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 0.6637 seconds
69 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.
Wonder why he never got much playing time before now?
He was blocked behind Frank Thomas in the White Sox organization most of his career.
-- MWE
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/news/021203closers.html
Someone else posted on Clutch Hits that Sickels rated Cotts as a C+ (I don't have the book, so I can't confirm). He's a soft-tossing 2nd-round pick with good numbers last year.
If you think this is a good trade for the White Sox, then can we trade you Kenny Williams for Beane? Please?
I won't miss Foulke all that much. He is a "trick" pitcher. Not similar to Zito, Maddux, others. If his changeup is not on, he is not effective. Plain and simple. He was topping out around 89 most of last year, and his slider is ineffective and he doesn't throw it often. He needs regular work for his changeup to work, and he didn't get that in '02. He did in 2000 and '01, and I attribute that to his success. Good news for the A's, as their starters will almost certainly get him regular work, not the infrequent appearances he experienced in the first half of last season with the Sox.
A slight edge to the A's, but not much more.
Maybe I don't know what "effective" means, but I think a 2.90 ERA in 77 2/3 innings is pretty damn effective.
The only downside of this trade I see for the A's is that it looks like any chance of getting Kim and Durazo from the Snakes is gone with Koch leaving.
When I say effective, I was speaking entirely of his changeup. The pitch is awesome if working, but he isn't successful if it isn't. Foulke has personally stated as much throughout his days in Chicago.
Wha? He wasn't even close to being the best reliever in his team's mediocre bullpen - that was Billy Koch. It's a stretch to put Bradford in the top 20 in the league.
Olivo ... will almost certainly spend 2003 in the minors, and will likely spend 2004+ in the majors.
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Olivo will be sharing time as starting catcher in 2003. His MLEs suggest he'll be reasonably effective.
Mikael--what criteria could possibly lead you to this conclusion? Koch had a slighly higher ERA, but he BB and HR rates that were literally three times those of Bradford. Koch had an edge in K rate (1 per inning to about 3/4 per inning), but the main reason he appeared to be in the same ballpark as Koch is the balls in play rate. I assume you're familiar with DIPS?
In summary: If you buy into DIPS theory, Bradford was much better. If you don't, he was a little bit better. I don't have time to figure out if he was really a top five AL reliever (this sounds like an exaggeration to me) but that doesn't mean he wasn't better than Koch.
On the Bradford-Olivo trade, can't we all agree that it is simply too soon to declare a winner? At this point, the trade provides more upside for Chicago, but more production so far for Oakland. Only time will tell who wins, speculating now is pointless.
Good points regarding Koch and Bradford. I must say, I was cheating and just going by the DIPS-ignoring reliever stats on Prospectus.
Reasons I'd still favor Koch:
1) He threw more than 20% more innings.
Harry, I think Mr. Congeniality does have a point. OF COURSE, every bad outing should be part of how we evaluate pitchers. But, especially with relievers, we should be very careful with how we use them to evaluate a pitcher's trend. We could take any relief pitcher, find their worst outing of the year, combine it with their stats from a couple weeks in one or both directions, and it would look like a bad stretch--in this sense Foulke is no different than anyone else.
Your point about his slipping K rate is well taken and cause for concern (another reason it's good for the A's that he is a FA after 2003), but they are still not bad and there are simply too many other indicators suggesting he is a better pitcher than Koch to read too much into this.
As to him being lucky in early 2002, I can't really speak to this, as I saw very little of him. I don't really trust my perception too much about this sort of thing, though. When I first started watching Jamie Moyer pitch regularly when he came to Seattle, I thought he was getting incredibly lucky. Of course, unless he has had the luckiest six year stretch in the majors, I might have simply not been able to see about how he succeeds.
Either that, or they realize that he's always had the "potential" to break out with something pretty impressive, even if he's getting a little long in the tooth to do it. I like the signing, too (assuming reasonable $$, maybe 3-per), and wish the Rangers had picked him up instead of making googly eyes at James Baldwin, or whichever gopherballer it is they're eventually going to sign.
I'm still trying to find a recipient of Terry Crowley's strange magic.
This is painful.
A Charles Johnson half season goes a long way...
------------
Until one of us is running the O's they will not make wise moves. Any wise GM will be fired before he starts making changes that would actually help the team.
Anyway, dsm about sums it up from my POV. Will there be room on the A's staff for Halama to have a bigger role than long relief?
The O's moves this offseason didn't _all_ suck. The Daal signing's OK, and the decision to dump Singleton was excellent. That said, any gain made there is wiped out but good by the decision to make Deivi Cruz the everyday shortstop. If they start making some better decisions, we'll stop being such meanies.
