Billy Beane gives me an idea
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 11, 2008 10:30 AM CST
348 comments
So...I'm sitting here looking at what Billy Beane did yesterday. He gave up a decent collection of young talent to get a guy who fills a gaping hole for the A's in 2009, and who Beane can move at the trade deadline for a similar package (if the A's aren't in contention next year) or who will deliver a couple of draft picks after the season (if the A's are in contention or just choose not to deal him).
The Angels had a Pythagorean win/loss record of 88-74 in 2008. The A's had a Pythagorean win/loss record of 76-85 in 2008. The Angels are likely losing K-Rod and Mark Teixeira. The A's may not be as far back as they appear. Adding Holliday fixes a major weakness for the A's, and they'll likely recoup a lot of the value they gave up either through the draft picks or through dealing him in July.
Now...the Rangers are in much the same situation as the A's. They had a Pythagorean win/loss record of 76-86 in 2008. They, like the A's, aren't as far back of the Angels as the raw records would suggest. They, like the A's, have a nice collection of young talent at the major league level, and a terrific farm system.
And they, like the A's, have a gaping hole in their lineup that could be filled by trading for a high-priced Scott Boras client who is a year away from free agency.
Would the Rangers benefit by pulling off a Holliday-esque trade for Adrian Beltre?
Beltre would give the Rangers a righthanded bat that they want for the middle of the lineup. Beltre would solve the one-year third base problem the Rangers are facing. Beltre would represent a major defensive upgrade at third base -- Pinto's PMR suggests that the difference between Beltre and the Rangers' third basemen in 2008 was about 30 outs. So you are talking about saving 20-25 runs right there, in terms of defense, before you even take Beltre's bat into account.
Now, the $13 million (Beltre's salary in 2009) question is...what would it cost to land Adrian Beltre?
You aren't going to give up your blue chip talent for a one year guy, even a one year guy you expect to fetch a couple of draft picks after the season.
On the other hand, Seattle isn't likely to just give Beltre away, either.
The M's could use a left fielder to replace Raul Ibanez, and the Rangers have outfielders to spare. So maybe David Murphy as part of the deal.
Along with Murphy...Jose Vallejo, maybe? Give them Travis Metcalf to replace Beltre for now, and one of the out-of-options arms, like Kam Loe or Wes Littleton?
Murphy/Vallejo/Metcalf/Loe? That doesn't seem like near enough, I don't think.
I don't know. I'm having a hard time figuring out what sort of match would work, and what the new Seattle g.m. would want. He was with the Brewers, so maybe there'd be some interest in Nelson Cruz, instead of Murphy?
It is worth thinking about, though.
0 recs |
348 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yes.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 10:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
well,
I don’t know enough about Vallejo, but I for one, don’t want to see Murphy or Cruz batting against us for the foreseeable future. Murphy was a catalyst for our offense this past year and I don’t think it’s some coincidence that the Rangers started falling off right about that same time, even before Kinsler’s injury. Also, what if Cruz’s performance in September WASN’T a fluke? I’d much rather keep him here for at least another season just to make sure. His trade value was almost nothing all season anyway. Then, he gets called up, continues the torrid pace he was on all year at 3A, and now we want to see if he can be a 35 homer guy for a division rival? No thanks. Not for a one year 3Bman.
I understand the Rangers have a glutton of outfielders that could be used in a trade. I really do understand. I don’t even have THAT big of problem trading one of these guys. I just don’t think these players are the type of players you want to see in a division rival’s uniform. Especially for a rent-a-player. Also, draft picks in baseball seem to flame out. It’s a pretty big gamble to think we’d get value a few years down the road from those picks.
Also, Beltre doesn’t fix the problem at 3rd. He’s here for one year. What happens next year when he splits? We’re right back in the same position we’re in this year trying to decide if the Rangers should move Young, Kinsler or Davis over to third.
Bottom line, the Sammy Sosa deal was bad enough. How much worse would it have been if we had traded him to the Mariners instead of the Cubs?
by texaschief on Nov 11, 2008 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
white sox?
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The WTF?
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 8:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
Look I am a huge Murphy fan as some on here can attest to. I think he is a nice player and one that alot of teams would love to have on their team. He is really good against righties and was passable against lefties.
But if you are trying to get a guy like Adrian Beltre, who fixes a huge hole on your team without significantly screwing up your future you have to do it.
And Beltre absolutely does fix a problem for us. He plays 3B this year and then next ear when he leaves, Young moves to 3B and Andrus slides into SS. Its a seamless transition.
If all we would have to give up is a hodgepodge of nice players who aren’t studs and we have replacements for then I am all for it. Even for a one year guy like Beltre.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Young
Doesn’t want to move positions. His Gold Glove at SS seems to prove that he’s more than capable of playing the 3B position. The problem I have with moving Young to third is his offense. If you move Young to third, it’s going to be for the long-term. Is his offensive production what you want from a 3rd baseman? 3rd base is a power position. I think Kinsler would project better at 3rd than Young would.
Also, Young will be 33 in ‘09. Is he REALLY the guy you want to with at 3rd base? Maybe it’s just me, but moving the oldest guy on the team further away from 1st makes my stomach turn. We have a very young infield, why not try to rebuild the entire infield? In 2010, Davis at 1st, Vallejo at 2nd, Andrus at SS and Kinsler at 3rd. Kinsler’s bat projects better at 3rd than Young’s anyway. Then, with Hamilton, Borbon and Cruz/Murphy in the outfield with Teagarden behind the plate, your defense is completely rebuilt. You could use Young as the utility guy. If he used to play 2nd, SS and now people want him to move to 3rd, seems to me like he’d be just fine at that spot. Maybe a couple days a week at DH to keep him in the lineup regularly. That would also keep him in the locker room as a leader.
I just think with all these prospects who will be pushing for playing time in 2010, why fight it? Rebuild your defense which has been pretty bad the past couple years. I think we can find a better option at 3rd than Mike Young. Just saying.
by texaschief on Nov 11, 2008 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is he REALLY the guy you want to with at 3rd base?
Nope, but we’ve got 80 million reasons to find a spot in the lineup for him, and he can do less damage at third than short.
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2008 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
utility.
period. If he’s not good enough to play better than other players in the system, he shouldn’t play every day. I understand he has a big contract. Maybe we could trade him to the
Giants for Zito. at least we’d have a relatively young pitcher who could resurrect his career and become a staff ace. Young is on the downside of his career.
by texaschief on Nov 11, 2008 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Congratulations
You get the award for most unconscionable and fucked-up suggestion ever.
I never thought I’d see the day.
FFace to Utility.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 8:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Young
Does he want to move off SS? Probably not. But would he for the future SS of the franchise? Yeah I think he would. Youngs offense will not be a problem at 3B. Will it be ideal? No. Will he be up there with Evan Longoria or Arod at 3B? Nope. But from all accounts he should provide above average defense and his offense shouldn’t dip too much. The positive affect his defense has on the pitching staff should negate any negative impact his bat will have on the offense.
