As Aquire Matt Holliday
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/11/10/heyman.holliday/index.html
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/11/as-acquire-matt.html
It appears the package is outfielder Carlos Gonzalez, starting pitcher Greg Smith and reliever Huston Street.
I'm not sure I like it for the As, but I do believe they could get more for him at the trade deadline a la Teixeria. If they just get two picks out of it, then that isn't horrible either.
More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!
3 recs |
165 comments
Comments
Can I possibly get some more?
As we hear about it.
by sourstuff on
Nov 10, 2008 2:38 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
More as we hear about it!!
More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!More as we hear about it!!
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on
Nov 10, 2008 2:49 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Better thank FILLER tho!
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on
Nov 10, 2008 2:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sadly....
I think this kill’s Holliday’s value as a fantasy player. He’s still be a nice guy to have but I can’t see him continuing to be elite. I sure hope I’m wrong.
by psugator on
Nov 10, 2008 2:44 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
+1
And he’ll likely run less in the A’s system.
Only hope for fantasy owners is that this is just a waystation for Holliday, either later this offseason or by July 31st.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 2:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
SB's are possible in Oakland
They may not steal as much as most, but I think there’ s a misperception about Oakland that they don’t steal any bases.
Eric Patterson stole 8 bases in only 30 games with them, Mark Ellis stole 14, Ryan Sweeney had 9 and the “great” Rajai Davis swiped 25.
I think Holliday will still steal 20 or so with Oakland.
I think the key is that Oakland wants runners to steal at a high safe percentage, which Holliday has shown he can (63-for-77 in last four years including 28-of-30 last year).
He may never steal 28 again, but I think 20 is fine.
Also, I do believe his overall numbers will drop, but he’ll still be a top 5-10 fantasy OF.
by joltinjoe on
Nov 10, 2008 6:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good point
You could be right about Holliday’s SB total. We’ll have to wait and see (or maybe not, if he gets flipped), but perhaps Holliday gets to 20 SBs.
Still, that would surprise me. Your point about the 2008 A’s is very valid. However, looking back to 2007, the lack of SBs is striking. Stewart “led” the team with 11 (against 3 CS), and Bobby Crosby was the only other person in double digits. In 2006, Kendall had 11 and Bradley (in partial time) had 10. And, of course, anyone who owned Damon in a fantasy league during his stint with the A’s remembers his devastating drop in SBs.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 8:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well
during damon’s time with the A’s, they actually had guys who would walk and hit home runs. if the batter is going to do either of those things, stealing doesn’t help at all, so you better not get caught. the current A’s team only hits singles, so SBs are much more helpful, and i think the A’s realize that. the speedsters that they do have generally have the green light.
by jpahk on
Nov 11, 2008 11:08 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that's just ignorant
people still get a lot more singles and doubles than homeruns, most managers don’t just completely pull back the reigns on basestealers because they know they are going to hit a homerun and the chance of that is so much that the risk of an attempted steal should not be taken
the yankees hit tons of homeruns under Joe Torre and they ran like hell too, look at their SB totals the last few years and how guys like abreu, arod, etc dropped off a lot this year
it’s the manager for sure, but i promise if that manager really thinks a homerun is coming he’s either a moron or his team should win 150 games
by IHateMitchMustain on
Nov 11, 2008 1:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
2008 baseball is a lower run environment than 2001 baseball
This lowers the break-even point for steals. That could explain the A’s being more willing to run now.
by thejd44 on
Nov 11, 2008 4:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bob Geren
is the ne manager for the team and he like to run. Now that the A’s has good base runners, he’s letting them run more.
I think that Rajai Davis had the most SBs ever for the number of ABs that he had last season. Geren knows that Oakland has to generate more runs, such as good base running, and stealing more bases. I think the A’s had the fewest runs scored in the AL last year, so any change would be welcomed.
by green_and_gold on
Nov 11, 2008 6:23 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Willie Wilson
1978 Willie had 46 SB’s in 198 AB’s…
Rajai’s total is good, but not close to the all-time record.
If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments.
by kings33 on
Nov 18, 2008 12:51 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
-1
holliday is a terrific hitter regardless. many said the same thing when soriano left texas to play in washington.
furthermore, holliday was an .890 OPS player on the road. i’d say that’s pretty darn good while also considering most players perform better in their home park.
besides, this is only a 1 year stop at best. he’ll be fine.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on
Nov 10, 2008 4:51 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A's Payroll is down 40mil from what it was...
The A’s have money to spend if they so choose to. Now will they? Im not sure. But they could if the wanted to.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
by Syphon on
Nov 10, 2008 4:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree Syphon
The A’s have the money to re-sign Holliday, I just HIGHLY doubt it happens.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on
Nov 11, 2008 12:12 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chavez/Crosby are gone next year
and that will free up 17 million. Throw in 3 more a year, at most, and you get Matt Holliday locked down for years.
by green_and_gold on
Nov 11, 2008 6:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chavez is under contract till 2011...
With 2011 Being an option year. So unless hes traded hes here till 2010 at the very least.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
by Syphon on
Nov 11, 2008 6:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Posted this on Athletics Nation, might as well get some thoughts here...
To sign, trade or let him walk: the five complicated options the Athletics have for No. 5.
Now that this appears final, what does the future hold for Matt Holliday? Better yet, where does his future lay beyond 2009?
I’m of the school of thought, with time in mind and having given up our finest positional prospect and sold low on Street, that for us to get our maximum value, we need to extend Holliday well into our Fremont years. Even with salary flexibility, that won’t be easy.
First off, I’m reluctant to believe Boras will accept a pre-FA extension. For Holliday to get his max return, I think Boras will demand that he tests the market, even if we offered 6/125 tomorrow.
