Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, December 09, 2011

Diamondbacks “close” to getting Trevor Cahill from A’s

Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com reports that the Diamondbacks are “close” to acquiring right-hander Trevor Cahill from the A’s for multiple prospects, adding that right-hander Jarrod Parker and outfielder Collin Cowgill are “in play.”

However, Bob Nightengale of USA Today says Parker “is not in a potential deal” because Arizona plans to have him in the Opening Day rotation.

Top prospect Trevor Bauer isn’t eligible to be traded yet because he was the No. 3 overall pick in June’s draft, although technically he could be a “player to be named later.”

UPDATE: Rosenthals adds that veteran reliever Craig Breslow would also be heading to Arizona in the deal.

UPDATE2: According to Susan Slusser, it is a done deal. JF

Thanks to Wes.

Repoz Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:19 PM | 103 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: arizona, athletics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Dock Ellis Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:27 PM (#4011914)
Cahill's contract status:

2012 - $3,500,000
2013 - $5,500,000
2014 - $7,700,000
2015 - $12,000,000
2016 - *$13,000,000 - $13M Team Option, $300k Buyout
2017 - *$13,500,000 - $13.5M Team Option, $500k Buyout

Billy better get a killing.
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:28 PM (#4011915)
I'm assuming the D'Backs are acquiring him to flip him to the Angels in a much less lucrative deal.
   3. Khrushin it bro Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:29 PM (#4011919)
I want Bauer he looks a lot like Lincecum. Does Arizona have a close to MLB prospect that can play CF?
   4. Danny Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:32 PM (#4011926)
Bauer can't be a PTBNL until January 25th, and Parker/Cowgill doesn't seem like a great return.
   5. The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:32 PM (#4011928)
Does Arizona have a close to MLB prospect that can play CF?
That's Cowgill.

Then again, his name is Collin Cowgill. How the hell can you be any good when you're named "Collin Cowgill"??
   6. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:32 PM (#4011930)

I want Bauer he looks a lot like Lincecum. Does Arizona have a close to MLB prospect that can play CF?,


AJ Pollock, although I think he's kinda "meh." Sickels gives him a "B-" grade and he should start in AAA this year.

Cowgill can play CF, although I think he's a bit stretched there full time.
   7. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:38 PM (#4011938)
Hey Billy:

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
   8. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:42 PM (#4011942)
Hahahaha @ Shooty. Nice. With the Gio, now apparent Cahill trade, what's Billy up to here?
   9. Dock Ellis Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:42 PM (#4011943)
Yeah, I'm glad I'm not an A's fan. This over-rebuilding crap is ridiculous.
   10. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:51 PM (#4011957)
Endless, endless churning. I love the shirt, but they are so very boring right now. Better than the Mariners is a battle cry that can only keep you warm so long. I'm feeling like R.J. MacReady about now.
   11. The Artist Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:52 PM (#4011959)
Wait, no Parker, no Bauer, No Bradley, No Skaggs - what the hell? Why would he make that deal without getting a single one of the D-Backs top 4 prospects? For 6 years of cost controlled Trevor Cahill?
   12. Dingbat_Charlie Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:59 PM (#4011969)
Maybe there's a third team involved.
   13. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:03 PM (#4011973)
I like Billy Beane - loved Moneyball. But, man, that book is aging in dog years. I have no idea what the man is doing these days other than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
   14. 1k5v3L Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:05 PM (#4011976)
Haren trade, repeated. The A's did plenty well in the first trade, am sure they'll do fine here too. I really don't understand why the Dbacks feel they have to make a trade. It's certain that one of their top 4 pitching prospects is in play; I don't think that Bauer or Bradley can or will be traded yet, and the Dbacks love Skaggs. So that means Parker is the most likely centerpiece, and the tweets from Ken Rosenthal and Nick Piecoro are aligned with this, regardless of what Nightingale says. As a Dbacks fan, I have really mixed feelings about this, as honestly Parker in 2 years can, and likely will be, as good as Cahill is now. And I don't see why Parker can't step up and give the Dbacks excellent production at the back of the rotation next year. Oh well... [Edit... at least I like Cahill better than Gio...]
   15. Bad Doctor Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:14 PM (#4011984)
Yeah, I'm glad I'm not an A's fan. This over-rebuilding crap is ridiculous.

It was probably too soon to raise the issue yesterday -- I don't think there is such a thing as an A's hijack -- but I found myself wondering what the A's would do now. It seems like they have a good core of talent (well, arms at least) and a couple smart additions could get them poised to compete in 2013-14 ... but after the day the Angels had, on top of them locking up Weaver, and with the Rangers ascendant, what would you do if you were Beane?
   16. Spahn Insane Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:20 PM (#4011995)
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...


Sorry--just had to see what that looked like in boldface. Carry on...
   17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:21 PM (#4011996)
There are two wild cards now. You compete.
   18. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:21 PM (#4011997)
Isn't Cahill a FIPS mirage? He'll get pummeled in Arizona.
   19. Hecubot Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:29 PM (#4012002)
I think you're better off looking at Pitch/FX for Cahill than his stat line if you want to get a notion at his upside. He's got fantastic movement on his pitches and when he commands them he can be dominant. Also, he scrapped the knuckle-curve he used in the minors to rack up Ks, and developed a regular curveball at the major league level which he was using this year. He's got a great feel for getting movement on pitches and I am confident he will see a rise in strikeouts over the next several years. That coupled with increased command on his sinker could make him formidable. He's still very young and he's going to improve. As an A's fan, I hate losing him.

He got brought up too early and has had to develop at the major league level. He's smart and he's adapted, but he's by no means done in his development.
   20. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:34 PM (#4012009)
Wait, so what is the deal exactly?