An 80 million dollar utility guy? Only in NY is that possible.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sometimes you gotta eat it though
the money that is
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Eat it for who though?
Is Kinsler really a better fit at 3B? His good range at 2B would be negated moving to 3B and I wouldn’t think his errors would decrease. Plus he hasn’t shown the arm to be able to play there. So if not Kinsler who plays 3B? Davis? Id rather have Young.
Hes gonna be fine at 3B people. He may not fit into your cookie cutter models of how ideal baseball teams are constructed but if the Phillies can win a WS with Pedro Feliz at 3B the Rangers damn sure can win a WS with Micheal Young at 3B.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because
the Phills won with a sub par 3rd baseman, doesn’t mean it’s the model that should be followed.
by texaschief on Nov 11, 2008 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Big contracts
deserve big numbers. if he’s not performing as well as someone else could at that position, he shouldn’t play. see Chan Ho Park. Also, the team will be spending that money regardless. As a franchise, you spend 80mil. to get results. Yeah, you’re spending 80 million. But if you get the production from another player, what does it mater to you? You’re still essentially getting what you played for. It’s not like you’re spending 80 mil. for a utility player while A-Rod’s 280mil contract is playing 3rd.
The Rangers wouldn’t even flinch at spending the extra 800k to bring in Andrus and Vallejo to fill the 2nd and 3rd base spots while Kinsler goes to 3rd and Young to UT. As long as you get the production for your money, it won’t matter where you get it from until some of the other players reach arbitration.
by texaschief on Nov 11, 2008 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
You obviously understand how baseball works
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
says the guy
who thinks a player should play because he has a big contract. How’s that workin for Zito? Andru Jones? Mathews Jr.? etc…
by texaschief on Nov 11, 2008 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What does MY have different from all those other players?
All those guys you mentioned were FA signings with zero ties to the organization or fanbase.
Micheal Young has been dubbed the “Face of the Franchise”. He came over while in the minor leagues and developed in our system and broke into the bigs as a Ranger. He has spent his entire career, a dmna nice career, as a Ranger. He switched positions once for another player to help the team out and will most likely do so again in another 12 months. His hard work and performance was rewarded with a huge contract. As bad as that contrcat is, which I am not denying, it did solidify him as an everyday player as long as he is with this organization. Not until possibly the last year of that deal do I see any chance whatsoever of him being relegated to utility or backup duty. Unfortunately that is one of the risks with handing out huge contracts.
If you really don’t understand that and think the Rangers are going to simply bench MY for Jose Vallejo then I don’t know what else to say.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The guy is 32
and you don’t see him being out of the regular lineup until he’s 37? on a team that is rebuilding it’s entire defense through youth, RIGHT NOW, you think he’ll play for THIS team another 4 or 5 years? I just don’t see it. Maybe if he was originally a typical 3rd baseman, then yeah. But he’ll be at best an average 3rd baseman defensively and below average offensively. Not to mention, he’s coming off a poor year offensively. Which way is his career going? Was last year a fluke year, or at age 32, is he starting to decline?
I don’t have a problem with his contract if you’re paying him for what he’s already done. But, if you’re paying him for what you expect him to do, and then he doesn’t produce, you sit him or make him your utility guy. Period. I don’t care how much you like the guy, if he doesn’t perform, he doesn’t play. If his actual production doesn’t outweigh the advantage his leadership brings, then he doesn’t play.
Besides, just because the owner called him the “Face of the Franchise” doesn’t make him the actual face of the franchise forever. I’d argue that Kinsler is the long-term leader of this team and Hamilton is probably the face of the franchise.
I also, didn’t say I would sit Young for Vallejo. I’d sit Young for Andrus when he’s ready. Then, when Andrus IS ready, then stop trying to move Young to another spot. I’m saying Young should be without position. I’m also saying that Kinsler would be the best 3B candidate IN THE ORGANIZATION RIGHT NOW if we’re looking for a long-term candidate IN-HOUSE. Not necessarily the after free agency or trades. Then, to fill Kinsler’s spot, promote Vallejo. In this case, Young’s best spot on the team would be a utility guy.
by texaschief on Nov 11, 2008 5:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Young
First of all Vallejo is not ready. Not now, probably not until the end of next year.
Last year the only real drop he had was in base hits. Thats it. Her are his numbers in offensive categories for the last two years
Hits: 201-183. The only real drop off
Doubles: 37-36
Triples: 1-2
HR: 9-12
BB: 47-55
K: 107-109
So basically with the exception of 18 singles he had an identical year and in fact walked a little more than previously (2nd highest walk total in his career). All this while playing a majority of the year with broken/hurt fingers/hands which you have to say contributed to that decline somewhat. Can he keep this up until he is 37…no I don’t think he can. But I don’t think he is going to drop off enough to be a big enough reason to bench him. And unfortunately his contract is a big factor in that. Im sorry it is. He would have to be truly awful offensively and almost equally awful defensively for the Rangers to bench him.
Let me ask you this. If you are the boss of a company and just gave an employee a huge raise, huge, and all that money was guaranteed. So you couldn’t just fire him if he didn’t produce and save yourself that money. And you had all these other employees, fresh out of college, who had no experience but they have promise. They look like they are going to be great employees. Would you just tell the guy you gave the huge raise to to just sit at his desk all day playing solitaire and surfing the internet while the young guys did all the work? I mean he is getting his money no matter what, you have to pay him no matter how much or little he does. Would you pay him to just sit there and fuck off all day everyday while a bunch of unknowns did the job? I don’t think you would. You would use him and try and get every last drop of that raise out of him. Until he was absolutely worthless and only had a short time left before you could get rid of him.
Thats how its gonna work here. Micheal Young is going to play 3B everyday for the next 3, at a minimum, or 4 years and then maybe, maaaaaaaaaybe in that last year of his contract will he be moved to a backup/utility role. Thats just how its gonna work. If you think its gonna be different then you are going to be severely disappointed I hate to break it to you.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Young
Isn’t an employee in some corporation. But, using your example, if he WERE in a company where you could compare his output numbers to a younger employee’s and his numbers were lower than that of the younger, then yes. I promote the younger guy to take over. I then try to find a place in my company to best utilize the veteran. Maybe it’s a position that helps the younger guy realize his potential or perhaps put him under the younger guy to supplement the the production of the younger guy and therefore getting even more production for my money. (it’s hard to do this in baseball, however).
Bottom line, I would look at the production numbers and decided if promoting the younger player would benefit my team more in the long run. In this case, promoting Andrus in 2010 to out perform Young would be the best thing for the franchise in the long-term. When the Rangers are ready to compete for a World Series, I don’t want a bunch of first and second year players performing on that stage. I want guys who are established in their positions, ready to play efficiently. Then, if something happens to my young players, I’ve got a guy in Michael Young who could step in wherever I need him and play at least average defense wherever I need him.