Neel made enough money during his stay in Japan to reportedly buy a private island in the Pacific that he says he wants to turn into a hedonist community for wealthy men.
After coming to Korea for the beginning of the 2001 season, hopes were high that he could help the Bears with his bat like he did in Japan. Those hopes faded quickly when he hit only .193.
He was released by the Bears after he and his wife were reportedly the cause of a fight in a bar district of Seoul that left one person in the hospital and his teammate, Mike Farmer, in jail for three weeks.
The victim in the fight said he wanted to be compensated and Farmer agreed to pay half but Neel chose not to pay anything and instead decided to allow his teammate to remain in prison.
A month after the fight, Neel quietly left Korea and has not been heard from since.
No, "A's" is correct, because it's not a plural, it's a contraction of the word "Athletics".
Also, I'd write that sentence as follows: Elvis Presley was the greatest singer of the 1950s. I can't think of a situation where a writer would be forced to make a decade possessive, though I guess it's possible. Maybe we should stick to the version I prefer simply because it uses fewer characters, and appeals to our laziness?
Gant vs. Lefties:
http://signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20030225-9999_1s25hoffman.html
I've read in a number of places that the A's are hoping that moving to an easier defensive position will help Long's offensive game. It makes sense on some level; he can focus more on hitting and won't be quite as worn out. Have there been studies on this issue? Do players moved to the left on the defensive spectrum improve?
That study would likely be biased because most players that move to an easier defensive position do so because they are past their physical peak.
Long is very unlikely to be as bad as he was last year, given his age and previous production. If he is that bad again, the A's have plenty of options to replace him (Piatt, Byrnes, McMillon, Johnson). The A's certainly understand the concept of sunk costs: Olivares, Heredia, Magnante, Venafro.
you must be kidding...geez, is Beane really such a deity around here that all critical intelligence has been lost?
two below average players, one of whom (Gant) likely won't make the club, do not make a perfect platoon.
What do you mean, exactly? I am absolutely correct that Gant played 142 games at 2B those years. Check it out.
If you're disagreeing with my swipe at Beane, you're free to do so, or to think it wasn't funny (I was kidding in suggesting that Beane could actually try him at 2B). But I was making a point that you either didn't get or disagree with: that SABR/stats-minded teams like the A's have tended to focus on offensive stats at the expense of defense, which is more difficult to measure. The A's outfield defense in particular has been poor. The newly stats-minded Red Sox replaced Sanchez at 2B with Walker. I actually like the Walker addition, but I think we have to be conscious of the bias we SABR/stat-types have in favor of the measurable (offense) and against the less measurable (defense).
Look at the A's defense for this coming year.
C-Hernandez
Erubiel Durazo is pretty bad defensively though, and could be a problem if they don't DH him.
Macha and Beane have stated that the A's will carry an 11-man staff. With Halama pencilied in as the 5th starter and the opening day lineup settled, let's look at the remianing roster spots.
3 slots of the 6-man bullpen are taken by Foulke, Bradford, and Rincon. The A's have a plethora of young pitchers that could fill the last 3 slots adequately. There's Buddy Hernandez, Joe Valentine, Micah Bowie, Jeremy Fikac, Mike Neu, Jose Silva, Chad Harville, Roy Smith, Chris Mowday, and Ed Yarnall. One lefty should make it (Yarnall or Bowie). The last 2 slots are TBD in spring training.
Out of the 5 bench players, they will probably take a C, a corner infielder, a middle infielder, and two OF. Mark Johnson, Mitch Meluskey, and Frank Menechino are virtual locks, which leaves two outfield spots. There's no need for a backup CF because Long and Singleton are both on the roster. Gant would make a very good RH 1/2 of a LF platoon. Piatt and Rontrez Johnson have the most upside, but Byrnes can pinch run and McMillon could probably outhit every A's OF except Dye.
Beane's paraphrased argument (I think): the statistics and performative numbers absolutely do matter, especially for everyday players; but when you are looking for a role player, you must consider intangibles.
Looking at Gant's projection and his clean behavior record (no known antics since his dirt bike injury), he seems like a good A's acquisition, better than I thought when my impression of him was that he was playing out the string in SD and Colorado.
What makes you think he's below average? Is it simply because he was below average defensively as a catcher?
The only position where they appear to be minus defensively is LF with Long, but you sure can't argue that he's out there for his bat.
The "keg softball" image of the A's is at least 3 years out-of-date, so why don't we give it a rest.
I don't think it's community service or he'd have been forced to join the big league team. As it is, his contract doesn't even call for an NRI. He's strictly minor leaguer right now.
