about Holliday being a product of Coors Field?
That’s all actually true about Atkins.
Pass.
mikev - December 7, 2009
pardon me
while I throw up. That guy is finished as a big leaguer, he had his 3-good-years-at-Coors now he cant even hit there and is a shockingly bad defender.
PL78 - December 7, 2009
Wha...
bbbhrharhrha?
Garrett Atkins has negative value. A team assuming his contract should be getting value back from Colorado.
PaulThomas - December 7, 2009
Fair Enough
I read the rumor, quickly looked at Atkins’ stats and figured he was worth quite a bit. But obviously not. Thanks, folks, for the info.
richwol1 - December 7, 2009
So which "dumb ass" GMs are looking to cut payroll?
Ned Colletti (allegedly)
Derr-ton Moore
Walt Jocketty (a former A’s victim no less)
Go for the jugular Billy!!!!one
Daniel777 - December 7, 2009
This is as good an excuse as any
to link the the greatest LL post of all time. It’s three years out of date now, but still awesome.
iglew - December 7, 2009
Classic
grover - December 7, 2009
Brilliant
brian.only - December 7, 2009
I laughed. I cried. I blogged. I laughed again. Then I made a sandwich.
Nico - December 7, 2009
Duke declined arbitration
per rotoworld.
Bye Duke. Thanks for the memories.
mikev - December 7, 2009
That was as expected
The A’s might still sign him.
richwol1 - December 7, 2009
And lose a draft pick to the Oaklands??
I don’t think its worth it.
Future Ed - December 7, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.