While I enjoy hearing that foremost on Holliday’s demands is playing for a perennial contender, which I think we’ll be by 2010. However, that doesn’t mean Boras will allow his client to settle for a dollar short of his maximum on his biggest pay day, or that Holliday will allow that, for that matter.
Ignoring the idea that we could have kept Carlos and ponied up for Holliday a year from now, which I don’t think is necessarily true, that leaves us with five options:
1) Extend Holliday before 2009, which may already be in the works.
2) Sign Furcal and/or Blake short term, show No. 5 we want to contend starting now, and perhaps sign him long term.
3) Trade him before 2009, which, if we know Billy Beane, may soon be in the works.
4) Trade him before the July deadline, which may sadly be the most likely.
5) Keep him through 2009, try to contend and let him walk, probably netting two first round picks.
I’m obviously in favor of option one, even if it requires us throw him 20 mil a year. If we expect to contend for a World Series, we haven’t the offensive firepower to do so without breaking the bank for a Grade A bat. Without that bat on the way, the unfortunate reality is that the only way we can even sign a star is to trade for him first, let him be happy in the Bay Area knowing we’ll be an annual contender and make him want to spend the prime of his career here. In the best case scenario, this is what happens.
Option two is really rolling the dice, both in the short and long term. Yes, A’s fans might wish we would binge on more FA’s and contend in 2009, but, for one, there’s no saying it would work. Two, there’s no saying this would keep Holliday in town beyond this year. Sure, while we could do this and also get draft picks at year’s end, Holliday should be our top priority, not Rafael Furcal, Casey Blake, Giambi, Dunn or anyone else.
I look at options three and four as running in place and possibly improving to an extent. Sure, we could theoretically net a better return on Holliday than Carlos, Street & Smith. The odds of doing so, in my opinion, are better the sooner we flip Holliday to a team looking to contend that has ML-ready prospects to offer, as they’ll get more bang for their buck the longer they have him. Still, save an Escobar-Kelly Johnson-type package, we’re taking a similar gamble on whoever we get in return as we would have been taking on Carlos and Smith in the first place. From Beane’s perspective, he’d obviously feel better with his new prospects, as he’s apparently down on Carlos and the odds he reaches his ceiling.
Option five, taking draft picks, is even more of a gamble and would set our contention back even farther than if we kept Carlos and Smith. While they might not be the next Beltran and Glavine, they’d likely both have roles on the 2010-12 A’s. With draft picks, we might be doing this all over again with Carlos & Smith v.2.0 3-5 years from now, if we’re lucky. In other words, there’s no saying with any confidence at all that the picks would turn out as well as Carlos and Smith have. If they did, it probably wouldn’t be until at least 2012. That’s too late.
Unless there’s an angle I’m missing, I think option one – locking up Holliday ASAP – is our best option. If we’re looking to contend 2010-12, it might be our only option.
http://www.myspace.com/ryanmac10
by RyanFromBonas on
Nov 11, 2008 12:39 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“Option five, taking draft picks, is even more of a gamble and would set our contention back even farther than if we kept Carlos and Smith.”
Disagree. Gonzalez would have helped the team, but as good as his tools are, he was still pretty raw. It would have taken him two or more years to figure it all out, in my opinion.
Greg Smith also has nothing to do with the A’s plans for contention. The future A’s playoff runs are banking on Anderson, Cahill, Gallagher, Gonzalez and Inoa. In front of Smith there is still Duke and Eveland.
Greg Smith had horrible peripherals… Even though his record was 7-16 or something woeful like that, they might have been selling high on him.
by NateHST on
Nov 11, 2008 1:11 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fair point, but who's to say draft picks will contribute any sooner than Gonzalez?
What are the odds that kids drafted in 2009 will be contributors sooner than a guy who got a taste of the bigs in 2008 and would likely be a solid contributor in 2010?
Yeah, Gonzalez needs more time to figure things (strike zone, breaking balls, etc.) out, but he was fast-tracked, and 2010 was the SOONEST he’d be a real asset. How would 2009 draft picks be ML-ready assets any sooner?
http://www.myspace.com/ryanmac10
by RyanFromBonas on
Nov 13, 2008 2:04 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A Shocker
Wow, what a surprise. It will be very interesting to see what the A’s gave up to get Holliday, and how he performs in the Coliseum.
This is one that I could see either being a huge win for Beane (Matt blows up and gets dealt mid-season for a boatload of talent after “proving” he can hit away from Colorado) or a huge bust.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 2:45 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree
I tend to think that is the way the market should work.
Why are the Padres so worried about moving Peavy? Allow C.C., A.J., Sheets, and Lowe sign, and have the losers battle.
I think Colorado should have waited to see where Burrell went and then moved him. But we’ll see what they got.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on
Nov 10, 2008 2:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There are less people battling then so they would be likely to get less in return.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Nov 10, 2008 4:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
+1 for many reasons
i don’t care what scouts and gm’s say, when his numbers aren’t ridiculous like they were in colorado he is going to be worth less, this is a horrible move for the A’s unless they just wanted to waive those players, i mean they didn’t give up much, but i doubt they will get more in return…they better drop 100 million over the next few months on two of the other big name pitchers and pray they can find someone else who can hit the baseball at higher than a .250 clip
by IHateMitchMustain on
Nov 10, 2008 5:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
you might be interested in this
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/as-grab-holliday/
…when you see people pointing to his road numbers as a proxy for his true talent level, you should immediately reject the rest of their conclusions, because despite the ease of that kind of analysis, it simply isn’t accurate. You cannot just throw out Holliday’s performance in Colorado and pretend that it didn’t happen simply because the park is hitter friendly. Instead, the correct way to project his future performance is to adjust his past results to account for the park effects, and use the entire sample of data that we have.
Even with the move out of Coors Field and into pitcher friendly Oakland Coliseum, Holiday should be expected to be something like a .300/.380/.500 hitter. Considering he’s been both durable and a quality defensive outfielder, that makes him something like a +4 win player for 2009.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on
Nov 11, 2008 7:54 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
you know
you can use theory to try and defend an argument, but you are always going to be wrong until proven right, there is no reason to try and use complex math theories to predict what holliday would have done here and there, etc…he DID way worse anywhere other than Coors Field and he was not even an elite prospect until he hit the Coors Upper Minors where prospects learn to get lucky on stats, he is a damn good baseball player, but he needs to put up some numbers somewhere other than Coors for anyone to care what could happen
just because you theorize you should adjust his park numbers based on what he should have done at a neutral site, that doesn’t mean anything, i know players hit better at home a lot, though I don’t necessarily believe that is a fact, more of an observation on a selective group, often who are in a better than average home park
i will give you that a lot of his road games were in pitcher friendly parks like LA, SF and SD and he will get a decent number of games in Texas and Seattle which despite what anyone says, their hitters all have much better splits at home there so that is a hitters park
by IHateMitchMustain on
Nov 11, 2008 1:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
also
i would love to here the arguments for how math proves that Dante Bichette, Andres Galarraga and Jeromy Burnitz were all equally as good anywhere else
i mean are you really arguing this, shut up
by IHateMitchMustain on
Nov 11, 2008 1:23 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Funny
How you’re telling someone to “shut up”, but meanwhile your argument also needs to be considered “wrong until proven right”. Someone could bang on pots and pans and say “I believe that Holliday will still be a great player unless I see him fail at the Coliseum” and have just a valid point as you do.
Look at Soriano’s numbers in 2005/2006. He was abysmal outside of Arlington in 2005, and then had his best statistical season in a horrible batter’s park in 2006 for Washington.
by jibs on
Nov 11, 2008 2:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
most players perform better at home then on the road
hence why teams generally have better records at home then on the road.
the fact is other parks have more run influence going on then coors (Great American for one) these days. But because of the pre-humidor days some people just dont get it.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on
Nov 11, 2008 10:39 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Numbers for you
GABP 1031
Coors 1062
Doesn’t have “more” influence on runs scored. Arizona is close though, 1059. No park has more influence than Coors…still…. Other parks are closer now though.
by casejud on
Nov 12, 2008 2:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
my mistake i was thinking Home Runs in my head
I guess there are different sources, but using the one i trust the most Baseball HQ… GAB has 4% greater influence on RHB HR, Cellular Field 3% more than coors, Citizens Bank 10% more than Coors., and Minute Maid is very close to coors also.
These are 3 year averages.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on
Nov 12, 2008 6:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah, hilarious
why would people think players who hit in coors have better numbers, idiots
by IHateMitchMustain on
Nov 13, 2008 12:22 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That isn't what he's saying
The guy who JBluestone quoted said (in a kind of snotty way) that you shouldn’t simply discount home stats at Coors Field, but rather adjust them. Their final result, of Holiday hitting .300/.380/.500 isn’t terribly far from his production in road games anyway, which is probably what is expected
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on
Nov 11, 2008 3:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
did you even read the article
And did any of those players play with the humidor?
And seriously what kind of decorum do you have telling someone to shut up… i am quoting a professional website that is well respected … how about you call up baseball prospectus and baseball info solutions and billy beane, and everyone else who you basically insulted and tell them to shut up… because clearly you know better.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on
Nov 11, 2008 10:37 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Safeco
Field is NOT a hitters park… repeat to yourself a few times… trust me, it isn’t…every year
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/eqa2008.php#tmtot
These are BP’s numbers on runs scored in major league parks. Seattle ranked as the second worst hitters park to the mighty Petco and i belive was last year too.
Saying Safeco is a hitters park is like me trying to convince people that Albert Pujols is a .200 hitter
by casejud on
Nov 12, 2008 1:57 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Correct
And, also, Dodger Stadium has been neutral/slight hitter’s park over the past three years.
by thejd44 on
Nov 12, 2008 1:30 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I just gave you...
…the numbers. All you have to do is read them. LAD 2008= 971. Good pitching environment. Maybe the previous few years but not this year.
by casejud on
Nov 12, 2008 2:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i cant seem to find
where someone said Safeco is a hitters park?
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on
Nov 12, 2008 6:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hahahaha
found it.. wow, mised that… geez
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on
Nov 12, 2008 6:32 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
go look at all the best hitters on mariners splits
they hit better at home, some significantly, i just use real numbers, not math theories, but hey the world doesn’t need facts
by IHateMitchMustain on
Nov 13, 2008 12:24 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Math? My God, how could THAT be correct?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 13, 2008 3:01 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But...
….that’s not how you determine whether a park is a hitter’s one or not.
What proportion of teams hit better at home than on the road? if it’s more than 50, does that mean that more than 50 of the parks are hitter’s parks?
by siddfynch on
Nov 13, 2008 4:51 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
*50 percent, of course
Forgot about the percent sign being stripped off.
by siddfynch on
Nov 13, 2008 4:52 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Trade
The A’s supposedly traded Carlos Gonzalez, Greg Smith, and Huston Street, and the Rockies traded a couple of draft picks and Holliday.
by monta101 on
Nov 10, 2008 5:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Draft picks?
Wha wha what? Since when is this the NBA?
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on
Nov 10, 2008 5:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think he was implying the two picks that Holliday will net the A’s when he walks.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Nov 10, 2008 5:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If
They offer him arbitration, he declines, and whomever signs him waits until after that deadline to sign him (Brain Sabean says hi).