(From http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brew/feb03/121147.asp )
Gilkey, 36, was sentenced to four months in jail last year after a series of drunken driving arrests in his hometown of St. Louis.
He did not play baseball last season and is currently working out at the Brewers' minor-league facility.
"We had planned on bringing him into camp, but then we ended up claiming Brady Clark on waivers and signing (John) Vander Wal," Brewers general manager Doug Melvin said.
"Now, we don't see the same need for him. He knows how to play the game. If he ends up doing well enough, I wouldn't stand in the way of his getting a big-league job. If I can pick up a younger player in a deal or a little cash in a waiver transaction or something, I'll do that."
One more year for Rickey!! Tony LaRussa, are you listening?
I hope Jermaine gets it back again, one of my favorite players. It takes guts to have your knee drained before the game and then go all out on the field like I've seen him do.
As you said, Perez is no longer on the team.
I think Baird took over in 2000, it's not like he's been ripped off constantly, even through 2001, alot of these deals seem good
I think Beane just signed another Long.
While I don't particularly like the Hatteberg extension, mostly because of the price, it isn't as if he's blocking better players. The A's have Koonce and Johnson, neither of which figure to be better than Hatteberg over the next 2 years. Hatteberg also has a sizable platoon split, meaning the A's could pick up a lefty-masher for cheap and set up a decent 1B platoon.
And before anyone gets too excited over Berroa, keep in mind that Kaufman inflates offense 29.3% (3 year, B-Pro). For reference, Colorado is at 36.6% and Houston is at 7.3%.
Considering that there probably will be players in the David Ortiz/Robert Fick mold available for $1 million again this offseason, a comparable or better player could have been picked up for much, much cheaper before the start of next season.
Hatteberg doesn't have much range, but he's a pickin' machine over at first base. (Well, except in the Metrodome last week.)
With three extreme groundballers on the staff through 2005 (Hudson, Mulder and Harden), a first baseman who can catch well is pretty valuable to the A's. The A's lead the league in defensive efficiency; it's probably the main reason why they're in the pennant race right now, and I think Hatteberg deserves some credit for that.
If Hatteberg is overpriced, he's not THAT much overpriced that it will handcuff the A's budget. I think the extra $1.5 million over a comparable offensive replacement ensures good defense behind the groundballers, and is not really such a bad investment.
As for the Dye trade, I thought the Royals lost big, but with Dye hurt and none of the prospects panning out in Colorado, they did all right comparatively. I still see no way of justifying Dye-Neifi straight-up, unless you somehow think you're getting draft pick compensation too.
I don't understand this signing at all, although a good platoon man would give you an above average 1B for <$4M/per, which ain't bad. JBH is right though - Ortiz and Fick are comparable (meaning younger) and cheaper. Maybe there was some previous handshake deal.
Recently, I've done some research into seeing how in-season stats have an effect on future projections so that I can use ZiPS in-season the way Don Malcolm can use YEPS. For Hatteberg, Mr. Computer coughs up this:
2003 so far: 259/346/373
1) Beane isn't as smart as we thought he was.
2) Beane is smarter than we think he is, and has access to some information/projections/statistics that we just don't.
3) The ownership group is really big on Hatteberg and forced Beane into it. (a la Steinbrenner)
4) The manager really likes Hatteberg's "clubhouse presence" or "veterine leadership" or something, and Beane is doing him a favor.
All idle speculation, of course. My suspicion, although I don't know much about the A's ownership group, is that this is a case of owners meddling in baseball affairs.
Well, BP also rated Hatteberg as 12 runs above average defensively in 2002, in just 91 games at 1B, which, conveniently, means he would be 20 runs abov average for a whole season. Anyway, I'm sure the deal is predicated on the assumption that Hatteberg will hit better than he has so far this year.
Considering that there probably will be players in the David Ortiz/Robert Fick mold available for $1 million again this offseason, a comparable or better player could have been picked up for much, much cheaper before the start of next season.
I think picking up a $1M lefty masher as Durazo insurance/platoon partner for Hatteberg is still probable.
I don't know why Pascucci doesn't have more groupies on here. He's got a cool name, and he's always been a solid Three True Outcomes guy (though he appears to have learned to hit for average this season as well).
Jaw hits floor.
What a crap signing.
"-Andy Abad (.264)
With a few more signings like this, would the general adoration of PrimateLand (The Jungle, if you will*) eventually shift over to J.P. ?