It can't honestly be just Cowgill+Breslow for Cahill. That'd be a horrible, horrible laughable deal for Oakland. I'm not sure Parker+Brewlow+Cowgill is a good deal for Oakland either, but at least it isn't laughable.
   21. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:34 PM (#4012010)
But he has pretty much league average or below K rates in the majors, and must have lost his command a lot last year to have some of the games he had. The Diamondbacks are giving up an awful lot for what seems to be a younger version of Joe Saunders.
   22. A triple short of the cycle Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:37 PM (#4012012)
I thought Cahill looked lost at times this past year. I have doubts about him. I would much rather see the A's trade him than Gio, if the returns were comparable.
   23. A triple short of the cycle Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:39 PM (#4012014)
Better than the Mariners is a battle cry that can only keep you warm so long.

Well, soon we will also be able to battle cry that we are better than the Astros.
   24. Danny Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:40 PM (#4012015)
It looks like it's going to be Parker, Cowgill, and another prospect (Borchering?) for Cahill and Breslow. That's definitely not Haren territory, though Cahill's not as good as Haren was.
   25. The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:49 PM (#4012022)
Haren trade, repeated. The A's did plenty well in the first trade, am sure they'll do fine here too.
The funny thing is how much worse that could have been for Arizona. Brett Anderson looked fantastic before he started getting hurt, and it seems like Chris Carter and Aaron Cunningham are busts. If those three guys had reached the upside that at one point seemed very plausible for each of them... disaster.

It can't honestly be just Cowgill+Breslow for Cahill. That'd be a horrible, horrible laughable deal for Oakland.
Especially when Oakland already has Breslow.
   26. Khrushin it bro Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:58 PM (#4012025)
So Parker missed his age 21 season with an injury and then pitched 130 innings in AA at 22? Cahill had similar numbers FIP wise as a 22 year old in the big leagues with no injury past and an ERA under 3...

I'd hope they get more than a C+ (from Sickles) OF especially if they add in Breslow.
   27. A triple short of the cycle Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:58 PM (#4012026)
Cowgill can play CF, although I think he's a bit stretched there full time.

I haven't even heard his name before. So he's a corner OF then? AG#1F, what type of hitter is he?
   28. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:59 PM (#4012027)
Especially when Oakland already has Breslow.

Trading for players you already have is the new market inefficiency!
   29. esseff Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:22 AM (#4012039)
RHRP Ryan Cook is the third player going to the A's. Parker, Cowgill and Cook for Cahill and Breslow.
   30. A triple short of the cycle Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:29 AM (#4012046)
Now that I've read the scouting reports on Cowgill... meh. Sounds like Cody Ross with some speed.
   31. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:30 AM (#4012047)
That's a terrible deal for Oakland and I think Cahill is overrated.

Sickels says Cowgill is more a 4th OF and I tend to agree. He's been a stat darling though.
   32. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:34 AM (#4012052)
After looking at the A's new players...
Parker looks like a decent prospect. Just 22, had TJ surgery in 2010. Minors #s look OK, but don't blow me away or anything.
Cowgill is 25 years old, 5'9" and 185#. Some speed, I guess... can't believe there's a real high up-side, there.
Cook is 24. Converted to reliever last season, to pretty good effect.

It's at least possible those guys together could be worth > 4 WAR next season, but ain't nobody here The Final Piece.
   33. Danny Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:39 AM (#4012055)
Cowgill with a zMLE of .277/.334/.410 last year, which is much better than anyone else on Oakland's depth chart (Swingles, represent). No upside, though.

I think this is a decent deal if you think Cahill is a league average SP and a bad deal if you think he's much better than that. I think they should have held out for another decent prospect given that they have no urgency to make a trade.
   34. Matheny Hitting School and Investment Strategies Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:39 AM (#4012056)
Sickels says Cowgill is more a 4th OF and I tend to agree. He's been a stat darling though.

Not really. Guys who had a higher OPS than Cowgill in Reno last year with more than 100 at bats: Andy Tracy (the old one), Brandon Allen, Ryan Langerhans, Cody Ransom, Sean Burroughs and Wily Mo Pena. And before last year's season on the moon, his numbers were quite tame.
   35. Dock Ellis Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:40 AM (#4012057)
And Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic is tweeting the Diamondbacks will also get cash. Jeezum crow.
   36. shoewizard Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:41 AM (#4012059)
Cahill has 583 MLB innings, with pretty clearly defined GB, K, Walk, HR/FB rates...etc. The variable has been LD rate and BABIP.

So I don't know if there is so much more upside just because he is 23, going to his age 24 season.

Since 1996, Right Handers with minimum 550 IP through age 23, K/9 Less than 7. (to get King Felix and Cain off the list...different types of pitchers)

Rk          Player WAR SO/9    IP   G GS  W  L   H   R  ER  BB  SO  ERA ERAHR
1    Trevor Cahill 9.4 5.48 583.0  96 96 40 35 554 274 253 217 355 3.91  107 65
2    Sidney Ponson 4.9 5.54 567.0  95 84 29 34 607 325 308 205 349 4.89   95 84
3      Jon Garland 3.8 5.09 571.0 115 94 34 40 581 326 292 252 323 4.60  101 77 



Hopefully #19 is right. But even if he isn't, Cahill should do ok...provided the Az infield defense doesn't suck. Of course the AZ infield defense not sucking means John McDonald getting over 300 PA's.......
   37. Khrushin it bro Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:45 AM (#4012060)
The A's better make more trades for some HITTERS... These low scoring teams with good SP, mediocre defenses and crappy lineups are booorrring.

I guess the OF is Allen LF, Grant Green / Cowgill / Choice CF, and Michael Taylor RF? Meh...

They really need some hitters at SS, 3B and C. I think trading Suzuki makes more sense if they can get anything since he will be absolutely done in 3 or 4 years when they really need a good C.
   38. shoewizard Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM (#4012066)
Haren trade, repeated.