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 5:58 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This will 100% happen, there’s no reason to assume it won’t.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Nov 11, 2008 1:29 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why?
The only reason I can see this if they’re trying to get compensation picks for him next year. Extending him would be a mistake and his numbers are going to take a huge hit.
by Paul5418 on
Nov 10, 2008 2:47 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Ding ding ding!
Beane probably figured that he wasn’t giving up more than the value of 2 top-75 draft picks, and is getting a solid outfielder for the next year. Trading for soon-to-be free agents in the middle of the pack of perceived value is a pretty brilliant move.
by slamcactus on
Nov 10, 2008 2:58 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree
(a) You might not even get a first round pick. I’m sorry, but the success rate for supplemental first rounders isn’t THAT great.
(b) If they’re giving away Carlogon and the preview guide duo (Street and Smith) as anticipated, I find it hard to believe that he thinks he’ll get equal value out of a late first round pick and a supplemental first rounder, even assuming the best case scenario. The average value of those two picks is probably significantly less than the value of five years of Carlos Gonzalez.
© This analysis seems like a case of ‘well, Billy Beane did it, so it must be brilliant.’
(d) What do people think are the chances the A’s turn it around this year? I personally think that making a big move like this is a tell that you’re going all-in, and Beane’s probably going to need to pay more to make subsequent moves because of it.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on
Nov 10, 2008 6:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
which is why
they’re on the trail for furcal and giambi
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on
Nov 12, 2008 10:25 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm rooting for Dunn over Giambi
I’ll be shocked if it actually happens of course
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on
Nov 13, 2008 1:49 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'm trying to be more of a realist
you better believe i would love adam dunn in the green and gold WC
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on
Nov 13, 2008 3:12 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
renteria apparently is plan B
if furcal is too expensive
this signals the end of the crosby era…but please not renteria…i’d rather just take the steady defense of pennington/petit than waste money on that guy
by Asfan4ever723 on
Nov 13, 2008 10:43 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ya I'm amazed by this. He may be even worse than Crosby.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on
Nov 14, 2008 7:42 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's dumb
And I don’t think Beane is dumb. He definitively gave up more value than 2 top 75 draft picks.
Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if Carlos Gonzalez is the only player to stay in Colorado. I certainly expect them to send away Street for another 2 prospects.
by cowboy4eva on
Nov 10, 2008 6:08 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, it depends what they give up for him
Not to be too obvious. He’s still a very good player – he’s a 29 year old who had a .890 OPS in games away last year
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on
Nov 10, 2008 3:25 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wouldnt be so quick to jump on Hollidays coors splits
Coors players have a reverse split when they play on the road due to not being used to seeing normal movement on the ball, which artifically lowers their numbers as well. Post Humidor implementation, the coors field advantage is not always the worst in baseball, so Holliday moving from coors is not unlike Soriano, leaving Texas, or Teix leaving texas, its just that coors has this reputation which is not super accurate.
Soriano’s road splits his two years in texas led everyone to forecast doom when he moved to the punchless hitters graveyard of washington. But yet he put up his best offensive season (or one of them).
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
by jbluestone on
Nov 10, 2008 3:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The thing with splits is that
no one takes into account that he plays in San Diego and San Francisco for most of the year after Coors field. These two parks are in the top five most pitcher friendly parks in baseball. Granted that Oakland is a pitcher’s park also, but not as close as Petco or At&T park.
Now, take out San Diego/San Francisco and replace them with Texas and Anaheim. Both of his home/road stats will probably average to be about the same.
by green_and_gold on
Nov 11, 2008 6:30 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Coliseum is vastly more pitcher-friendly than the Phone Booth
Seriously, go look up the park factors.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 11, 2008 7:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Chase Field (Arizona) is a hitter’s park, even more so than Coors.
by onholliday on
Nov 12, 2008 7:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That seems to be silly
The players they give up will be way more valuable than two picks. They are obviously trying to contend this year….probably to help them build a new stadium.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on
Nov 10, 2008 4:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
+1
Colorado obviously knows the draft compensation rules as well as the A’s. Plus, these picks aren’t guaranteed, as everyone knows yet rarely mentions. They have to offer arbitration and risk getting stuck with a massive “Maddux” if for some reason Holliday accepts (say, after a disappointing 2009).
I do think that there may be some pressure from ownership to “win now.” The Fremont city council still hasn’t approved the final plans to build the new Cisco complex, but the recent election makes now an opportune time for the A’s to get the plan moving forward again. Getting the locals excited again about A’s baseball (diehard fans may love 7x-8x records, but the general public does not) will do wonders to get Wolff and his partnership their cash cow.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 4:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Disagree
Smith is a back of the rotation guy at best, who may never be better than this year. Street is an expensive reliever who wasn’t closing at the end of the year. Gonzalez is a raw player who’s had performance issues for a while now. I’m not saying Gonzalez won’t develop into a strong player, but he might not. I think there’s reasonable chance the A’s could trade Holliday for better. What if Ortiz or Drew gets hurt and the Sox need a bat for the stretch run? Or the Rays? Holliday could be in high demand with teams that have strong systems.
by aap212 on
Nov 10, 2008 4:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good points
Note also that a lot of times the team has already negotiated an extension with the player; until know this, it’s premature to say the A’s (or anyone) have overpaid for a “1 year rental.”
by siddfynch on
Nov 10, 2008 4:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
However
Boras clients rarely negotiate extensions. Not to say it’s impossible, but the odds are significantly lower than otherwise.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 5:26 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good point
Good to see you posting here, too, UC.
by siddfynch on
Nov 10, 2008 5:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What are you disagreeing with?
I never said anything contrary to this.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 5:23 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Although...