Also, I was talking about promoting Vallejo and or Andrus in 2010. I said that. A couple times in fact. The thing is, I want the most production on the field as I can get. If i have to eat that contract, so be it. I’m doing what’s best for the team and ultimately for the franchise and pocketbook for the long-term. You can’t have tunnel vision and only see your costs THIS SEASON. If you project that a 3rd or 4th year starter at SS or 2nd base is going to benefit your club more in a few years than a 1st or 2nd year starter would, then you have to make the move in the next year or two to get your players in the lineup.
Getting back to the original comment, I don’t think you can trade Cruz or Murphy to a division rival. While Beltre could fill a hole for a year, Cruz or Murphy could cause us headaches for YEARS. That being said, a trade for Beltre is not something I would be completely against. But I’d much rather see a slightly less impact player sent the other way. Maybe Boggs or Mayberry. There’s an obvious hole at 3rd this up coming season and the things i’ve suggested wouldn’t apply until 2010.
by texaschief on Nov 11, 2008 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That approach
Would last about …. hmmm, how long would it take to show you the door and have security box up your stuff?
At 32 Young is not a washed out infielder. The traditional power placement for 3B is exchangeable when you have power at CF and 2B (few teams have both).
It’s the composite role of what everyone does, and how the “everyone” interface works, in both baseball and corporate endeavor. If you want to play strictly by the numbers, and the allocated numbers yet, welcome to the failure category.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Nov 11, 2008 9:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would sell my soul to Satan's little brother, Stan, to have David Murphy batting against us for the foreseeable future.
Oh, no! A .320 OBP! Someone hide all our pitchers! There’s only a 68% chance we’re gonna get him out!
The 40 Trumps All!!!
Rule 5? No…talk to the hand.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Stan?
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought
the Heat Miser was Satan’s little brother.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2008 10:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's a good idea
If that’s all it took — I’d be all over. Seems to me like they’d want a better pitcher than Loe back though
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 11, 2008 10:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
+1
Loe’s value has to be as close to 0 as possible. Maybe Pimentel instead?
Murphy, Pimentel, Vallejo, Metcalf?
I think this would make our team a LOT better. Plus we know Rudy would add 10 points onto his average, Rudy + the Ballpark could add 5 – 10 home runs to his total, and who knows how many more RBIs if he is batting in the middle of our lineup. The defense would be an upgrade, and we could easily turn him at the deadline for a blue chip pitching prospect if he plays well.
Would the M’s be willing to trade within the division though?
by BuckyB on Nov 11, 2008 10:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think concerns
about trading within the division are overblown….
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 11, 2008 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
You’ve got to think that if it’s dead even between two teams, the inclination would be to go outside the division, but if it significantly helps your team, I don’t see why it should be a top concern.
by brettgardner on Nov 11, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why does Beltre have so much value?
I would think that Seattle would like to stop paying him as soon as possible…similar to how Texas would like to stop paying Kevin Millwood as soon as possible.
Seattle would take about .4 seconds to get back to you with a “yes” if you offered them that deal.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
by willamos2 on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Cause he's really good and really good players have value?
I don’t know how else to explain it.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
Rule 5? No…talk to the hand.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would we want to stop paying Millwood?
Hes been better than his numbers indicate and isn’t making that much money compared to other starting pitchers.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The fact is
he is the best 3rd baseman in the league?
by tyd3311 on Nov 11, 2008 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't believe you.
But if so, that deal needs to happen right now.
by philkid3 on Nov 11, 2008 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He was the 17th best player in baseball this year according to Beyond the Box Score.
He’s was also the 4th best 3rd baseman in baseball behind David Wright, A-Rod, and Chipper Jones.
He was +28 on offense and +26 on defense. The whole world overrates Adrian Beltre, and I can see it happens here too… :(
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Nov 11, 2008 11:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you mean underrate.
And most of us don’t.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 11:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes that.
And I guess I didn’t scroll through the whole thread first. Blame being tired after a long day.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Nov 12, 2008 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
That it’s a really good idea.
However, I’ve got to think that if it’s Murphy and Vallejo, there’s got to be a pitcher of at least a solid B level. Kiker? Hunter?
by brettgardner on Nov 11, 2008 10:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'd hate to include Kiker in a deal for a 1 yr guy in a noncontending season
Even with getting picks back…
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 11, 2008 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I’m not a big believer, but I suppose I understand the concern. I think, though, that you make the move in an effort to contend next year, the draft picks notwithstanding.
If we can turn a catcher or two into an established starter, and somehow get a reliever or two, I’m not ready to crumple up ’09 just yet.
by brettgardner on Nov 11, 2008 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1 MM
I’d hate to include Kiker, but someone of his caliber would have to be included, obviously.
Murphy + a grab bag sounds nice, but we’ll have to give up a little bit more value.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure about that...
Afterall Murphy has what 5 years left of control?…compared to Beltre’s one and 13 million and salary. IMO that’s pretty fair and the only reason we’re talking about this is because Murphy is expendable. If we had him penciled in for 600 at bats we probably would not be having this conversation because you’re filling one hole and leaving another open.
Murphy + Poveda (considering the logjam we have on the 40 he’s expendable right now) for Beltre.
Someone on the newberg board suggested Beltre and Putz for Murphy and Laird which is where I think Adam got his thinking from ;) but I think that’s too little for Putz and Laird would fit nicely but Jojima and his fat salary are a problem right now. Maybe we could get a 3 team deal with Detroit getting Laird and then them sending a useful piece to Seattle since Detroit has no pitching to give us (minus Porcello which isn’t happening).
by slimshadty12 on Nov 11, 2008 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Allow me to refer you here
http://www.lonestarball.com/2008/11/11/658399/billy-beane-gives-me-an-id#9949858
or more specifically, here:
Anyone who thinks Beltre can be had for less than someone we will miss a lot is fooling themselves.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Murphy
Is a far inferior player. The contract and service time do not equalize the exchange.
If you’re going to get a quality player, you’re going to have to give up more than your spare parts.
by brettgardner on Nov 11, 2008 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
you’d have to give them someone with decent long-term potential to make them do the deal. Basically, trading Beltre means they are sacrificing their 2009 season. Now, it may be lost anyway, but the M’s have a tendency to think they’re serious contenders every April 1st.
Kiker may be a tad high, since I think the Rangers really like him. But Hunter is a definite possibility. As are some of the further out younger names.
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2008 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
Kiker may be a tad high, since I think the Rangers …
will never trade a 1st round SP under His watch.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a big Beltre fan
The guy hasn’t been hitting 49 HR like in his last year with the dodgers, but he’s still a threat at the plate, and plays exactly the kind of defense we could use at 3rd. I wouldn’t be opposed to a Murphy/Hunter/Metcalf deal, for starters.
"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."
by Maximilian on Nov 11, 2008 10:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
We could thrown in Mayberry for Hunter if they wanted more OF depth
by BuckyB on Nov 11, 2008 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The 1st round pick trumps all
"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."
by Maximilian on Nov 11, 2008 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha
I’m liking that one better then the 40. Sorry Dirk, that’s getting played out.
by slimshadty12 on Nov 11, 2008 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's getting played out
because it is played out each and every day.