Thats an overstatement. Bottom line is they traded the high ceiling but lower certainty guy for the lower ceiling, higher certainty guy.

Parker could potentially turn into a monster of course, and make KT look really bad here. But thats no lock, and it's not like he signed Russ Ortiz or something. Cahill is pretty solid.

I think the bigger issue is what we discussed over e mail:

ROSTER CONSTRUCTION.

The only surefire above league avg bat for his position that they have locked up past 2012 is Justin Upton. They needed a upgrade offensively, especially in the infield. Instead they have to rely on Ryan Roberts not running out of pixie dust, and Paul Goldschmidt trying to figure out how to get his K rate under 25%. Drew is gone either way after 2012, whether he comes back from injury or not. Aaron Hill ? Who knows.... Montero is a FA after 2012 unless they extend him. Chris Young is up and down and more or less a league avg hitter at his best. Parra is a great defensive left fielder and the perfect 4th outfielder....but does not and probably will never have enough pop to carry a corner OF position.

There are no higly ranked position prospects coming up in the system. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Yet we are trading one of the better pitching prospects in the game for more pitching when we have 3 more where that came from. Why not flip Parker for a Bat ?

Cahill is fine....good pitcher, good value, good contract. No guarantees Parker will achieve his potential. But they really needed more certainty in the lineup.
   39. For the Turnstiles (andeux) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:55 AM (#4012067)
Ryan Sweeney is probably starting somewhere, but yeah, meh.
   40. Justin T has a centaur for a mentor Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:56 AM (#4012070)
Is it our turn to tell everyone on BTF we're done with this team?

Luckily, the team has been so boring for all of Cahill's career that I never had reason to start giving a #### about him. Jarrod Parker, okay. Sure. Same old, same old.
   41. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:00 AM (#4012076)
Then again, his name is Collin Cowgill. How the hell can you be any good when you're named "Collin Cowgill"??

I'm gonna have to go ask Tristram E. Speaker, Tyrus Raymond Cobb, and Napoleon Lajoie.
EDIT: forgot another good one - Carlton Ernest Fisk.
   42. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:09 AM (#4012083)
In other D-Backs news, Joe Saunders is on the trading block, and Lyle Overbay signed for a million bucks, so it looks like shoewizard's offensive concerns are about to be a thing of the past!
   43. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:13 AM (#4012084)
Is it our turn to tell everyone on BTF we're done with this team?

When I go to a San Rafael Pacifics game next year, at least I'll know the home team's management will actually be trying to win games.
   44. 1k5v3L Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:21 AM (#4012086)
Thats an overstatement. Bottom line is they traded the high ceiling but lower certainty guy for the lower ceiling, higher certainty guy.

Well, in all fairness, when I posted here earlier, I was expecting the dbacks would send 5 or 6 players to Arizona, including guys like Miley and Borchering. In the end, they gave up fewer players than I anticipated, which either should make me think that KT knows what he's doing or should make me fear that Cahill's arm is about to fall off.

I don't know, I am torn here. I think Parker in 2013 and beyond will be as good as Cahill and potentially better. The guy is still coming back from TJ surgery, can dial it up to 98 mph on the four-seamer, has really picked up a two-seamer and getting tons of groundball outs on it, and his offspeed pitches are there. He can be a star.

The thing is, the Dbacks couldn't really count on him in 2012, so they went for the established major leaguer who's cost controlled for at least four, and maybe six years. They also get a second lefty in the pen who's better than Zagurski or Zavada or Zigzagga or whatever other left handed Zebras they have in the minor leagues now.

I think Cowgill can be a good centerfielder, and hit enough to be valuable there. The Dbacks won't use him there, and they have AJ Pollock coming up, and Gillespie will be a perfectly cromulent fourth outfielder this year. The A's are gambling that if/when they have a new stadium Parker will be what Cahill is today, or better. Seems fair.
   45. The District Attorney Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:22 AM (#4012088)
I'm gonna have to go ask Tristram E. Speaker, Tyrus Raymond Cobb, and Napoleon Lajoie.
EDIT: forgot another good one - Carlton Ernest Fisk.
Only "Tristram E. Speaker" is as bad as "Collin Cowgill". That means he has a mere 25% chance.
   46. 1k5v3L Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:24 AM (#4012091)
In other D-Backs news, Joe Saunders is on the trading block, and Lyle Overbay signed for a million bucks, so it looks like shoewizard's offensive concerns are about to be a thing of the past!
Well, Saunders was the worst hitting pitcher on the Dbacks staff last year, so this helps! Overbay is a fine addition, a left handed backup 1st baseman. Nothing to complain about. The Dbacks are also saving money between what Saunders would've gotten in arbitration (~8m) and what Cahill (3.5m) and Breslow (~2.5m) will make next year. Hopefully they use it to lock up Miggy to a long term deal, and then call it an offseason.
   47. esseff Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:36 AM (#4012096)
Hello, Cowgill in the dust.
   48. Squash Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:47 AM (#4012104)
I think this trade sucks, but then, what does it matter? The A's aren't doing anything for the next five years anyway.
   49. mex4173 Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:55 AM (#4012112)
I'm gonna have to go ask Tristram E. Speaker, Tyrus Raymond Cobb, and Napoleon Lajoie.
EDIT: forgot another good one - Carlton Ernest Fisk.
Denton True Young has always been my favorite along those lines.
   50. Khrushin it bro Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:58 AM (#4012115)
I think Cowgill can be a good centerfielder, and hit enough to be valuable there.


Cowgill up?
   51. Brian Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:27 AM (#4012131)
Need more Cowgill?
   52. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:38 AM (#4012144)
"Mordecai Centennial Brown? How good could that guy be?"
   53. Khrushin it bro Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:45 AM (#4012149)
I got a fever... And the only thing that will fix it is more Cowgill! Yaaauuuhh
   54. MM1f Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:47 AM (#4012151)
Especially when Oakland already has Breslow.


