User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5604 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
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.
Here's the official transaction from MLB.com. "SS Neifi Perez traded to Kansas City Royals. Royals sent OF Jermaine Dye to Oakland A's. A's sent INF Jose Ortiz, OF Mario Encarnacion and LHP Todd Belitz to Colorado."
So, Dye wasn't traded to Colorado after all. The Royals can't even get the transaction right. For one reason or another, they are just trying to hide the fact that they are giving all of their good players to Oakland. Here's how they reported it. "The Royals announce the trade of outfielder Jermaine Dye to the Colorado Rockies for shortstop Neifi Perez." How could both the Rockies and Royals transactions be correct. I believe the Royals are engaging in spin control and the full transaction is the former.
Your rationale for the trade makes sense, but losing Giambi's bat would be a big blow to the hopes of the A's this year, which is why they ultimately won't do it. I've also read that Cashman is absolutely unwilling to part with Nick the Stick - even resisting pressure from the boss.
We could argue this, but Nick is not the best prospect in the minor leagues. Sean Burroughs is:
1) Burroughs is likely to play 3B at least for the first few years, making him potentially more valuable than Johnson defensively.
2) He is younger by two years and at this stage of development that is huge.
3) Nick has not hit for a lot of power, though he will probably develop some as he ages, and his average is way down. All those walks are nice, but Nick gets hit a lot, which suggests to me that he might be a higher injury risk. Burroughs doesn't hit for power, but neither did Bagwell at his age. Power is an old-players skill and given that Burroughs hits plenty of doubles, over time he is very likely to significantly increase his power.
He hasn't moved quickly through the system and is getting old for prospect status (has yet to play in the majors. He hasn't improved his K/W ratio and his power is nothing special. Doesn't have the speed to play CF.
I see him as a Geronimo Berroa with less power.
Side comment: I think it was on yesterday's Red Sox radio broadcast that the following joke was delivered.
"You remember Geronimo Berroa. He's the guy who when he jumps out of an airplane, yells "Meeeee!"
So for a slight upgrade at SS the Royals end up trading Jermaine Dye for a decent but raw arm and a marginal middle-infield prospect.
Unless Ash makes a stupid deal, Baird wins the dumbest GM award for this year.
The Oakland organization-wide emphasis on plate discipline pre-dates Beane's ascension to GM. Sandy Alderson was really the architect of that. The 1999 "Big Bad Baseball Annual," in the A's article, talked about Beane vs. Alderson, and how several of the Oakland prospects did not continue their excellent walk rates after reaching the majors. Interestingly enough, Beane almost never walked in his short major-league career.
I don't understand why you and many other Yankees fans apparantly refuse to believe that the Yankees have a huge financial edge over most of the other teams.
No doubt, whoever makes the decisions in Yankee land has been doing an excellent job, but what the A's have done qualifies as a minor baseball miracle.
And to say that both of them have done well with the resources they had, well, the Yankees have 5 times the resources the A's have. Try competing in a fantasy baseball league where your competitors can spend 5 times more than you can.
One note: the Jays made a promise to Clemens that they would try and trade him if he felt they were not competitive when they signed him as a free-agent. They spoke to Roger in the 98/99 off-season and accomodated his wish (even though there was optimism that the Jays would contend after a winning record in 1998). They didn't have to: they could have waited until July and sent him to a contender, hopefully getting back a little more in return.
I don't think the main considerations were financial: David Wells was signed an extra two (or three) years and his salary wasn't too much lower than Clemens'.
P.S. Any way you cut it Tino is a below average first baseman - and not worth the money he's getting. It is only "veteran mystique" that keeps him in the lineup.
Ash had a trade in place with Texas for Mateo, Helling (I think) and a couple others (Texas had refused to part with the great Rusty Greer). Ash said okay, but wanted to call the Yanks 1st. He offered them Clemens for the 3 mentioned above.
On some level, Clemens extension demands did scare off some suitors.
It's also been widely reported that Steinbrenner's been fascinated with Clemens for years. I doubt Cashman was the impetus behind getting Clemens.
Why don't Cashman and Beane simply trade places for the next three years and all this will be settled.
The other teams, I'm less sure about. The M's are probably in the best shape merely because of the sheer quantity of pitching prospects, but they're also likely to have the most offensive holes to fill the next few years and there simply aren't enough players in the system like Chris Snelling. Gillick doesn't appear to be building the Mariners for the long-term and it could be inevitable that dross like Kingsale or Gipson could be a drag.