Now that I’ve processed your post, there’s actually some in there that I disagree with. To wit:
— As a lefty with basically league average performance last year at age 24 (ERA+ of 97), it’s far too early to consider Greg Smith as a “back-of-the-rotation” SP. His performance last year alone suggests he’s more valuable than that, given his salary. The fact that he’s young and left-handed is just a plus.
— While it’s true that Street struggled with injuries last year that hampered his effectiveness and got him dethroned from being the “closer,” he’s still a valuable pitcher. We don’t yet know what he’ll make for 2009, but his $3.3M from 2008 isn’t prohibitively expensive, especially since he hasn’t lost any of his “stuff” (his k/9 rates are fairly steady at 9, and you’d expect his control to come back once he’s fully healed). He’s usually the sort of “value” that Beane seeks, not sells.
I don’t disagree with the move from the A’s side, but it seems like it is a “win now” move, with some risk (Holliday and the A’s underperform through July).
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 5:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually, the risk is that the team underperforms AFTER July (or that Holliday gets injured)
If the A’s are out of the hunt, plenty of contenders will be happy to acquire him for the stretch run
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 10, 2008 7:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sort of
The biggest risk is that Holliday simply isn’t that great moving away from Coors.
The good news here is that middle of the order corner outfielders have become oddly scarce. As I began to say before, how many contending teams could conceivably be looking for a corner outfield bat before the next deadline? New York x2, Philly, Toronto, Tampa, LA, just for starters.
by aap212 on
Nov 10, 2008 7:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sure
Those are also risks.
However, if you believe that 1 year of Holliday is worth more than 3 months of Holliday, Beane would likely get less for him in July than he could get now.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 8:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
True, but not that much less
Given the added marginal value of a win to a team in a pennant race, Beane can probably sell him for 80 cents on the dollar in July.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 11, 2008 1:01 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
$0.80?
Where did you come up with that figure? Or is it just a SWAG?
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 11, 2008 10:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Obviously it's not some scientific assessment...
However, if you sell a player with 2/5 of the season remaining, and each win he provides is leveraged to 2x “normal” value because of a close pennant race, you get 4/5 or 80%…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 12, 2008 5:22 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OK
Keeping up with this charade of quantifying the return value, what about a discount for the fact that the “market” has dwindled from approx. 25-30 teams to approx. 12-15 (being generous)?
Shouldn’t we consider that fact as well?
Studies have demonstrated that auction markets return far less with fewer bidders (we probably didn’t need studies to tell us that, however, it’s common sense), so if you approximately halve (or more) the number of bidders, your sale price will correspondingly diminish.
Conversely, while in this offseason Beane was one of (again, approximately) 25-30 “bidders” for Holliday’s services, there will be others “selling” in competition with Beane, come July 31st. While a player of Holliday’s skill and position is admittedly a unique talent, a smart GM will understand that his value in the win column is not.
So, to recap. More sellers in July, fewer buyers. And less underlying asset value (3 months vs. 1 year). Given this, I find your $0.80 estimate unlikely, even as a SWAG.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 12, 2008 1:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I disagree with the premise
There weren’t 25-30 bidders for Holliday. In fact, I bet anybody here could name 15-20 teams who were as close to being bidders for Holliday as an NBA team was.
Say there were 15 teams trying to get Holliday (even though the real number is closer to 5, I’ll play the silly game). In July, there might be 1/3 of that, but those teams are going to likely be willing to spend more to outbid the others because A) they’re closer to winning so it’s less of a shot-in-the-dark risk and B) the other bidders are more likely to be direct competition.
So no, a team wouldn’t get as much. But 80 cents on the dollar is a very realistic number.
by thejd44 on
Nov 12, 2008 1:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well
The fact that the auction winner now was Oakland (a team few expected) suggests there were more bidders than conventional wisdom might have predicted. But that wasn’t really my point.
Apply whatever numbers you like, my point was that fewer bidders in July than the previous November likely mean a discount. Additional sellers also likely mean a discount. It’s true that the buyers that remain in the market will be slightly more incentivized (though the Teixera trade was roundly criticized by many for offering little regular-season value to the Angels, since his impact over the remaining games was likely to be negligble, so I question how many of those buyers there really are—teams too far ahead or too far behind might not compete in the auction, particularly if the starting price is set too high), but that’s unlikely to keep Holliday’s July 31st value at this mythical $0.80 on the dollar number.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 12, 2008 2:51 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
2 things
1) Oakland was rumored to be in the market for Holliday for, at minimum, a few weeks.
2) Nobody said there wouldn’t be SOME discount. You’re arguing a point already conceded. You just happen to think it’s going to be much more of a discount than logic really suggests.
by thejd44 on
Nov 12, 2008 3:11 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If by "logic"...
…you mean A’s fandom, I agree.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 12, 2008 7:39 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The notion that the A's would be UPSET if Holliday accepted arbitration is comical
Beane would be turning cartwheels in his sleep if that happened.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 10, 2008 7:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Glad I could make you laugh
Think John Schuerholz feels the same way?
Oh sure, it’s a different situation entirely, etc., etc.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 10, 2008 8:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree with PT here
The Maddux situation was weird and, at least for the most part, Schurholtz’s poor planning combined with TW Cables payroll restrictions. Schurholtz was pissed not because the arbitration deal was a bad one for the Braves, but because he was immediately “forced” to trade Kevin Millwood for Johnny Estrada.
Unless Bean is facing similar payroll constraints next off-season and has similarly painted himself into a corner, I don’t think he’d be disappointed if Holliday took a league-average one-year salary.
by mraver on
Nov 11, 2008 9:23 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fair enough
However, I wouldn’t characterize Holliday’s 2009 arbitration award (if this scenario comes to pass) as league-average.
In fact, it would likely be record-setting, and certainly in the upper teens, probably $17M+.
