A's rebuilding

by NYSOX on Jan 3, 2008 3:45 PM EST

If the A's continue with there rebuild and deal Blanton, Street and Ellis..what teams could have interest and what could the A's take possibly be. Will it be the usual contenders(Boston, NY teams,or will some other dark horse teams step up?maybe someone like Tampa makes a run at Street or the Reds at Blanton??

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I have a hard time seeing either of them

being fits.

I dont see Tampa giving up what Beane would want for Street, and same for Reds.

If the Reds arent giving up Bruce/Cueto for Bedard, I dont see it happening for Blanton.

Id love to see Cincy get involved though, because if I were Beane, Id accept the Bailey/Votto/3rd piece, package in a heartbeat. And Blanton makes Cincy really good.

by Roo @ Minor League Ball on Jan 3, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply actions

Reds...

I dont think The A's could reasonably think they could get Bruce for Blanton..maybe Bailey and Stubbs. As far as Street...lots of teams could use him..but its hard to judge his worth..He should fetch more the Valvarde.

by NYSOX on Jan 3, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

Blanton

I don't think Billy Beane will ever trade another pitcher to the Reds. Instead of lauding him for his genius and how he got "3 years of Haren" for Mulder, how about someone says "who cares?" What did those three years of Haren get them? Nothing but more rebuilding. Maybe if he didn't deal Aaron Harang for Jose Guillen a few years ago, it would have meant something. It isn't all about a lack of money. Billy's made his share of big mistakes too.

Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 3:42 PM EST reply actions

I would like to add

before someone jumps on me about it, I realize full well that Barton was also in the Mulder deal, and think the world of him. =)

Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 3:43 PM EST up reply actions

response

the 3 years of Haren got him a ridiculous amount of more value than the 3 years mulder would have provided...thats all that matters in the mini-world of that trade

by nyybaseball99 on Jan 3, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

Mulder

If you look at the Mulder trade in a vacuum, it was a good deal for the A's, but the net of all of Billy's trades in the last few years has been a deterioration in talent. We'll see if the current trades work out any better.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 3:56 PM EST up reply actions

re: mulder

i wasnt necessarily trying to say beane was a god and has never made a mistake...i was only trying to argue against the idea that the mulder trade got him nothing but more rebuilding 3 years later

by nyybaseball99 on Jan 3, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions

quit saying that

but the net of all of Billy's trades in the last few years has been a deterioration in talent.

seriously, get off the horse. your credibility on anything related to the A's or beane is nearly gone.

the A's have less talent than they did 5 years ago because the A's of the early 2000's happened to have an incredible nucleus of talent converging in one place at one time. (and yes, some of that is because of alderson, but a lot of it has to do with beane too.) even with vast financial resources it would have been hard to keep that together, and the A's do not have vast financial resources.

by jpahk on Jan 3, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah I Know

Everything that Alderson and Fuson did for the A's was good luck and everything Billy's done since is bad luck.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

For Chrissakes...

All of your sentiments on the A's lavish false praise, aim to undermine any praise-worthy merits and just ooze schadenfreude.

by okteds on Jan 3, 2008 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

Schadenfreude

Hey, after reading for the last 5 years, over and over again, that Billy Beane can do no wrong, is the best GM in the history of baseball, "well, it must be a good trade for Oakland, Billy Beane made it", etc, yes, it's somewhat rewarding to see my oft ridiculed predictions come to pass.

by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 3, 2008 9:13 PM EST up reply actions

They did make it to the ALCS in 2006...

It's not like they sucked the whole time Haren was there.

by patsfan @ Minor League Ball on Jan 3, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

wait

wasnt the Mulder/ Haren trade to St. Louis??

#269

by mrmetaa on Jan 3, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions

re

Harang is one of the better examples of the NL being a joke for the last few years

http://www.as-future.blogspot.com/

by blee1134 on Jan 3, 2008 3:44 PM EST reply actions

I disagree

Harang throws hard and throws strikes. Not enough guys out there that do it as consistently as he does. And he's quite large too. Dude's a horse.

Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions

re

I agree that he's a horse. He's a guy I'd love to have on my team, even in the AL. But that trade is hardly something to chastise Beane over. Harang has been MUCH better in the NL than he was as a 23 year old in AA. I have trouble faulting Beane for not seeing that coming

http://www.as-future.blogspot.com/

by blee1134 on Jan 3, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions

-1

It's posts like this one that are the real joke. Mahalo

Matt

I am one of the bad things that happen to good people.

by WayneCampbell05 on Jan 3, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions

re

So you felt his minor league numbers, and his A's numbers, suggested a 200 K pitcher? Have you not noticed the NL is shockingly void of talent?

http://www.as-future.blogspot.com/

by blee1134 on Jan 3, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions

Worse Yet

"Void of talent?" Your comments are getting dumber. And take a look at Tim Hudson's minor league record and tell me where you see any sign that he would become as good as he did become in Oakland.

by CanuckDodger on Jan 3, 2008 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

Yes

I have not. There is just as much talent in the NL as there is in the AL. 90% of the best players in the AL are concentrated in 4-5 teams so it gives the appearance of dominance. There are also 2 more teams in the NL so that spreads out the best NL players even further. I know nothing about Harang's minor league numbers, nor do I wish to look them up though it would be simplicity in of itself. My comment was directed at your assertation that the NL is a joke and devoid at talent. Keep drinking your AL juice buddy. You're missing alot of great baseball on the other side of town. Mahalo

Matt

I am one of the bad things that happen to good people.

by WayneCampbell05 on Jan 3, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions

NL is clearly weaker

Obviously, it's not devoid of talent, but the best in the AL are clearly better than the best in the NL, and it's no accident that when pitchers move from the AL to the NL their numbers dramatically improve

From 2000 through 2005, 57 starting pitchers (those with at least 20 starts that season) switched leagues the next year -- 29 to the N.L. from the A.L. and 28 in the other direction. Their statistics moved with them: Combined ERA for the new National Leaguers decreased to 3.94 from 4.79, or 0.85 of a run, while their counterparts' increased to 4.64 from 3.94, a move of 0.70.