It’s like a self-parody.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I'll say it had a nice run...
But I think a couple hundred thousand times was my limit…scap loading already hit that point for me.
by slimshadty12 on Nov 11, 2008 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
heh
The Dirkatron is asymptotic.
[There’s your sig, LSJ.]
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Taken under advisement
Just say no to Scott Olsen.
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm of or pertaining to an asymptote?
Dumb it down for the literature nerds who be all up in this heezy.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
Rule 5? No…talk to the hand.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
why?
why would we trade a package of young talent for one year of a guy who MAY allow us to contend within our division, but who almost certainly gets us no closer to the real prize?
so we can win an extra game or two this year and then hope that the two draft picks, one of which MAY be in the first 30 picks, turn out to be half as good as the talent we shipped out? and not only shipped out, but within our own division?
i think the trade that billy beane made yesterday was absurd. the A’s have NO young core of talent. they are just constantly churning young players for younger players. They have no Kinsler, no Hamilton, no Davis. They have a big league team full of young players with limited potential.
this org should be focused on one thing, building a team for 2009 with a core of players who will only get better by 2010.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 10:46 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Beltre
None of the proposed trades right now significantly deplete our farm or our future. Thats why you make the trade.
Murphy is part of the logjam in the OF. With Cruz being out of options Murph will be forced into a backup or platoon role at best.
Metcalf has no long term future here if the plan is to move Young after 2009 to 3B.
And any of the pitching prospects mentioned are part of the logjam we have of back end of the rotation guys.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i just don't think
a package like Murphy, Metcalf, and Feldman gets it done. I don’t want to see this team trade Hurley, Harrison, or Hunter until they have some more time in the big leagues. Trading pitchers before you “know” is what has doomed this franchise for the past few years.
That and falsely believing they can truly contend in years in which they cannot.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pitchers
The only one mentioned that you mentioned was Hunter. As nice a minor league season he had we have a number of guys who profile to be just like him. Im with you in that I don’t want to start throwing pitching away for possible spare parts but beltre is a proven player who would fit a glaring need for the timeframe we need him and potentially bring back more than Hunter or Feldman. You can’t be gunshy about trading based on a couple bad ones. Volquez brought us back Hammy. While I don’t want to trade away all our pitchers for positional players another one of those on a lower level (regarding Hunters status compared to Volquez’s) looks fine to me.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
why do you think hurley is going to be good/worth holding on to?
he was flat out bad at AAA…hasnt had a good year since he was in frisco
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hurley
he was just off last year, as a whole. I think they messed with his delivery in the spring and when he finally worked through it and regained his stuff, we suffered an injury. this is definitely not the right time to sell low on Hurley. Let him start the season in OKC, and I have a feeling he will force his way into the rotation by the ASB.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You might forget...
How competitive the A’s were before shipping off Blanton, Harden, and Gaudin midseason. They totally tanked after that point. They will have the pitching to be competitive. The question is offense and you don’t think Holiday and a FA pickup or two could get that offense moving?
I’m not one to not question Beane if he thinks he can win the division because he knew when to shut it down last year unlike our organization who is afraid of our fan base, despite the fact that our attendance keeps going down, and forget 95 win teams bring the butts. Not 80-85 win slightly competitive teams.
by slimshadty12 on Nov 11, 2008 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hold up
How will they have the pitching to compete if after they shipped off 3 pitchers they tanked and now shipped off another one?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes you have a point...
but it’s easier to replace those guys in the offseason then in the middle of a race midseason. That bullpen is pretty nice so Street and Gaudin were pretty expendable. Same for Smith and Blanton…they have other guys who will replace him like Anderson or Outman. The only guy they can’t replace is Harden.
by slimshadty12 on Nov 11, 2008 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sold high on smith
very high
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not gonna disagree
But they didn’t get any pitchers back and based on the fact they tanked last year after shipping off 3 pitchers to think they will get better now by shipping off a starter and their closer, or previous closer, is a little hard to understand. Even if they replace Smith with a more highly touted rookie hes still a rookie who will most likely go through growing pains
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
…how competitive the A’s were before shipping off Blanton, Harden, and Gaudin midseason. They totally tanked after that point.
i think the trade that billy beane made yesterday was absurd. the A’s have NO young core of talent. they are just constantly churning young players for younger players. They have no Kinsler, no Hamilton, no Davis. They have a big league team full of young players with limited potential.
i think we are saying the same thing here…
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with roughly none of that.
The A’s got a really good trade that gives them a better shot to get lucky now without ruining their future, and gives them a good trade piece if they don’t.
And they have a TON of young talent.
The part I agree with is that they should be focused on 2010, but I think soft moves that give us a better chance of having something to watch in 2009 are also good.
by philkid3 on Nov 11, 2008 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's do have a ton of talent
on their farm. But who on their active roster at year’s end really looked like a potential stud?
they have a team full of 4th OFs and prospects with middling potential. adding Holliday doesn’t fix the problem. That’s like saying adding Roy Halladay would fix our pitching. It would only make it suck less, and in this case, it is only for a year.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and frankly
their current pitching staff looks a whole lot like ours now that they have traded away their established guys. it is nothing but young guys who project to be middle of the rotation starters if things go the right way.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And yet. . .
. . . they still only had two fewer third-order wins than us.
Just because the talent isn’t as many big names as we have doesn’t mean they’re much farther behind than we are.
by philkid3 on Nov 11, 2008 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
what is a third order win?
Just because the talent isn’t as many big names as we have doesn’t mean they’re much farther behind than we are.
And what does this mean? I’m not trying to be rude, I just don’t understand your argument. If you stack our active roster up against theirs, I just see no comparison in talent level.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's saying
it hasn’t translated to more success in the standings.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 11, 2008 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Third-Order Wins
Pythagorean using adjusted equivilent runs scored and allowed. Good way to look at true level of performance.
And what I mean is that even if they don’t have as many names that pop out to you, they’re not very far behind us, if at all.
by philkid3 on Nov 11, 2008 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
understandable
if you look at the whole year. but they have subtracted harden, gaudin, street, smith, gonzalez and blanton over the past few months, while really only adding Holliday to their big league club (Gallagher and Outman are intriguing, but we have guys like that as well).
I would argue that we have added our own Holliday in terms of production with Chris Davis. I think the talent level that the two teams started with last year was comparible, but now, it just doesn’t seem that close, even with Holliday.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I seriously doubt Davis matches Holliday.
I could maybe see him being better on offense, but from a less valuable position and Holliday is a near-GG caliber fielder. Who can also run.
by philkid3 on Nov 11, 2008 8:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been in favor of bring in Beltre
Since the idea started floating around sometime last year. We really need to upgrade our defense, and Beltre is an upgrade there. I also think his bat is still legit and possibly elite in our park and in our lineup. However, I don’t want to trade anyone to Seattle with a very high BITA factor (Bite In the Ass). I’d be fine with some kind of variation Murphy/Vallejo/Metcalf/Cruz/Hunter.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
by TheBZA on Nov 11, 2008 10:47 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
i suppose
if we could make the deal exclusively out of players who are simply placeholders for better, younger talent in our org, then the deal would make sense. but i don’t see the M’s accepting a package like that.
trading within their division, they will milk Beltre for all he his worth, as they should…
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of Benefits:
1) Defense
2) Offense
3) Convince the players that the team is dedicated to winning. (Which will help with long-term contracts such as J-Ham’s)
4) 40-man Roster room (so we don’t lose some of the players like Vallejo that we might lose anyway in the Rule 5 draft)
5) Turn around and trade Beltre. This is the deciding factor. If we are in a good playoff race, nobody here can argue that giving up non-blue-chip talent in order to compete for the playoffs with our young players and build a winning attitude wouldn’t be worth it. If we aren’t in a playoff race, we can reasonably expect to get a lot (if not more) of the talent back at the trade deadline (especially if his numbers improve like every hitter’s ever has at TBiA.
by BuckyB on Nov 11, 2008 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
More?
I don’t think a mid season Beltre trade will get back more then a off season Beltre trade. It will get some of the value back, but not all.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Nov 11, 2008 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes More!
I’m just depending on the idea that Beltre can potentially put together a 280, 15 homer, 50 RBI first half with the benefits of Rudy and TBiA.
by BuckyB on Nov 11, 2008 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
eh
idk if he would put up stats that high
but the point in my eyes is that unless he gets hurt his value isnt gonna go DOWN an dit helps the team for this year and your selling high on murphy imo
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i will concede
points one and two. for one year, Beltre would be an upgrade both offensively and defensively. but bringing guys in on one year deals, especially when you have to trade young talent to do so, does not convince the players that this team is dedicated to winning. not when you then turn around and try to trade them every July.
I have proposed assembling a similar group of guys who have value but who are blocked by better, younger players and offering them to the Giants for Sanchez. Something like Vallejo, Blalock (they seem to like him), an OF (Murphy?), and a young pitcher.
The difference is a) Sanchez is a pitcher and b) we have him through 2012.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
replace "blocked"
with “made expendable by”
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't need more non-TOTRS
Top-of-the-rotation-starters just officially became TOTRS, for me, at least.
Even though, the gap between TOTRS and non-TOTRS is probably not as significant as pitching-starved Rangers fans make it out to be.
Like dirkatron said a while back, 5 Andy Sonnanstine’s and we’re in the playoffs.
So while we don’t need to trade for a Sanchez when we have several similar available, I think you make a good point that the same idea could be used for a slightly more long-term option.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sanchez
has the stuff to be a TOTRS. He is not just a run of the mill arm.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
sanches has a very good/live arm
istnt a loe/hurley/etc guy
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, sanchez is much better than hurley. its not even close, actually
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That wasn't my point.
You putting Hurley in the same class of arms as Loe was where I got confused.
by brettgardner on Nov 11, 2008 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
my point was he was better than the harrison/hunter/hurley/loe/littleton guys that had been listed before – my bad
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
loe/littleton
see you’re doing it again lumping him in with people who are not nearly that player. Harrison and Hurley are much better than those others you list
by bushe on Nov 11, 2008 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
your right
those were just the guys listed earlier in this thread – the pitchers
the only thing those guys have in common is…that they were listed further up in the thread
sanchez > hurley/harrison/hunter along with loe/littleton
?
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wow
lumping hurley with loe? you have really soured on the guy…
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
see above
sry
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and no matter what i think of him…hurley>loe any day of the week lol
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we need to take out the second "T"
Top Of Rotation Starter. A TORS isn’t bad.
Or even sub guy for starter.
A torg is pretty sweet.
TOTRS is unwieldy.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
Rule 5? No…talk to the hand.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 5:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe for those who don't wield well.
I can sling TOTRS just fine ;)
But, sigh, TORS it is …
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 9:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1-4 are good
We wouldn’t get back more at the deadline than we gave up. It may et close but not more. Murphy was a former 1st round draft pick, Kiker (if included) was a top 15 pick.
We may get back a couple mid level prospects or one top prospect but to expect back more for only a couple months of service is kinda far fetched IMO.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Would they be interested in Vallejo
with Lopez and betancourt? Id say, Hunter, Metcalf, JMJ, and then Loe/Littleton?
by Michael Cave on Nov 11, 2008 10:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
and a nice prospect...
in Carlos Triunfel. They like this kid either at 2B or SS for a long time.
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
by Haeger Champ on Nov 11, 2008 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
triunfel
was seen as a very good prospect because of how young he was
now he is seen as a very good prospect again after having a good year
that said, hes probably not gonna stick in middle infield unless something big happened this year (almot EVERYONE thought he would grow out of SS by the time he was at the majors)
that said, its a legit arguement
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
$$
If Grant is saying this morning that the Rangers have $6 to $7 million to spend. If the M’s were to pick up half of the salary, what would the Rangers have to give up to make that deal? Would Hicks be willing to take all of the $13 million?
by Excel Hearts Choi on Nov 11, 2008 10:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Let's try this again.
If the Rangers have, supposedly, about half of Beltre’s ‘09 salary to spend, how do they make this deal work? Up the payroll or give up more talent so that the M’s eat the rest of the salary?
by Excel Hearts Choi on Nov 11, 2008 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming of course,
Hicks is ok with the deal (or we could trade Cat)
by BuckyB on Nov 11, 2008 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Cat
He’s a nice idea.
If Seattle’s motivated to do this for the salary relief, taking Cat back still saves them the difference.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Nov 11, 2008 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Beltre
I believe if all we gave up to get Beltre was the package being mentioned Hicks would authorize a 5-7 million increase on the budget for him. Hicks has said he would increase patroll if its the right deal and this one sounds like one that would warrant an increase and be justified.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like discussing this....
…just to piss off Jeff and the rest of lookoutlanding. It will never happen though IMO, at least not for that list of spares.
by jcir454 on Nov 11, 2008 10:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It may:
If Seattle really doesn’t think that they’ll win this year and want to save 13 mil. David Murphy has high value, don’t forget.
by BuckyB on Nov 11, 2008 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, he doesn't
If he’s platooned, he’s significantly above average.
If he’s not platooned, he’s average.
There’s no question he can hit RHP, but so can most COF’s.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
LF
Well, the M’s don’t have anything for LF for next season. Murphy would seem like a start, assuming they can find a platoon partner.
They’ve got a pretty high payroll, MLBTR estimates $95 million after arbitration raises. Going the platoon route might make the most sense financially.
by Excel Hearts Choi on Nov 11, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely
I’m all for a package centered around David Murphy, from both perspectives.
I just think a Kiker-level prospect who has the BITA potential would have to be included.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kapler
Gabe Kapler had a good year (.301/.340/.498) as a part-time player for the Brewers. He is a free agent, and has a career .294/.344/.484 line against left-handed pitching. This might be the platoon partner for Murphy. Not that this means that the M’s would offer him a contract.
by Excel Hearts Choi on Nov 11, 2008 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Chase...
do you think Mayberry has more value than Murphy to most teams?