For a team with a reported $80M salary projection that is near 1/4 the payroll, which is decidedly suboptimal.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 11, 2008 10:38 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So they should pay young, pre-arby players more than they have to
Just so Holliday makes up a smaller percentage or something?
This argument only works on a very general level. If you have a bunch of younger players who are still in their first few years, your choices are to either have a very small payroll or to have a player or two who eats up most (or a significant portion of) of the payroll.
Your argument must be that it would be wiser to get 3 or 4 players for the cost of 1. That works sometimes. But what if the team doesn’t have the holes (or the upgrades aren’t available) that would require spreading that money around?
by thejd44 on
Nov 12, 2008 1:37 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No
You’ve either misread or misunderstood my post.
Committing large percentages of a team’s salary to one player is not a recipe for success. I think an arbitration award roughly equal to 1/4 the A’s projected payroll would not be met with glee in the hallowed halls of Oakland.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 12, 2008 2:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But my point is that, if all goes right, the A's won't really have any other place to spend that money
Since they’re counting on a whole bunch of young, pre-arby players to perform. If those guys perform, you’re not looking to replace them. So in that case why does it matter if Holliday takes up so much of the payroll? In this scenario, it’s not as though they’re going to use that money elsewhere.
by thejd44 on
Nov 12, 2008 3:12 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, the "ZOMG 25% of payroll to one player" argument is complete idiocy
Think about it this way. I trust Billy Beane to build a good team if you give him $60 million. How could his team possibly be worse if you give him $60M plus Matt Holliday? The worst possible case scenario is that Holliday misses the entire season due to injury and the A’s effectively are just operating on a lower payroll.
This is all academic, of course, because the chances of Matt Holliday accepting arbitration are less than the chances that Matt Holliday is killed in an auto accident on the way to the arbitration hearing.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 12, 2008 3:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If the Rays paid Holliday $20M...
to play RF for them in ‘08, I can’t imagine how they would possibly have made the playoffs.
by DrunkIrish on
Nov 12, 2008 4:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm assuming this is some species of sarcasm.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 12, 2008 8:49 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I thought it was a pretty good species of sarcasm
I’m grateful that there are irrelevant statistics like percentage of payroll accounted for by the highest paid player to confuse the stupid.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on
Nov 13, 2008 1:52 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'm surprised
i would think you, of all people, would be quoting the regression studies showing that teams underperform when a single player takes up a substantial portion of the payroll, compared to equally talented rosters with more “balance” in salaries.
it is regression analysis, so it’s useless. but still — i guess you’re gut instinct to call someone an idiot overtook your desire to quote pointless "analytical: studies. i guess it’s good to find out where you’re true number-one priority is.
by bleedjaxblue on
Nov 12, 2008 6:09 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There's no way studies along those lines could possibly prove more than correlation
It’s entirely possible that most GMs who give large chunks of their payroll are bad at their jobs. Since I happen to know that Beane is not bad at his job, that’s not a concern.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 12, 2008 8:48 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
More likely it shows that those teams had bad weaknesses
in those areas where that highly paid player didn’t play. A’s have those weaknesses too — at SS, 3B, starting rotation. If they can be filled with FA then fine, if with cheap trade booty or minor league callups fine. That’s what going to make or break the team, not some silly calculation.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on
Nov 13, 2008 1:55 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wow
When did all the A’s fanboys take over this site? I really have been gone too long.
It makes discussions considerably less interesting when people engage in logical fallacies such as these.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 13, 2008 1:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No, a logical fallacy is saying "x is suboptimal" over and over without ever giving a single reason why x is actually, in fact, suboptimal
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 13, 2008 1:19 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well
Actually, your analysis has suffered from something called petitio principi, known in many circles as assuming the conclusion or begging the question.
But that’s fine. I have been away from the board for awhile. I grok the new rule now: Billy Beane is always right. People who challenge his moves are idiots. We know this because Billy Beane is always right.
OK. Next.
Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball
by Yakker on
Nov 13, 2008 1:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hold your horses
I respect Billy Beane, but I’m not an A’s fan, I certainly don’t always think Billy Beane is right (trading Harang for a Guillen rental is one of the most under-recognized horrible trades in recent years), and I still like this trade very much for the A’s.
Besides, it’s Rangers fanboys who have taken over the site.
by aap212 on
Nov 13, 2008 2:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Are you clinically thick?
I’m not writing a fucking dissertation on everything Billy Beane has done as GM of the Oakland Athletics. It’s not relevant to the situation. Virtually everyone worth their salt in the baseball analysis community will argue that Beane is one of the game’s best GMs. Good teams with low payrolls do not appear by magic.
If that’s “assuming the conclusion,” then frankly, it’s a conclusion that needs to be assumed.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 13, 2008 5:48 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's often stupid to spend a large percentage of you money on a single player
But that doesn’t mean it’s always stupid, and it’s a logical fallacy to assume otherwise.
That being said, I don’t really have a stand on this deal. I understand why the As did it and I get why the Rockies did it, which is comforting after the Marlins-Nationals deal
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on
Nov 13, 2008 2:22 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
According to Fox Sports
The A’s are looking to contend next year and are trying to sign Furcal. Trading for Holliday is supposed to show Furcal that they are serious about competing right now.