D'oh!

So it's even worse then. Cahill by himself isn't good enough for Parker+Cowgill+other dude? No way.
   55. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:50 AM (#4012154)
Ok....DYING to know why MORE "Doom & Gloom" form the A's fans....overreact much? Not going anywhere this season. The prime idea, for those paying attention, is to open a stadium with a solid, young team and make a splash. Especailly if you do NOT have the pieces to make a run happen now. Now, you're seeing a guy like Cahill and an easily replaceable RP (Breslow), get moved for essentially younger, still cost-controlled.....Cahill and Breslow (with the potnetial to be better, also the potential to fall apart)with , what, Sweeney-clone (again, young, cost-controlled) as a throw in? Instead of watching yet Cahill pitch in the mediocre-good range (yep, he's more than likely peaked already...sorry. He'll be a decent Blanton comp, maybe, at best) for a mediocre team, why not take a run at having something really special, very soon?
   56. The District Attorney Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:54 AM (#4012159)
The prime idea, for those paying attention, is to open a stadium in the year 2525, if man is still alive
fixed
   57. Adam Starblind Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:07 AM (#4012174)
I once got a reverse Cowgill. It was awesome.
   58. PreservedFish Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:07 AM (#4012177)
Instead of watching yet Cahill pitch in the mediocre-good range ... for a mediocre team, why not take a run at having something really special, very soon?


I think I understand what Beane has been doing for the last x years. He wants to graduate a truly excellent class of prospects together, ZitoMulderHudsonTejadaGiambi excellent, and if this year's cohort isn't good enough he quickly cuts bait and rolls the dice again.

But, I understand the plight of the A's fan. That's a terrible thing to watch. And I don't think anything good will happen "very soon" with this approach. Maybe never. What would Beane do if he had Harper and Strasburg, but nobody else? Would A's fans get to enjoy them for more than a couple years?
   59. Hecubot Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:54 AM (#4012223)
I think I understand what Beane has been doing for the last x years. He wants to graduate a truly excellent class of prospects together, ZitoMulderHudsonTejadaGiambi excellent, and if this year's cohort isn't good enough he quickly cuts bait and rolls the dice again.


He's definitely talked about hitting a window with all the prospects blossoming. But Cahill is only 23, he's cost controlled for a long time and not only didn't they get younger with Parker, they didn't get any high upside guys at lower levels to build on. You're only getting a couple extra years of cost-control with Parker, and if he performs the A's will try to sign him to the same deal they had with Cahill. So the cost savings are minimal.

When you're in a rebuild mode you don't make a trade that has minimal upside. You trade proven talent for lots of potential.

There's only one aspect to this deal: win three years from now. But as we saw in the Dan Haren trade, where the A's got a haul of top prospects, prospects don't always pan out. You can probably futz around with the WAR and say that the A's came ahead in that deal but they won nothing, many of the prospects have proven brittle (Anderson) or have flopped (Carter). And so they're breaking it down again.

This deal means (a) A's will suck for 2012, 2013, and 2014 and (b) there's no guarantee they'll be any better in 2015 than they have been over the last three years. And while the A's keep blabbing about getting the best players without regard to position, that's one reason they've had a black hole of suck at 3B and no power in the outfield for years now.

They're a mediocre team that got worse. They haven't drafted particularly well, they haven't developed position players well, and they've made bad free agent signings. The Giants have completely outdone them in the draft over the last five years.
   60. shoewizard Posted: December 10, 2011 at 04:09 AM (#4012234)
Well, in all fairness


NEVER !!

In the end, they gave up fewer players than I anticipated, which either should make me think that KT knows what he's doing or should make me fear that Cahill's arm is about to fall off.


Hope you are wrong. This guy seems to confirm your worst fears....although who knows who he is. He's posting on Bowden's twitter....so how smart can he be:

Bill King “@JimBowdenESPNxm: medical concerns on Cahill” I am positive he's hurt. Arm slot changed, sinker has flattened. Under 20 starts in '12


Numbers wise the only difference for Cahill in 2010 vs. 2011 were more of his fly balls turned into line drives and he had a higher BABIP. A few more walks and K's, but ratio was the same.

Year    GB%    HR/FB      K %     BB %    K/BB    FIP     x FIP      LD %     BABIP      ERA
2010    56.0     11.2     15.1     8.1     1.87    4.19     3.99     15.0     .237     2.97
2011    55.9     11.6     16.3     9.1     1.79    4.10     3.90     18.8     .302     4.16 
   61. Bourbon Samurai, what price fettucine? Posted: December 10, 2011 at 04:21 AM (#4012251)
Jesus ####### christ Billy, really?

I am glad I live in DC now and have the Nats as a second team.
   62. The District Attorney Posted: December 10, 2011 at 04:31 AM (#4012257)
Breslow:
I can no longer denounce the relevance of Twitter. It broke the story of my trade...to me.

And, Rosenthal assures us that they'll trade Gio and Bailey too.
   63. Dock Ellis Posted: December 10, 2011 at 04:57 AM (#4012278)
I just realize that Jarrod Parker is but 8 months younger than Trevor Cahill.
   64. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:06 AM (#4012283)
He's definitely talked about hitting a window with all the prospects blossoming. But Cahill is only 23, he's cost controlled for a long time and not only didn't they get younger with Parker, they didn't get any high upside guys at lower levels to build on. You're only getting a couple extra years of cost-control with Parker, and if he performs the A's will try to sign him to the same deal they had with Cahill. So the cost savings are minimal.

When you're in a rebuild mode you don't make a trade that has minimal upside. You trade proven talent for lots of potential.


Sigh...
Why get NOTHING when you at least get the chance at SOMETHING is the basic point that EVERYONE is avoiding.....Cahill being on the A's makes little-to-no impact on the current A's. Sorry. This is the truth. So, why not try again when you have another window? What's wrong with creating another window? I get that everyone is tired of Beane or whatever, but this is one time I think he may actually havethe idea/timing down right. You were going to lose Cahill at some point anyways, no doubt. He can easily lose value in a number of ways between now and the end of the contract. During that contract, the chances of Oakland competing are slim. Therefore, you give yourself a better chance at the future in return for a player you were never going to get anything from/for anyways.

Aside from the picks, of course, if Cahill left as FA.....but then, that assumes he's a Type-Whatever and EVEN THEN people would ##### about the factthat Beane held him TOO LONG and now the window has been pushed out even farther........

Sigh...
   65. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:10 AM (#4012285)
When you're in a rebuild mode you don't make a trade that has minimal upside. You trade proven talent for lots of potential.

Yes, exactly.

#64 is nonsensical. Sigh...
   66. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:22 AM (#4012291)
I am all ears to the counter-argument. I just do not see the point in holding Cahill, but am open to being swayed. Nonsensical? How so? It's perfectly logical. You may disagree, that doesn't make it nonsense.
   67. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:24 AM (#4012293)
I get they are 8 months apart, but not in service time. Players also peak at different ages. What am I missing?
   68. shoewizard Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:27 AM (#4012295)
You trade proven talent for lots of potential.



Isn't Cahill for Parker exactly that ? Cahill is a 4 ERA guy....maybe better or worse some years depending on how the ball bounces....but thats what he is.

Parker consitutes potential Cy Young winner. He may well never even get to 10 WAR in his career....but he still has a better chance to win a CY Young award than Cahill does.
   69. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:32 AM (#4012300)

Isn't Cahill for Parker exactly that ? Cahill is a 4 ERA guy....maybe better or worse some years depending on how the ball bounces....but thats what he is.


This....Odds that Parker at least equals Cahill have to be decent (I know, I know, TINSTAAPP and all), right? Then, there's the upside. Cahill is exactly what everyone keeps saying....a proven commodity....but his value isn;t all that high, fellas. He's proven to be about a Blanton-esque pitcher at best right now, no? Cahill is simply NOT an Ace SP.
   70. The District Attorney Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:49 AM (#4012305)
You're mixing together bad and good arguments (with far more of the former).

"Our philosophy is to cash in everyone who turns out to be a non-superstar until we've got a bunch of superstars all on the team at once" - Bad argument. It is extremely unlikely to ever happen.

"We're waiting for our new stadium" - Bad argument. Again, who knows when or if this will happen. And even if I had a date for sure, I would not be sold that the team needs to be built to peak at that date and not before then. Why would that be?

"We're getting a cost-controlled guy" - Bad argument. You've got a cost-controlled guy. Admittedly, Parker is cost-controlled at a lower level. But when you are trading 23-year-olds signed to six-year contracts because they're not "cost-controlled" enough for you, you have reached the point of utter ridiculousness.

"We're not winning anything right now, so why do we need anybody?" - Bad argument. It should be obvious that this is a vicious circle. You have some decent players but a generally poor team, so you trade the decent players, and then two years later you have some new decent players but a generally poor team, so you trade the decent players...

"Parker is a top prospect who might well turn out to be as good as Cahill (who perhaps isn't as great as people make him out to be) and is certainly cheaper than Cahill" - Good argument.
   71. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 06:10 AM (#4012314)
I think you've misunderstood some things...allow me to assist:

Re: "We're getting a cost-controlled guy"....you miss the point ENTIRELY on. It's about getting those years to fit into the appropriate timeframe, which while he has blown it in the past, he MAY (key word throughout the whole thing here) have actually got the idea/timing right this time.

"Why do we need anybody" is an entire misrepresentation of what I said. "Why do we need an over-valued, yet decent, pitcher for? He's not an Ace nor a guy you build a team around, why not move him for his (potential) equal at a fraction of the cost in the hopes this aligns (FINALLY!) with the "window". That's a tad more accurate.

I will be the first to admit, the "recycling" project has grown old. There is an actual possibility they FINALLY got it right this time around, time will only tell. In the meantime, you simply can't raise a valid argument, without twisting my words, in keeping a starter that is frankly a mediocre-to-good pitcher in the hopes Parker ends up even a fraction better.
I have yet to see an argument, that honestly adresses some of my points without twisting my words or leaping to assumptions. Why NOT trade a proven, mediocre-to-good pitcher for a guy who is potnetially better, and cheaper, and may fit into the window that may actually finally arrive (for once)?
   72. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 06:19 AM (#4012319)
Straightforward: The value of keeping Cahill & Breslow Vs. The value of having Parker, Cowgill & Crow.

All ears for strightforward arguments for either side. I am honestly puzzled by the complete disdain for the deal, from an A's fans perspective. Emotions and fallacies aside, which is the better way to move forward for building/having a contender in MLB, AL-West Division? Package A or B?
   73. The District Attorney Posted: December 10, 2011 at 06:22 AM (#4012321)
It's about getting those years to fit into the appropriate timeframe, which while he has blown it in the past, he MAY (key word throughout the whole thing here) have actually got the idea/timing right this time.
It's gonna take more than six years?
   74. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 06:25 AM (#4012325)
# 73, I refer you to #72. Straightforward, now. I am all ears. I get the "sick of waiting" thing. I do. Honestly do me the favor of evaluating the deal as laid out in #72. I am open to being swayed, but I see a lot more emotion being used as an argument against the deal than actual reason. Correct me if I am wrong and please provide me the value of keeping Cahill/Breslow over dealing them for the package recieved.
   75. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 06:37 AM (#4012331)

Why get NOTHING when you at least get the chance at SOMETHING is the basic point that EVERYONE is avoiding.....Cahill being on the A's makes little-to-no impact on the current A's. Sorry. This is the truth. So, why not try again when you have another window? What's wrong with creating another window? I get that everyone is tired of Beane or whatever, but this is one time I think he may actually havethe idea/timing down right. You were going to lose Cahill at some point anyways, no doubt. He can easily lose value in a number of ways between now and the end of the contract. During that contract, the chances of Oakland competing are slim. Therefore, you give yourself a better chance at the future in return for a player you were never going to get anything from/for anyways.


Even if you agree the A's should go in full rebuild mode, does this seem like a great haul? Especially considering what Greinke, Garza and Ubaldo netted for fewer years of control?

FWIW, reports are the A's turned down Trevor Bauer in favor of Jarrod Parker.


Straightforward: The value of keeping Cahill & Breslow Vs. The value of having Parker, Cowgill & Crow.


Unless I missed the Royals getting involved, its Ryan Cook, not Aaron Crow.
   76. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 06:42 AM (#4012334)
Sorry, my mistake. Cook, not Crow.

All I am saying, is I see there is an agreement (#70) that Parker may be equal to/better than Cahill....so what's the problem now? I have yet to hear an argument, not backed by emotion or fallacies, but backed by reason and logic, for not making the deal. Especially considering that most seem to agree Parker may end up better then Cahill.

Does it seem like a great haul? Meh. Time will tell, as always. Cahill really wasn't all that great, though. Garza is CLAERLY better and Jimenez was (wrongfully) seen as #1 SP. Cahill is no #1 SP.

Edit: I see Grienke was recently added...again, viewed as a #1.....Cahill isn't....still waiting on the argument founded in reason as to why this is such an atrociously bad deal....
   77. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 06:52 AM (#4012338)
I'm not saying Cahill is as good as those mentioned pitchers, but you do get many more years of control which has value, and the haul the A's got seems way out of whack with what those other pitchers got. I think Cahill is as good as Jimenez, and you get 3.5 more years of Cahill than the Tribe get with Ubaldo. Colorado got a pitcher as good as Parker, and another really solid pitching prospect that is much better than Cowgill or Cook.

Cahill is not as good as Garza or Greinke, but 6 years of Cahill is roughly equal to, if not more of 3 years of Garza or 2 years of Greinke, and yet the return is much less IMO.
   78. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 06:59 AM (#4012342)
#77 - If I am correct, the summation of that is that you are of the opinion that they should've gotten a better package, right? So, then, it boils down to how good the prospects pan out, as with any trade.

Question: Would you have turned down Cahill & Breslow for Parker, Cowgill and Cook (got it right this time!)? What if that's the ONLY offer you have for Cahill (we have no way of knowing if there were any other/better packages offered, or if there ever would be)? Take the chance or pass?
   79. morineko Posted: December 10, 2011 at 07:51 AM (#4012356)
Hey, with Breslow traded, this means that Jerry Blevins may finally get to spend an ENTIRE SEASON with Oakland!...well, he's out of options anyway.
   80. Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean Posted: December 10, 2011 at 10:51 AM (#4012379)
This is a real deal? Whatever. Cahill's not on twitter, as long as they don't break up McCarthy, Braden, and Anderson I'm good.
   81. Greg K Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM (#4012383)
Question: Would you have turned down Cahill & Breslow for Parker, Cowgill and Cook (got it right this time!)? What if that's the ONLY offer you have for Cahill (we have no way of knowing if there were any other/better packages offered, or if there ever would be)? Take the chance or pass?

I don't know enough about the prospects to have a wortwhile opinion in this specific case, but how many years of control do they still have over Cahill?
"I don't love the package but it's better than nothing" might be a rationale in the last couple years of team control, but it seems like poor justification for a trade now.
   82. Swedish Chef Posted: December 10, 2011 at 12:22 PM (#4012386)
I don't know enough about the prospects to have a wortwhile opinion in this specific case, but how many years of control do they still have over Cahill?

Six years, the last two options. The fear of losing him to free agency can't be a factor at all.
   83. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:25 PM (#4012394)
"I don't love the package but it's better than nothing" might be a rationale in the last couple years of team control, but it seems like poor justification for a trade now.


Except that Parker is one of the top 5-10 Pitching Prospects in MLB. Let's not forget that part. Cahill is , what, around the top 50 or so, at best? Why is this part so hard to grasp?

Also, still waiting on the argument founded in reason as to why this is such an atrociously bad deal....probably because it wasn't, and most of the above is an overreaction.

"I don't love the package but it's better than nothing" might be a rationale in the last couple years of team control, but it seems like poor justification for a trade now.
is again, not even in the ballpark. Not close to what I am saying AT ALL. Parker is better than Cahill, folks. The pitcher recieved is equal to, or better than, the pitcher given up AND has an equal amount of cost-controlled years (at a much lower price, and this is assuming Cahill's options are picked up). This has even been agreed upon. So, where's the argument and disdain come from again?
   84. Greg K Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:33 PM (#4012397)
Except that Parker is one of the top 5-10 Pitching Prospectsin MLB. Let's not forget that part. Cahill is , what, around the top 50 or so, at best? Why is this part so hard to grasp.

Well I did say in the first sentence that I wasn't talking about this particular case. I've always liked Parker and I think I'd probably make that deal. I'll add here for the third time that I don't know a lot of evaluating prospects so I could be way off in that.

I was only addressing the "what if this is the best deal you can get for Cahill?" point. Which as I see it isn't a convincing argument to trade Cahill at this point in my mind.
   85. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:34 PM (#4012399)
It's like you all want to ignore the fact that the A's see Parker as much better than Cahill. Isn't this the easiest, most simple explanation? Is it really that far fetched?
   86. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:37 PM (#4012401)
I was only addressing the "what if this is the best deal you can get for Cahill?" point. Which as I see it isn't a convincing argument to trade Cahill at this point in my mind.


Not even if
A. You see something in the delivery (or think he's hit his ceiling or something similar) and have soured on him
B. You've been enamored with Parker
C. Both of the above

I've made several cases for the why, I only had to boil it down to basics like that (...best dealfor Cahill....) for those avoiding my straightforward questions....sorry for any confusion, that's certainly not what my argument hinges on though.
   87. Greg K Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:39 PM (#4012402)
It's like you all want to ignore the fact that the A's see Parker as much better than Cahill. Isn't this the easiest, most simple explanation? Is it really that far fetched?

Buh? I assume that's directed at me.
I guess I didn't make it clear in #84. I like Parker, my uneducated prospect evaluation puts Parker pretty close to Cahill.
I like the trade.
I would make the trade.

I was just trying to point out what in re-reading the thread #70 already said.

EDIT: But see, #86 is a DIFFERENT argument than "what if this is the best you can get for him?".

I see we eventually are on the same page. It's probably my fault for only reading the end of this thread and not the debate leading up to it.
   88. Dock Ellis Posted: December 10, 2011 at 01:57 PM (#4012404)
I get they are 8 months apart, but not in service time. Players also peak at different ages. What am I missing?

Nothing, I just thought it was interesting.
   89. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:19 PM (#4012408)
Also, still waiting on the argument founded in reason as to why this is such an atrociously bad deal....probably because it wasn't, and most of the above is an overreaction.
I think the issue is not that this particular deal is terrible - Billy Beane is getting value in return for a valuable asset.

The problem is that this deal shows that Billy Beane is still attempting to execute a strategy which most people here believe is a very poor strategy. He is looking to re-create the 1999-2003 core, and every time he determines his talent on hand isn't at that level, he bails with trades like this one. This strategy has led to a five-year period of stagnation in which the once-competitive Athletics hover around .500 and drop out of contention in mid to late summer. If you're executing a strategy and it causes your club to have the worst five years of your tenure, you should try a new strategy, not keep executing the same strategy.

This particular trade isn't terrible - it isn't good, given Cahill's highly team favorable contract, but it isn't terrible, given that Parker is a real prospect - but that isn't the point. The point is that this (generally ok) trade signals the continuation of an obviously failed strategy.
   90. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:32 PM (#4012411)
I understand the frustration from A's fans with the constant rebuilding but considering the level of anger over this I was expecting to see a more impressive looking pitcher when I looked up Cahill's stats.
   91. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:06 PM (#4012424)
Buh? I assume that's directed at me.


No, sorry. Blanket statement to those who were having the argument with me. Not directed at one person in particular. I see someone has finally admitted the trade itself isn't the problem, it's everyone's emotions regarding their assumptions about the trade (#89).

This particular trade isn't terrible - it isn't good, given Cahill's highly team favorable contract, but it isn't terrible, given that Parker is a real prospect - but that isn't the point. The point is that this (generally ok) trade signals the continuation of an obviously failed strategy.


II get that people are tired of waiting. Following your rationale though, Beane should NEVER trade again, unlkess it's for a gritty vet? He's moving an over-valued guy for a top prospect. That IS a good deal, whether you like his current, present or former strategy. Above....it's all overreaction. Middle fingers, saying it's an awful deal, etc. Plainly put, like #89 said, it isn't a terrible trade. Sorry, it just isn't.

The ONLY gripe everyone has is that Beane made the trade. Kind of an absurd argument to make, for a bunch of highly intelligent fans (I do think the average BBTF reader is smarter than, say, the average ESPN cat).
   92. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:14 PM (#4012434)
Boy, how the mighty have fallen, huh?

The guy who several years ago was allegedly the greatest genius in all of baseball history is now getting virtual middle fingers given to him by some of his team's biggest fans.

I don't care too much for Moneyball, Moneyball can't buy you love.
   93. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:15 PM (#4012435)
Following your rationale though, Beane should NEVER trade again, unlkess it's for a gritty vet?
No. Where does "gritty vet" come from? You talk about absurd for a highly intelligent fan. I never said anything like that.

Building a good team on Oakland's budget means acquiring younger, good players. But it means trying to build a whole roster that can compete. I guess, if Beane actually commits to this roster over the next few years, and this trade is actually part of a new strategy, being angry would be unjustified. But I think that's highly unlikely - it looks like Beane is still running the same constant churn strategy rather than focused on building a particular roster into winners. And that would piss me the hell off if I were an A's fan.
   94. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:21 PM (#4012438)
Building a good team on Oakland's budget means acquiring younger, good players. But it means trying to build a whole roster that can compete.
I guess, if Beane actually commits to this roster over the next few years, and this trade is actually part of a new strategy, being angry would be unjustified.
But I think that's highly unlikely - it looks like Beane is still running the same constant churn strategy rather than focused on building a particular roster into winners. And that would piss me the hell off if I were an A's fan.


Right?

Gritty vet comes from the basis of your post. It boils down to "Beane shouldn't make that trade because I don't like the strategy I assume he's using". Right? Correct where I am mistaken, but that's what it says. He shouldn't trade for the great, young prospect....so who should he trade for? Or should he never trade again? C'mon now...

Every argument against is based in emotion, rather then reason. Following your logic, Beane shouldn't make a deal. You are blasting him for making a good one, simply because you assume you know the strategy from here on out. You don't. It's that simple. By your own admission, the anger is NOT justified in that scenario. Quit assuming you know what's going to happen, sit back, and we'll see. That's ALL I am saying. It is a good deal. Everyone is pissed because it's Beane that pulled the trigger and he has had a losing team. People assume this is the exact same strategy he's always used (which is, frankly, horseshit). Basing your reactions on assumptions and emotions leads to overreaction. Where am I wrong here?