The Braves and Diamondbacks look to be in a bit of trouble to me. The Diamondbacks' core is very old and they've shown no willingness to use what talent they do develop.
The Braves are better in that respect, but they're clearly eroding; the starting rotation had to be bailed out by aliens possessing John Burkett, they can't find offense at the corners, and their position prospects are in a sad state compared to previous years. The Joneses are increasingly the Braves offense.
Seriously, I can't see that Koch is significantly better than a decent middle reliever and Beane will soon show his understanding of this by dealing him to LA.
Apart from a select few, relief pitchers grow on trees, so if you can get a significant upgrade at 3B (I expect Hinske to start there this year) for a high-priced reliever that is a job well done.
Ricciardi's off-season mission - slash payroll and improve the team.
Next up: Raul Mondesi.
My question is who is Orlando Hudson? The local media said nothing about him in the past couple of years, and now all of the sudden he's the future second baseman for the Jays (and the media is saying that he'd be an improvement for the Jays).
Jason
If Justice can remain healthy (doubtful if he plays OF regularly), even at 4M he could be a great deal. Plus he could help in signing Dye to an extension (Good buddy), and Damon (Competetive team) to a contract.
Of course, the Dye-Damon thing is all speculation. After all, for enough money, a player can justify signing with any team (Cordova: "I just wanted to play for a team with a chance to win").
(wait for it)
Ron Coomer.
Doesn't seem to make make much sense from the Rangers' standpoint, either, since they'd love to have even league-average pitching, and they've got outfielders coming out of their ears.
The general difference between STATS MLEs and my MLEs is that they give AA and AAA the same adjustment factors (I've looked at it and found that it doesn't work and, if I'm not mistaken, Clay Davenport ended up with a similar result) and use 1-year park factors for the teams instead of 3-year park factors as I've chosen to do.
Of course, at age 27, his most similar was Dave Lieper. Little bit of a drop-off.
This trade shows that Fuson has John Hart's ear, for now.
Interesting List, but I think we should factor in likelihood of injury. I'll rank then according to expected performance in 2002:
1. Sammy Sosa (has made remarkable strides as a hitter; I'd say virtually unprecedented)
I assume he has options left, because I can't see any room for him anywhere except Sacramento.
You are towing the Sox fan party line on Tankersly/Duch never being heard of before trades. Of course, you never heard of these guys from Gammons, but I'd bet anyone looking closely at their minor league performance would have thought these guys were decent prospects before the trades (perhaps Tank's minor league injury would have masked his prospecthood).
These were lousy trades, I have to say, even if Tank and Duch were only decent prospects. As was the Reitsma for Bichette deal. In each case, the Sox got an overpaid and/or easily replaceable part and gave up guys with actual potential.
As a Ranger fan, I'm kind of relieved to see another trade for prospects rather than established vetrans. I was concerned, and still am concerned, that Hart was hired as GM. But two trades and still no mediocre vetran trade to be seen (knock on wood). And if Hart can flip Vizcaino to the Mets (as has been rumoured) for non 40 man prospect than I will actually be pretty pleased.
I'm guessing Beane figures Vivcaino would get snapped up if he was placed on waivers and tried to get something for him.
If Vizcaino is indeed out of options, I don't think it's bias to say this is a nice little move by Beane turning a player he was about to lose for nothing into a player he gets to keep that might be of some help down the road.
Does anyone else get the impression that one of Beane's advantage over his competitiors is not that he's more "enlightened" than they are, but that he actually gives a damn about these kind of moves?
Definitive answer on options: Duch has two options left, Vizcaino has none, hence the trade. Chad Bradford was having a better camp, didn't age two years, and is also out of options; the A's had to do something, and as others have said, it gives them more depth in the AAA rotation.
Hudson's put up quite a consistent track record, so I might give him the edge right now. But it'd be close.
My guess is that Beane's outthinking himself with the past few moves: he figured correctly that plate discipline and young pitching were the best ways to put together a cheap, successful team in the late '90s. Now, facing a record-setting division rival who combined those two elements with stellar defense and shrewd Asian recruiting and marketing, he figures he needs to find the next great leap in evaluating players as well...but doesn't quite know what that is, so he's messing around with veteran leadership and 1B defense in hopes that those are now undervalued, while losing what ground he'd made up on the rest of the league with his smart moves in the past.
There were supposedly four other team intersted in Durham and this is the best he could do? Gawd.
So: Is this a rental, or would the A's be willing to extend Durham, offering him 2 years, or 2 and an option for a third?
Can Beane just trade him to the Expos for Brad Wilkerson and be done with it?
How bout the A's pay the rest of Long's salary this year? After this year, his salary becomes someone else's problem.
Have I mentioned I'm not much of a Kenny Williams fan?
In fact, given Casey's lack of development, I think we can declare the Indians the winners of that trade.
The names of who was involved in the trade have been corrected. Just wanted to point out that Scutaro was a waiver claim by the Mets and that he's probably better than at least half the everyday 2Bmen in baseball.
Question about the MLE's - he hit .348/.424/.609 in Colorado Springs...does that really translate to .333/.393/.570? Isn't that one of the best places to hit in the PCL? That translation seems really high to me.
Also, is there somewhere we can go to figure out how to get MLEs using stats from a particular level/ballpark?
C Mike Rose
I wouldn't want to have a locker next to Silva, though, out of fear that I'd get struck by lightning or trampled by stampeding cattle.
I would love to see McMillon win an everyday corner outfield job; I think he can be league average in LF. With Piatt and Byrnes also capable of contributing, the A's can save their money for Durham. Assuming Durham plays 2B and Ellis shifts to the UT role, this still leaves a hole at DH for the A's, which I am shamelessly hoping will be filled by Cust or Durazo. I think this lineup would score a lot of runs:
1) Durham, 2B
You're assuming that Dombrowski is actually still any good. I know he did a good job in Montreal and did a good job hoarding talented young guys in Florida but he might just be past his prime now.
I do think its funny that Detroit's lack of a plan is coming up in like 3 different threads. I mean at least they didn't pick up Hampton, right? Then they'd be getting hammered in all the threads.
Then again, I heard they tried to trade for Neagle again and are even considering uping his contract a bit to entice him to go to Detroit so give them some time.
No, not really. They have paid him for 2 years to only walk onto the playing field 8 times. As the saying goes, don't throw good money after bad. And what guarantee is there that he can actually play (and play well) now.
You just have to get a guy like that in the lineup, especially if you can sneak him in at catcher a couple of times a week.
Heh, like they were able to get him in the lineup the last 2 years. And after missing two and a half years due to shoulder trouble, I think his catching days are over.
Since Chaz did it, I'm going to do it too:
Posted 12:55 p.m., November 14, 2002 - Vlad
Despite all the (mostly deserved) praise given to Billy Beane, I think it is worth noting:
- Scott Hatteburg had an .807 OPS this year. This is nice for a cheap bench player or a player at a defensive position. It sucks for a starting 1B/DH.
- Scott Hatteburg is a 32-yr-old 1B/DH with this career line: .271/.361/.419 - he is a nice, cheap bench player who gets on base, but doesn't have very much power and is underwhelming as a starter.
- The Oakland As had the third-worst-hitting 1B in the AL this past year (ranked by OPS), ahead of only Detroit and Boston. Their 1B hit worse than Minnesota's, Tampa Bay's, Baltimore's, and Anaheim's (among others). That .755 OPS their 1B put up was pathetic. And their DHs weren't much better, ranking 8th in the league, behind every other playoff team except Minnesota. For all the talk about good-hitting/no-fielding 1B/DH types being easily, and cheaply, available, Billy Beane couldn't find any last year.
Yeah, and as Walt Davis (I think) mentioned over in Clutch Hits, I neglected park factors also.
However, league-average is not the same as good.
That's not totally fair; he had Mario Valdez, who was once one of the stathead world's favorite free-talent 1b/dh types, but Valdez was hurt all year and contributed squat. I'd rather have a healthy Valdez than Hatteberg any day, but it didn't work out that way for the A's.
Yeah, I checked out his minor league stats; he looks like a serious masher (career AAA line (500+ games): .301/.408/.509, though probably not any kind of "prospect" due to his age. Wonder why he never got much playing time before now? But anyway, if 1B/DH talent is so freely available, why couldn't Beane pick up someone to fill his injured shoes well? Instead, he shipped off Pena and slotted in a bunch of guys who were league-average, at best.
My contention is that either Beane isn't quite the genius at finding those cheap, good-hit/bad-field guys as we think he is or that those type of players aren't as readily available as we think they are.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main