If they don’t mind taking on the payroll, I like these two moves. I’m not sold on Gonzalez, and Street is easily replaced by Devine, I think. They still need to do something about the rotation, though. And 3b. Chavez is still a huge question mark. I don’t think they can fix the rotation thru their farm system in ‘09. Maybe by ’10. As for 3b, if Chavez isn’t healthy or able to play at the level he once was, they definitely will need to look outside of their system for an answer.
by ozzman99 on
Nov 10, 2008 4:36 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Here is my COMPLETE Guess
Anderson, Barton, Henry Alberto Rodriguez, and an Infielder.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on
Nov 10, 2008 2:53 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
That is complete non-sense tho
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on
Nov 10, 2008 2:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Holy Christ, No
Can’t see Cahill or Anderson going to Colorado for Holliday. My call is Carlos Gonzalez is a/the centerpiece
Gonzalez doesn’t seem like Beane’s type of player, while being one of those “toolys” guys that front offices can love.
by Galt on
Nov 10, 2008 3:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ESPN just picked up on the story too
They noted that Greg Smith is going to Colorado in the deal
by jibs on
Nov 10, 2008 2:55 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe beane
thinks he can get more for him at the deadline I don’t know how this makes sense unless He thinks they con compete next year.
1941 .406
by FrozenTed9 on
Nov 10, 2008 3:02 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
If it's Anderson/Smith
I’m a bit lukewarm about the deal from Oakland’s end. That said, it makes sense. They had pitching surplus, so they get Holliday to upgrade for 09 and pick up two picks. Colorado needed pitching upside, and Anderson is definitely that.
I’m a big Anderson fan, though.
by toonsterwu on
Nov 10, 2008 3:31 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Gonzalez/Smith/Street ... hmmm
Intriguing move I guess. I don’t see how this deal makes that much sense for Colorado – Smith isn’t really the front of the rotation potential they need. As for Oakland, giving up cost controlled Gonzalez for Holliday? Will 2 picks be able to ably replace Gonzalez and his cost-controlled years and upside?
by toonsterwu on
Nov 10, 2008 3:38 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I wonder
If the Cards could be involved in this. They were rumored to be part of a Philly-CO-STL triangle for Holliday this past weekend, with the Phils getting Holliday.
What if the A’s end up with Holliday, the Rox end up with Street and Ludwick, and the Cards end up with Barmes, Gonzalez, and Greg Smith? Is that a realistic scenario?
by siddfynch on
Nov 10, 2008 3:39 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Question
Why would Colorado give up Gonzalez/Smith/Barmes for Ludwick? That doesn’t seem to make that much sense for them.
by toonsterwu on
Nov 10, 2008 3:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Reasons
For starters, the Cards would have to give up something else, though probably nothing notable. It might not all flow thru CO – for example, Cards shipping Ludwick to CO and XX (David Freese?) to A’s, while A’s ship Street to CO and Smith/Gonzo to STL and Rox ship Holliday to A’s and Street to CO.
The Rox would be interested in Ludwick presumably to replace Holliday, while ending up with Street out the deal as well.
by siddfynch on
Nov 10, 2008 3:56 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I understand what you are saying
I just wonder if Colorado’s looking at this from the perspective of hey, by 2010, we could have a stellar OF of Gonzalez/Fowler/Hawpe, so this is worth it.
The only thing that surprises me about this deal, well, this rumored deal, is that Colorado isn’t netting pitching upside, and Holliday was their best chip to do that.
by toonsterwu on
Nov 10, 2008 4:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Content...
At least copy the article down or put something in way of content when making a post. If you have absolutely nothing to say, wait until a more creative person posts something about the trade. I don’t see why you were in such a rush to not say anything.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on
Nov 10, 2008 4:17 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Give him a break
He was starting up discussion.
by aap212 on
Nov 10, 2008 4:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Could have...
at least listed possible players being mentioned or something. I give no grief to those who start a topic and just don’t have enough to fill it up. But this wasn’t even an attempt. He had nothing to say about the deal. You’d think if it was so important that he had to rush to get it up, he would have said something about it.
"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile
by Boxkutter on
Nov 10, 2008 6:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You don't have
to always have something to say. There are 50 some-odd replies already and it’s only been up about 4 hours. His post served it’s purpose and then some relatively speaking.
by slurve on
Nov 10, 2008 6:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just announced
The trade was announced with no idea of which players were involved.
He copied what information was involved.
Relax.
by Galt on
Nov 11, 2008 8:11 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
When I posted it there was no speculation
So quit being a jerk. Clearly there have been 50+ posts already which is more discussion than there is usually here.
There was nothing creative to post at the time. I could have gone on paintshop and made a Holliday As Jersey if you prefer. Oh, and there was NO article either, it was a 1 sentence blurb that the trade was done.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on
Nov 10, 2008 7:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Smith is going to get obliterated at Coors
His “decent 2008” featured a bad K/BB rate, a horrible GB rate, and it looks like he was helped by some luck on BABIP. Unless they’re looking to repackage him in another deal, this aspect of the deal won’t end well.
by jibs on
Nov 10, 2008 4:44 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
How it took this long
for someone to point out that Smith @ Coors is an absolutely terrible idea, I have no idea.
by dougdirt on
Nov 10, 2008 11:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just don't bring out the statement you did before
I could hardly stand reading that conversation again, even if I’m not part of it. Which I wouldn’t be.
by Daniel Berlyn on
Nov 11, 2008 12:00 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe on the mound, but not at the plate
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on
Nov 11, 2008 10:10 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good deal
If Carlos Gonzalez becomes a good outfielder it makes the deal pretty even.
by METSMETSMETS on
Nov 10, 2008 11:37 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Basically
Without an extension, the deal makes no sense.
I’m hoping that the reason this is taking so long is b/c Beane is trying to work out an extension with Holliday, but with Boras, fat chance.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on
Nov 11, 2008 12:10 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Do you have any familiarity with the A's?
Neither side wants an extension.
by aap212 on
Nov 11, 2008 12:13 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Extension
Why do you say that with such authority? If you mean a window to negotiate an extension then I agree, but I am sure the A’s would love to sign Holliday to an extension at some point and they certainly have the payroll flexibility to do so. I doubt it will happen mainly due to Boras and Holliday wanting to go to free agency.
by DeJay on
Nov 11, 2008 4:55 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Since when do the A's sign premier hitters into their mid-30s?
That’s just not how the A’s operate. Too much risk, too much expense. Holliday isn’t going to take less than five years.
by aap212 on
Nov 11, 2008 12:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's 28
He’ll be 29 next season. A five year deal would take him through the rest of his peak til he’s 35. And it’s not like Holliday has old player skills- he steals bases like a madman and has a very solid average.
by demondeaconsbaseball on
Nov 11, 2008 1:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OK
But when was the last time the A’s signed a hitter to a long-term deal remotely near open market money?
by aap212 on
Nov 11, 2008 2:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Eric Chavez?
Speaking of whom, will he ever come all the way back? Or even sorta?
by GuyinNY on
Nov 11, 2008 3:33 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
GuyinNY is right...
It was Chavvy… and with the A’s trying to make some sort of PR splash in order to get their new stadium in Fremont (I think), this would be a prudent business move.
by demondeaconsbaseball on
Nov 11, 2008 4:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In addition to Chavez
They also made offers to others, including Giambi. Whether these were legitimate offers or ones that were just good enough to look legitimate, knowing someone else would pay more, I can’t say. But they did have offers out there.
by thejd44 on
Nov 11, 2008 4:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
When
was the last time the A’s traded for an elite hitter of Holliday’s stature?? Beane has some payroll flexibility, and I think he sent a message that things are starting to change for the Oakland organization. I’m not saying Holliday is a lock to be an Oakland A come 2010, but I wouldn’t discount it too quickly either.
by JPShark on
Nov 11, 2008 6:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I suppose you could claim that Jose Guillen was one such
but the whole “getting steroids shipped to the Coliseum” thing, along with being a clubhouse cancer, wrote him a ticket out of town.
Before that, Jermaine Dye, who got an extension.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 11, 2008 7:04 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also wrote his own ticket out...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 12, 2008 5:24 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
something is stalling
gonzalez/smith already in colorado
street still no confirmation
either rockies are getting something else added, finding a deal to move street on
by Asfan4ever723 on
Nov 11, 2008 1:57 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Meanwhile...
The Padres have pulled their offer to Hoffman and are trying to work a deal out with the Cubs for Peavy. The Cubs are supposedly looking for a 3rd team to add pitching to their offer. Street to Padres in the Peavey deal?
by slurve on
Nov 11, 2008 2:18 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Would the Padres want Street?
If they’re looking to shed salary and build for two or three years from now, Street seems like an odd fit. Especially for a team that’s had success with inexpensive, non-famous relievers.
by aap212 on
Nov 11, 2008 2:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's what I thought
as well… but Street isn’t that expensive yet. It makes as much sense as Matt Holliday to the A’s – they could be working under the assumption that they can plug him in as closer, get his value back up and flip him to a contender. Probably not what is going on, but feasible IMO.
by slurve on
Nov 11, 2008 2:49 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
do padres need a closer
if they are rebuilding just put bell/hensley in there
i could see A’s pitching for one of their 3b
by Asfan4ever723 on
Nov 11, 2008 2:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
you're probably right
I was just throwing it out there. Street would be a good fit in Detroit actually – and no, Rick Porcello would not be on his way to Oakland.
by slurve on
Nov 11, 2008 2:51 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Porcello
I don’t think he’d have much trade value – his K rates are terrible!
by siddfynch on
Nov 11, 2008 3:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Taunting slurve, are we?
I think OAK would be nuts not to do that trade… but I think you already know that.
by demondeaconsbaseball on
Nov 11, 2008 4:16 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
sid has a habit of that
but it isn’t malicious
by slurve on
Nov 11, 2008 4:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'm still hesitant on trading street
not because A’s need him or that he’s even that great. but so many teams need a cost controlled closer, his trade value could be valuable since he’s one of the few remaining trade chips left for A’s outside of prospects. tigers, twins, brewers, mets, etc all need a closer. it seems A’s would rather trade him than give up additional prospects in a holliday deal. trading him separately would be a better use of assets.
by Asfan4ever723 on
Nov 12, 2008 1:54 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
How many more prospects do the As need?
It seems like Beane thinks now is the time to trade some of that depth for serious players. I don’t know if I agree, but I can certainly get that
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on
Nov 12, 2008 12:28 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not getting my hopes up too high on a change of strategy. They could easily trade Holliday
for prospects tomorrow.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on
Nov 13, 2008 1:56 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They could
On the other hand, the As have had a lot of success getting pitching prospects who appear to be potentially excellent, as well as a lot of depth. They’ve had a lot of success getting hitting prospects who appear potentially solid. They don’t, I don’t think, have many hitters who could actually be terrific. Chris Carter might be their best hitter in the minor leagues, but even in the best case scenario he won’t be able to carry the team. It seems like Beane might be considering translating some of their depth for premier hitters
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on
Nov 13, 2008 2:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They still have pretty big holes at 3B and SS and the offense last year was not remotely
close to solid. The rotation is a huge question mark with Duchscherer and Gallagher non-durables and Outman, Braden. Gio and the prospects unproven. If Dana Eveland’s your surest thing, it’s a not a sign of stability.
Even if they go all out and get Furcal and Dunn and Chavez plays 100 games at 3B, the rotation could kill them like it did in the second half last year. I’d take a prospect deal anytime starting now if it had one Top 50 Prospect (or the equivalent young player), one Top 100 prospect or equivalent, and a lottery ticket. Just one Top 20 prospect and lottery tickets would be fine as well.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on
Nov 14, 2008 7:57 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs