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
by Haeger Champ on Nov 11, 2008 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely not
I’m still a believer in JMJ, and all, but David Murphy has established himself.
Someone on this board could probably quote you his Dewan ratings in LF, which were better than RF.
Mayberry mashes LHP, but this link will depress your enthusiasm about his overall value: http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi
He has a role on an ML club as a 4th / 5th OF’er who can smack the ball against LHP, possibly playing adequate to above-average defense in a corner. Good arm, IIRC.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pardon
his Dewan ratings were better in RF than LF, IIRC, which lowers his value to the Rangers.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+10 in RF, -10 in LF
I do think that’s a little weird, though, and I think he’s a plus corner outfielder at either spot going forward.
I just wouldn’t want to put him in center.
by philkid3 on Nov 11, 2008 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, just curious
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
by Haeger Champ on Nov 11, 2008 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And a bad link, goddamn
http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or maybe they don't allow you to link directly
to a players’ page.
In that case, fine.
You win, minorleaguesplits.com.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Borbon
I would think the M’s would ask for Borbon instead of Murphy so that Ichiro could go back to RF. Course the Rangers want Borbon so Hamilton can move to right so I’m not sure that works for the Rangers.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Nov 11, 2008 10:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
yes
they will be looking to replace Adam Jones.
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't they have Jeremy Reed or something like that?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
they had chris snelling (one of my all time fav minor league prospects) but he was always hurt
reed is seen as nothing now IIRC
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
heh
gotta move ichiro because he is “too good” in CF and makes the rest of thir OF lazy…
o wait, that was last year
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a Beltre fan
But if we can bring him in with a package of mostly spares, and net some draft picks with it… eh, why not.
Just say no to Scott Olsen.
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 10:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
My question is
Is Beltre a 100% sure thing to be a type A if he was a FA?
If that’s a yes, sign me up.
My next question is, what’s the odds of Blalock being a type A next year?
If that’s the case.
We could potentially have 5 picks in the 1st/supp. round.
We hopefully get good production out of Blalock and Beltre
We free up 20M after next year to do what we please with it.
It seriously looks like win/win situations. I just don’t want to think they’re type A’s and then get disappointed that they end up Type B like Bradley.
by Coolbean04 on Nov 11, 2008 10:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'd think Blalock's missed time
from last year basically precludes him from being Type A absent a Bonds-ian year
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2008 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily
Since it was on the DL it doesn’t count against him whereas Bradleys missed time this year not being on the DL looks like it hurt him. If Blalock put in a full season of .280-.300/ .350/.500 he would be right up there for Type A status. Now him moving to 1B/DH may hurt him since its a much more offensive category compared to 3B/SS/2B
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
what are the divisions for positions?
is it SS/2b, 1b/3b and of/dh?
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
Its 3B/SS/2B
C
1B/DH
OF
But im not 100% on that
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
ok thx
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If we really could get Beltre for peanuts
Do it already. But if they want a catcher or something… no way.
by JimBonnick84 on Nov 11, 2008 11:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The M's already have a very good catcher
who won’t play because they have a high salary Japanese favorite behind the plate.
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2008 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, they signed Jojima to a big extension
Just this past season.
Just say no to Scott Olsen.
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
evidently that came down from "on high"
owners wanted to “take care” of jojima before they sold?
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Very good?
His defense is as or more questionable than Max’s and he didn’t exactly shine at the plate, which is his strong point by far.
by tyd3311 on Nov 11, 2008 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The better one
is on the bench.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
by TheBZA on Nov 11, 2008 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm willing to bet
Clement is better than Johjima, especially when you factor in $.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
by TheBZA on Nov 11, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Im not factoring in money
Im just talking about on the baseball field, from everything I’ve read, Clement is a DH.
by tyd3311 on Nov 11, 2008 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1mm
clement is MUCH better than jojima
on defense, idk but overall – with their “rebuilding” team – yes and its not even close
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The M's have...
zero very good catchers on their roster. They have one highly overpaid and one highly over-touted. But neither are very good. However, your point is still valid: the presence of these two catchers precludes a deal for another (without the departure of Johjima or Clement).
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
by Haeger Champ on Nov 11, 2008 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay maybe "very good" is a bit much
but how about “potential to be good”. Clement and Salty seem a bit comparable to me – of course Salty is younger – but both have been disappointments in the majors after strong minor league careers. I imagine that most people in Seattle probably would like to actually see what Clement has rather than letting him sit behind Kenji for another season.
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i think you can rest assured
the M’s don’t want/need another catcher
by clark on Nov 11, 2008 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm all for such a trade
Having Beltre at 3rd really helps mitigate some of the drawback to having our gold glover at SS. He’s a beast on that corner. He’d replace Bradley’s bat in the lineup, allow Blalock to DH with maybe a little time at first. Assuming we don’t give up any blue chip prospects, I’m for it.
I don’t think your package gets it done – it amounts to the M’s admitting their 2009 isn’t going to be competitive, so it’ll cost them lots in terms of fans. They need some nice piece (nicer than David Murphy) that they can show to their fans.
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2008 11:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
it amounts to the M’s admitting their 2009 isn’t going to be competitive
this is what caused them to make the horrible, aweful bedard trade last year
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Weren't the Emms
in on Blalock earlier?
I wonder if Blalock/Murph + one of the grab-bag of fringe guys discussed in the OP would get it done.
by Keynes on Nov 11, 2008 11:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
They're gonna have a field day with this one over at LL.
Metcalf/Vallejo/Murphy/Loe gets you laughed at. A pu-pu platter of shit you don’t like never nets a good player in a trade, no matter what Yankee message boards may lead you to believe.
I’m very on board with the idea of bringing in Beltre, but it’ll cost you something.
How about Blalock, Murphy and Jack Benny?
Probably they’ll want more, though.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
Rule 5? No…talk to the hand.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 11:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
That's actually far more comparable to the A's deal
Or Blalock, Murphy, and Hurley.
“We’ll thrown in Metcalf” only makes the offer more insulting
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2008 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
couldnt benoit be a type A next year?
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Doubt it
Since the stats only go back two years and with this year being a pretty bad one I doubt it. Type B possibly but Type A is highly doubtful
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What would the Mariners do
about the gaping whole in their lineup? Because their gaping hole without Beltre would be like the A’s gaping hole without Holliday, and I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole or Mariner’s would be.
by tyd3311 on Nov 11, 2008 11:21 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
"our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole"
yikes
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
by Haeger Champ on Nov 11, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you gotta ask...
you’re the A’s hole.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
by Rodney on Nov 11, 2008 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Perhaps
I posted my OT diary a bit too soon.
Just say no to Scott Olsen.