Giving up Harang and two minor leaguers seems a bit steep for an outfielder whose contract expires at the end of the year (I assume), and has no track record prior to this year. Especially considering all the praise Valentine (Minor League reliever of the year etc.) received when he came over in the Foulke-Koch trade. He was pretty much appointed as Oakland's closer from 2004 going forward. Maybe Beane saw something (a stat I presume) he didn't like, as with Pena, but he was very high on him only a few months ago.
In a pennant race deal, you can't expect "better upside" if you're getting the player who's performing well this year. I give Beane credit for recognizing "ok, Guillen isn't my type of player, but I need an OF who can hit." This is much less of a "mortgage the future" deal than pennant-race deals often are.
If Guillen replaces Long, that's obviously a huge plus. However, Macha quote from http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/story?id=1587533 :
"We're looking at putting him in rightfield and move Terrence (Long) over to left, and probably have a combination in center with Eric Byrnes getting the most time there."
This seems to indicate that the guy Guillen will be replacing is Billy McMillon, who has been excellent. This is not a major improvement given what I expect from them going forward. With this in mind, I have to give a tremendous thumbs-down to the trade. Harang can be a solid major-league pitcher, though the problem is that he simply isn't going to get enough PT in Oakland to cultivate that reputation to the point where Beane can trade him. Valentine is a pseudo-prospect who might pan out someday, not a big loss there.
What's Guillen's contract? I can't find it anywhere. (Is there cash involved?)
As for players the A's should be targeting, Reggie Sanders should be at the top of the list. He's cheap, good, and (like Guillen) right-handed (and unlike Guillen, he's actually a lefty-masher -- Guillen's splits are pretty much dead even historically, he's actually significantly better against RHP this year.) I assume that Beane knows this and that other GM's know this and that Littlefield is holding the line on Sanders, though.
Guillen also strikes me as a malcontent who will not sit well with Macha's tendency to play the hot hand.
1) Harang is a 25 year old with a career 4.97 ERA and 1.59 WHIP.
2) Harang could not hold down a rotation spot with the A's this year.
3) The A's have 5 starters that a clearly better than Harang, and an additional 3-4 prospects that will likely be better than Harang.
4) Guillen isn't just having a "good" season, he's having a really good season. His OPS is over 1000, he's one of the top 20 NL players according to RARP (despite limited playing time), and he's a decent RF.
5) The A's are 3 games behind Seattle and 2.5 games behind Boston. They have a glaring weakness in RF, where they have two of the worst regulars in MLB this year (Long and Dye.)
Obviously, there's no certainty that Guillen will continue to hit the way he has. He's a great bet to outhit Terrence Long for the rest of the season. And what did the A's give up? A pitcher who could potentially be above average. A minor league closer. An A ball pitcher with poor stats. The A's will likely never miss any of these guys. Even if Valentine turns into a handy reliever, it's worth the final push toward the playoffs.
This isn't to say that Natti got ripped off. They made a great return on a minor league free agent. Harang will likely be one of their better starters. Both teams got what they needed but trading excess.
All the same, I think the A's gave up a hell of a lot for a guy they probably aren't going to re-sign.
And if that's the case there is no way he takes arbitration after the season (even if his OPS is .810). Could someone give me a refresher on the compensation picks rules? Does a Type B Free Agent get you just the first round pick from the team that signs him, Type A gets 1st round and extra round, and Type C gets just extra round?
Thanks to whoever enlightens me.
He may be forced to accept arbitration.
I don't know about this talk of "outpitches" but his pitches seemed to work well in the minors. I don't think he's #5 material--more like a #3-4 with potential to be better.
You're correct that Harang has pretty good minor league numbers, but I have no idea why you think he's a #3/4 starter right now. He has 21 starts over the past 2 years with a 4.97 ERA. I'd say he's a marginal 5th starter right now, with a chance to improve to #3/4. His K-rate is pretty good, so I don't think he'll disappear.
I think that its a wash. The A's get something that they need (an outfielder that's better than what they have now), and Cincy gets something that they need (a pitcher who's better than what they have now). The chance that Harang will turn into something special is about the same as the chance that Guillen will repeat his performance this year in the future, roughly speaking, of course.
Harang has had every opportunity to make the rotation but hasn't improved his performance.
I don't agree with this. Harang outpiched Halama this spring, then didn't get the #5 starter job. After about 10 games of mediocrity, Halama finally lost his job. Harang came up in May, made a nice relief appearance, made 2 lousy starts, then 3 good ones, than one terrible one. At that point he lost his job.
Is that really a fair way to judge a young pitcher? On 7 appearance, 4 of which were good? Was there a good reason to pitch Halama 10 times before giving Harang a chance?
Harang has done everything possible to prove he deserves a chance this year. He's posted 60K, 17 BB, and 5 HR in 69 AAA IP.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main