Edit: Sorry for TOTALLY botching the formatting....I was trying to bold (embolden!) the two parts of your post....and blew it!
   95. The District Attorney Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:28 PM (#4012440)
Where am I wrong here?
The part where you totally ignore every single thing everyone says, and then rant that they're being irrational and aren't making any arguments.
   96. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:32 PM (#4012445)
# 95 Funny...I've answered your questions, asked you a few (with no reply).....but ok, I bite....what am I ignoring? It's easy to dismiss someone you disagree with, isn't it? I keep attempting to engage in a logical and reasonable discussion. I have acknowledged that everyone is upset at the strategy. The trade, though, seems to be a good one....even you admitted it.....

Are you willing to answer any question I have asked of you, sir? I am STILL waiting for ANYONE that has a good debate as to why it's a bad TRADE, not why they dislike the STRATEGY (or the GM who made the deal....).....
   97. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 03:40 PM (#4012448)
"The reason it's a bad trade is because I hate this strategy...it's going nowhere."

That's the gist of the anti-trade argument, right? Do you see where the argument is based in emotion, not reason? The strategy doesn't make the trade good or bad, the trade is good or bad on it's own. It was a good trade. I think that's simple enough. Why the hate, animosity, etc? I am not ignoring anyone, simply pleading for an argument based in fact, not emotion. Understand the difference? Make an argument NOT based on emotion, if you can, for why the TRADE is a bad one (not the assumed strategy of the GM). There has yet to be one.

Edit: Edited a dozen times for a dozen reasons, mostly grammatical and because I type too fast. ;-)
   98. zachtoma Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:13 PM (#4012509)
I think lots of people are underselling Cahill right now, here and elsewhere. His minor league numbers are really exceptional - 9.9 K/9 overall - and his k-rate in the majors has risen by about 1 per nine every year of his career. And he's only 23, the same age as Jarrod Parker; he probably came up too early. Basically, I think everyone pointing to his k-rate and claiming he'll never be an elite pitcher or a truce ace is well-poised to eat crow. He already has an 18-win, 2.97 ERA season (I know, I know) under his belt, yet the consensus seems to be "Trevor Cahill? ...he's pretty 'meh'" What the hell, A's fans? Parker looks to me like a much less-promising pitcher.
   99. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:31 PM (#4012519)
the trade is good or bad on it's own.
I don't believe it is. The goal of a GM is to win games and make the playoffs and take a shot at the championship, not to win trades. A good trade is only good as part of a good plan to win more games and take your shot at the championship. This looks like a pretty much "eh" trade overall that is part of a plan that looks to be highly unlikely to lead to the outcomes that A's fans want.
Gritty vet comes from the basis of your post. It boils down to "Beane shouldn't make that trade because I don't like the strategy I assume he's using".
There's nothing in your quote about gritty vets. The strategy isn't bad because Beane is adding young talent, the strategy is bad because Beane isn't committing to building a full, competitive roster. Regardless of whether that roster is composed of good veterans or good young players, and entirely regardless of their grit, the issue is whether Beane is executing a strategy to build that good roster. I'm not seeing it.

Certainly if this actually is part of a new strategy, that's good, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion that this is still part of the same failed churning strategy. And the strategy that I "assume" he's using is the strategy he has been using for five years now. It's a conclusion based on evidence.
   100. GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag) Posted: December 10, 2011 at 05:44 PM (#4012529)
#99 - Thank you, sncerely. That makes the most sense, so far. I appreciate that perspective, without relying on "Teh Beane sux" and actually explaining why the reasoning doesn't work for you. I can appreciate that those of the point of view that Parker is nogreat shakes see this as a bad deal. I was curious as to those who actually admitted Parker was equal to/beter then Cahill(Potential, TINSTAAPP, etc.) but claim this is an awful deal. To me, from a talent perspective, it's a good deal. Everything else is speculation until we see how it plays out. Your point to the body of evidence and the conclusion drawn from that is entirely valid, which is why I leave that possibility open throughout the entire argument I make. The strategy, or whatever comes after the trade, is what remains to be seen. The majority of the arguments I heard against the trade, aren't even based on the trade itself (essentially my only arguing points), just the guy making it. I stand by my earlier statement, in that IF they actually got the right idea/time down for once, it's a good thing. I have repeated that several times.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 24: Baseball and the presidency
(450 - 1:51am, Sep 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogScrabble added 300 words, none of them OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 24, 2018
(78 - 12:42am, Sep 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(560 - 11:17pm, Sep 24)
Last: sardonic

NewsblogLong-time White Sox broadcaster 'Hawk' Harrelson bids emotional farewell in home finale vs. Cubs
(30 - 10:51pm, Sep 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

Sox TherapyDecisions Decisions
(6 - 10:00pm, Sep 24)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(191 - 9:25pm, Sep 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTickets available as Marlins host Reds
(80 - 9:09pm, Sep 24)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogFive Tool Players | Articles | Bill James Online
(41 - 8:53pm, Sep 24)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogBobby Evans’ days as the Giants’ GM appear to be numbered
(2 - 7:43pm, Sep 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogFowler, still owed almost $50 million, eager to be part of Cardinals' future | St. Louis Cardinals | stltoday.com
(12 - 7:40pm, Sep 24)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(397 - 6:56pm, Sep 24)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogAlen Hanson gets back-to-back starts, likely still in Giants’ plans
(6 - 5:30pm, Sep 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTim Anderson's eventful day at the yard ends with shot at Joe West: 'Everybody knows he's terrible'
(25 - 5:00pm, Sep 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1947 Discussion
(11 - 4:59pm, Sep 24)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogKen Giles: ‘I’m actually enjoying the game more than I did for my entire tenure in Houston’
(7 - 4:10pm, Sep 24)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

Page rendered in 0.6772 seconds
46 querie(s) executed