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
heh
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sig for LSJ
I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole or Mariner’s would be.
awesome
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think I'm gonna go with that
Ya’ll can just post stupid pictures in my failed OT thread or something.
Just say no to Scott Olsen.
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tadah
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
w00t
lol
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lineup
If they are trading Beltre they are practically admitting a lost season. Developing young players trumps a whole in the lineup in that case.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No
It’s very tempting — and dammit Adam you do this every winter — to start dreaming up ways the Rangers can become a darkhorse for 2009. And yes, Beltre would solve a short term problem at 3B in a solid way. But the price is likely to be regrettable down the road. I’d rather find a solution that doesn’t cost top prospects. Anyone who thinks Beltre can be had for less than someone we will miss a lot is fooling themselves.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2008 11:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Texas Rangers. The Rangers need pitching and have catching to deal, which makes them the ideal trade partner for the Sox on this year’s market. Quite simply, there is no better fit. Texas has four catchers on its 40-man roster — Gerald Laird, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Taylor Teagarden and Max Ramirez — and one major league evaluator recently suggested that the Rangers would be willing to deal two of them (so long as Ramirez is one of the two).
That leaves Laird, Teagarden, and Saltalamacchia as the centerpiece of any deal.
Clearly, if the Sox wanted Laird, they could easily get him. The defensively skilled Teagarden (who is also blessed with power) and the hyped Saltalamacchia are more desirable targets that will cost more, though Epstein and his baseball operations staff understand the difficulty in finding good young catching. If the Red Sox ever were to give up a top pitching prospect like Clay Buchholz, Michael Bowden or Justin Masterson — the last is unlikely — this is precisely the kind of deal that would inspire them to do it.
Rangers would want to move Ramirez?
Boston likes Masterson the most?
maybe i just read that entirely wrong.
Jindal '12
by Longhorn on Nov 11, 2008 11:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Damn
What exactly does the front office have against Maximus? Are they scared he’s going to become another Jason Botts (man without a position) or something?
But then again, who the hell is Tony Massarotti?
Just say no to Scott Olsen.
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Moving Ramirez
as one of two dealt makes sense. He’s the least likely to stick at catcher defensively.
if the Sox lose on someone like Mark Teixeira, the cost for Saltalamacchia or Teagarden could go up.
So I guess we should root for Boston to sign Teixeira?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2008 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe
but i’d put him at DH now and then you don’t have to worry about your DH for several years…
Jindal '12
by Longhorn on Nov 11, 2008 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if you dont resign bradley
this is a good idea
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on board with that
if they don’t deal him. In fact, I’m ready to roll with him there right now, let him go through some growing pains early in the year. But he’ll have to wait until Blalock is gone.
I’m ok with dealing him, though, because I think there’s a good chance another team likes his bat enough to give up something good for him.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2008 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That actually tells me that he's the most likely to stay
you don’t really need two premium catchers – would it make sense to go into next season with Laird and Tea as your two guys? Max’s bat means that he can crack the lineup away from C – something that I doubt the other three can do.
by JBImaknee on Nov 11, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Max
To me it means they don’t want to trade both their defensive catchers (Laird and TT) and be left with Salty and Max.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that's probably it
But as I’ve previously stated, you don’t really want to trade Salty and Max and be left with Laird and Tea either (at least not IMO).
Just say no to Scott Olsen.
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True
Although in that scenario I could see TT being in OKC and Laird as the everyday with a veteran backup.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, based on the fact Wash has already given Laird the "inside track" if he's still here
That could very well be what winds up happening on opening day. In which case I will be most severely disappointed.
Just say no to Scott Olsen.
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ehh
I’d be fine with it. Not thrilled but it isn’t the worst outcome of this whole situation
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't help but think though
That could set us up for a repeat of Salty’s 2008, only with Teagarden perhaps the victim. That’s something I really don’t want to see happen.
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
As long as the veteran backup doesn’t get hurt we can leave TT down as long as we need and not bring him up to platoon.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Question
Who do you think decides who the starting catcher is going to be in 2009?
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 11, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i dont know
but i pray its not ron washington
i have zero faith in the guy
q
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
john hart?
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
grady fuson?
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really know
But if Laird’s still here, I kind of doubt he’d simply be swept aside by the upper management, even in favor of Teagarden. Especially if Gerry starts whining again. At best, we’d see another Laird/young guy platoon, and that platoon seemed to favor Laird last season.
My guess is Ron will get who he wants, and he says he wants Laird.
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
My guess is Ron will get who he wants, and he says he wants Laird.
Why do you think that Ron will get who he wants?
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good question
Wash is a company man and he will toe the line and say nice things about whoever ends up being the starting C.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 11, 2008 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the one thing i have faith in
is that wash will screw it up somehow
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he is still the manager
Even if he might be a little bit of a lame duck one I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t be allowed to start who he wants.
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Duh,
Nolan Ryan Obviously.
He decides all.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
by DJCahill on Nov 11, 2008 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
Dirkatron has a pretty big say in the matter.
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
by Haeger Champ on Nov 11, 2008 2:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+40
The 40 Trumps All!!!
Rule 5? No…talk to the hand.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
re: catching situation
mlb:
teagarden
AAA:
one of salty/maxram (give them ~500 AB there)
traded:
laird
one of salty/maxram
now heres another question…would you do
laird for bard?
would boston?
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 12:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Laird for Bard
I’d do it, but I’d shop the offer around.
Laird’s value looks like a solid relief arm.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Nov 11, 2008 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Veteran
Its easy to find a veteran backup catcher who plays once a week.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
Nothing wrong with him.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Guh.
I guess I’ve got higher standards.
by brettgardner on Nov 11, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For a backup catcher?
If TT is your starter and you have a young guy in OKC ready in case of injury what do you expect from your backup catcher? You want a HOFer back there sitting on the bench 6 days a week?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No
But surely there’s something better than Melhuse. He blows.
by brettgardner on Nov 11, 2008 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes
but not until post ASB 2010 IMO…
by Goyogringo on Nov 11, 2008 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean 2012 right?
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
AA 2009
AAA 2010 with a sept call up…
Rangers 2011; as a backup catcher – don’t think he profiles as a starter…
by Goyogringo on Nov 11, 2008 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He already got 80
AA at bats, and held his own with the bat… He is plus plus defense.
by tyd3311 on Nov 11, 2008 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he did but
he got promoted due to the injuries/promotions of the other catchers in the system not because he should have been promoted. He did well in AA but he has played so little in the last few years due to injuries that he needs to spend the year in AA and another in AAA to get at bats. His calling is defense as we all know but whether he hits or not will determine whether he can start IMO (at least in the AL). My bet is that he will never hit for average in the ML, 220-230 range…
by Goyogringo on Nov 12, 2008 2:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's why he would make a good backup
and why spend all that time in the minors working at hitting, if it’s not gonna help any, iyo.. He would probably be better off working with Rudy everyday.
by tyd3311 on Nov 12, 2008 7:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Backup
You don’t develop a guy to be a backup. Thats not fair to the team or to the guy. That very well may be all he ever is but its unfair to him and the organization to just give up on the guy and bring him up to sit on the bench when he has obvious holes in his game that he could be working on in the minors.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 12, 2008 8:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But maybe
he gets better working with Rudy everyday in batting practice.
by tyd3311 on Nov 12, 2008 8:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't come to the majors still needing to work on stuff
You come to the majors and refine what you already have. Rudy has 24 other guys on the team to work with and the guys who play everyday will have dibs on him before the backup catcher.
The only backup position you should develop in the minor leagues IMO is utility IF. All those positions are so different that if you identify a guy who doesn’t have the tools necessarily to start at a position but is versatile enough to play multiple positions then that is useful. Plus a utility IF will usually play 60 or so games spread out all over the place anyway. A true backup catcher should not play more than 40 tops.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 12, 2008 9:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah my bad
I was thinking he was still in A ball. Spend 2009 in AA, 2010 in AAA, 2011 being the injury callup, and then 2012 being up full time as a backup.
I would say end of year 2010 is probably more realistic than mid 2010.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
vet
but not melhuse, please.
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Whats peoples deal with Melhuise?
Im asking this seriously. Why does everyone hate the idea of him as a backup. I agree he wouldn’t be my first choice but he fits the bill of a backup catcher.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's move on from Adam Melhuse.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 9:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, please
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 9:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
He’s a fine once a week backup, imo.
Who would you prefer?
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 10:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'd prefer someone
Who can still actually play baseball. From what I saw in his two stints here, I just don’t think the guy is capable enough of hitting, throwing, running, catching – anything – to be playing major league baseball anymore. He’s horrible. Even if all we’re talking is once a week, the dude’s 36 – he needs to be standing in the coaches, not behind the plate.
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 11, 2008 10:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 11, 2008 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Stewart
if we’re looking for a defensive catching spare who is young and cheap.
I don’t know why, all things being equal, you’d go for a catching spare who is old, cheap, and beyond decline.
"He’s basically told himself unconsciously that he can’t be any good unless he catches 130 games a year. If he played with the baseball smarts of a guy like a David Eckstein, he’d maximize his talent and be an incredible player." - Andy Seiler, Texas Rangers Analyst
by Chase Irwin on Nov 11, 2008 10:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lets trick Greg Zaun into coming here
Promising him the starting job
by BuckyB on Nov 12, 2008 12:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Bard...
pretty locked in as a reliever? He throws a 97-98 fastball, a cut fastball, a decent slider and a circle change. That’s a lot of pitches, and it sounds like a lot of them (besides the fastball) can miss bats.
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
by Haeger Champ on Nov 11, 2008 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
iirc
he bombed as a starter in their system
pretty badly actually
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Beltre makes sense.
I like that Beltre and Blalock could bring a few extra picks back in 2010 draft. Then we can restock the lower levels for the next wave.
The Beltre package seems like a small price to pay to proactively get the next wave going and ready to arrive in 2014-15.
Go Cubbies and Go Rangers!
by pbpsean on Nov 11, 2008 1:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Cat?
If the M’s agreed to take Cat back in the deal, would that increase the quality of prospects going to the M’s?
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Nov 11, 2008 1:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It would have to
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt we are fretting over Cat
and his contract.
by tyd3311 on Nov 11, 2008 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is anyone upset?
About the fact that one of our players is going to be taken in the Rule 5 draft bc Frank the Cat is on our 40-man?
by BuckyB on Nov 12, 2008 12:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Look
JD isn’t stupid. If that actually happens, we can talk.
by tyd3311 on Nov 12, 2008 7:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Cat will be on the 40-man
I’ll look forward to the conversation
by BuckyB on Nov 12, 2008 8:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But others may have departed through trades.
and Like bigsteve says below, losing guys like Harrison or Komentani is just a part of the process.. I’m not worried about JMJ, Vallejo, or Poveda being protected.
by tyd3311 on Nov 12, 2008 9:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rule 5
As long as Vallejo, JMJ, or Poveda are protected I am fine. If we lose a guy like Harrison or Kometani I have no problem with that. They don’ deserve 40 spots right now anyway.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 12, 2008 8:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Save the money
Save the money and put a defender at 3B (Metcalf) and Ramirez at DH as your RH power hitter. This team can take a power hit at a corner position, b/c it makes up for it at 2B, and CF (Hamilton)… and sometimes at C.
by mattrpav on Nov 11, 2008 1:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
But why?
If you don’t have to, why would you willingly sacrifice production anywhere?
by brettgardner on Nov 11, 2008 1:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Except
Metcalf doesn’t appear to me to be any great defender, and we have re-signed Blalock, so that pretty much takes care of our DH position.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
by DJCahill on Nov 11, 2008 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy cow.
I never thought about Beltre. Yes. Emphatically yes.
Depends on what it takes to get him, of course.
by philkid3 on Nov 11, 2008 2:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I tend to have strong opinions
but this proposed deal doesn’t really move me that much either way. I wouldn’t be pissed about it, and probably wouldn’t be that excited about it either.
I don’t think the brass should just punt on 2009, but I also don’t think they should tie up much in the way of resources for a guy that is here for 1 year only.
I liked the JJ Hardy trade idea better, with FFace going to 3b immediately.
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 11, 2008 2:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
but surely
Hardy costs more than Beltre, right? And then he blocks Andrus in 2010.
"Fielding isn't that important" - Save Us 11/11/08
by Haeger Champ on Nov 11, 2008 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on board
If we get Beltre for Murphy+, we have the best lineup in baseball, with some pretty good defense if Kinsler improves and Davis does well at 1st.
The bigger problem is the pitching. Get Buchholz from the Sox for Salty+. Then you roll with Padilla, Buchholz, BMac, Harrison, and Millwood. You have a plethora of 4th and 5th starter types to replace anyone who gets injured or underperforms.
Adding Beltre and Buchholz should makes us a dark horse in the AL West.
"That one is headed for the moon!" - All Star Derby
by m_nieft on Nov 11, 2008 3:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
lol.lol.lmao.lmao. trading for a hitter
the A’s were last in hitting last year, they got a good hitter. We were first in hitting last year, why get another hitter.
by Save us on Nov 11, 2008 3:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
We were last in fielding and we get a gold glover at a critical position
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1- 3B isn’t a critical position
2- Fielding isn’t that important
3- A pitcher would help tons more
by Save us on Nov 11, 2008 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Just wow
Fielding isn’t that important? Really?
Seriously dude go jump off a cliff and “Save us” all the trouble
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 11, 2008 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
fielding isnt that important
clearly…as shown by the Texas Rangers, circa 2008
normal people : chuck norris :: getting flustered in big games : greg davis
by knockoutking on Nov 11, 2008 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
how about you go die?
you contribute nothing to anyone in life
by Save us on Nov 11, 2008 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been on here a week
And I can already tell your opinion’s useless, baseball and otherwise.
"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."
by Maximilian on Nov 11, 2008 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Names' right there.
And you are?
"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."