In the 2007 interleague games, the AL scored nearly 200 more runs and had an ERA that was .32 lower.

I'd cite the stats for the previous few years as well but MLB.com is crapping out.

I don't know if you were taking issue with the "no talent" hyperbole, or if you are denying that the NL is significantly weaker than the AL. While there's obviously talent in both leagues, the NL is much weaker than the AL.

by Galt on Jan 3, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions

more accurately

to remove the "obviously their ERAs go up/down, there's the difference of the DH" argument.

moving to the AL made a pitcher's ERA+ go down from 113 to 100, and moving from the AL to the NL made a pitcher's ERA+ go up from 97 to 110

The fact that the AL is better on both offense and defense in interleague games also removes the "but it's the DH" argument since in interleague games the DH is normalized.

by Galt on Jan 3, 2008 6:33 PM EST up reply actions

LOL So what you are really saying is...

Because the "better" AL pitchers became NL pitchers, the NL improved? Or are the worse AL pitchers in the NL, now causing the NL to become even weaker? Or are you saying that because the NL and AL pitchers ERA+ values both changed by 13 that these are the same pitchers who moved, and then moved back? Why don't you use a simple stat, like the AL teams won 24 games more in interleague play?

by Yoda @ Minor League Ball on Jan 3, 2008 6:55 PM EST up reply actions

because

simple stats (like batting average) don't tell the story.

18 pitchers moving between leagues isn't nearly significant enough to move the overall averages. That's about 12% of the innings.

I'll make it simple. If an AL pitcher, any AL pitcher, moves to the NL, the odds are highly likely that his ERA+ (ERA compared to league average) will be better in the NL than it was in the AL.

by Galt on Jan 3, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions

Haha

"There are also 2 more teams in the NL so that spreads out the best NL players even further."

Are you serious? How does having two extra teams spread the talent out thinner? Isnt that about a 100 million worth of extra players to add to the NL's comparative talent total? What does this mean?

Regardless, the premium talent is clearly concentrated in the American League. This doesnt make the NL any less entertaining or any worse off, but most of the best players and the top 5 teams or so are all in the AL right now. That can change quickly though, too. I think youre the only one arguing this point. There is clearly not "just as much talent in the NL as there is in the AL" though by any measure.

"90% of the best players in the AL are concentrated in 4-5 teams so it gives the appearance of dominance."

If the Jays played in the NL Central in 07 they probably would have won it. Mariners too. Possibly the Twins as well.

by alskor on Jan 4, 2008 4:06 AM EST up reply actions

Harang

The AL may be the stronger league right now, but the idiotic comments of fans of AL teams about the NL being a "joke" sound foolish when you see Barry Zito looking really mediocre in the NL after performing better in the AL. And of course Mulder really distinguished himself in the NL, didn't he? Of course, I'm open to considering that Zito and Mulder's abilities simply diminished after moving to the AL, but that also means considering that Harang's abilities may have improved after he was traded by Oakland -- something you don't consider.

by CanuckDodger on Jan 3, 2008 5:50 PM EST up reply actions

re

You mean, of hundreds and hundreds of players, you were able to find exceptions?

Thanks for putting me in my place

http://www.as-future.blogspot.com/

by blee1134 on Jan 3, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry

but any effect the NL would have in your mind on what Harang has done the past few years should be completely negated by the home park he pitches in. I will not call him a product of the NL having less talent than the AL. He's one of the top 15 SPs in baseball to me.

Carlos Gonzalez--I liked him better when it was Gonzales.

by PujolsJunkie on Jan 3, 2008 6:01 PM EST up reply actions

Zito

Wasnt that great a pitcher in the AL! He was a product of his ballpark. His periphs had been dropping for years.

by alskor on Jan 4, 2008 4:07 AM EST up reply actions

Blanton

i could see the reds/mets still be in the mix. maybe even braves. but never expected swisher to white sox so some team m ight come out of nowhere so who knows

reds have the pieces to get blanton, it depends on whatsm given up

by rayver723 on Jan 3, 2008 3:45 PM EST reply actions

Blanton or Street

Who will be next to go and who will bring more in return to the A's?

by RandyKutcherHair on Jan 3, 2008 5:19 PM EST reply actions

Blanton + Street

To the Reds for Bruce, Bailey, Frazier, Soto etc. Similar to the Marlins Tigers trade.

by niallmack on Jan 3, 2008 6:19 PM EST reply actions

Seriously?

Soto and Frazier can't even be dealt until the middle of next summer and I think you'll struggle to find a single player in baseball that the Reds would trade Bruce for right now, much less giving up Bruce and Bailey in the same deal.

by Geki on Jan 3, 2008 8:18 PM EST up reply actions

Don't know what to say

I think I'll just say that if you think Blanton AND Street have mearly as much value as Miguel Cabrera ALONE, then you are sadly mistaken. Then, take into account that Bruce >> Maybin, Bailey > Miller, etc., I have no idea what the similarities between those 2 deals would be.

by jc3 on Jan 4, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions