User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.7277 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— 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
Tags: arizona, athletics
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Is it already time for another WEEKLY OMNICHATTER?, for September 13-16, 2021
(126 - 5:08am, Sep 16)
Last: TomH
Newsblog: The remarkable story of Robin Yount’s brother Larry
(7 - 2:35am, Sep 16)
Last: vortex of dissipation
Newsblog: The Storyteller of the White Sox
(12 - 12:54am, Sep 16)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-15-2021
(5 - 11:54pm, Sep 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Empty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(13927 - 11:34pm, Sep 15)
Last: Mayor Blomberg
Newsblog: KC Royals ‘need to start thinking’ about a new stadium, possibly downtown, owner says
(36 - 11:29pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jay Seaver
Newsblog: The Past, Present, and Future of International Scouting
(2 - 10:58pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jay Seaver
Sox Therapy: Shrug
(143 - 10:58pm, Sep 15)
Last: villageidiom
Newsblog: WEEKEND OMNICHATTER for September 10-12, 2021
(118 - 10:26pm, Sep 15)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
Newsblog: 8th? BBTF Central Park Softball Game: SEPT 18, 2021
(205 - 9:51pm, Sep 15)
Last: LuisD
Newsblog: There are only about 3-to-5 candidates to run Mets -- here’s who we think they are
(7 - 7:20pm, Sep 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Does Javier Báez’s enigmatic nature make his impending free agency messier?
(1 - 6:50pm, Sep 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(251 - 4:56pm, Sep 15)
Last: spivey 2
Newsblog: Athletics Hall of Fame inducts 10 members of Philadelphia A’s
(40 - 4:52pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jesse Barfield's Right Arm
Hall of Merit: 2022 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(180 - 4:43pm, Sep 15)
Last: kcgard2
(126 - 5:08am, Sep 16)
Last: TomH
Newsblog: The remarkable story of Robin Yount’s brother Larry
(7 - 2:35am, Sep 16)
Last: vortex of dissipation
Newsblog: The Storyteller of the White Sox
(12 - 12:54am, Sep 16)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-15-2021
(5 - 11:54pm, Sep 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Empty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(13927 - 11:34pm, Sep 15)
Last: Mayor Blomberg
Newsblog: KC Royals ‘need to start thinking’ about a new stadium, possibly downtown, owner says
(36 - 11:29pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jay Seaver
Newsblog: The Past, Present, and Future of International Scouting
(2 - 10:58pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jay Seaver
Sox Therapy: Shrug
(143 - 10:58pm, Sep 15)
Last: villageidiom
Newsblog: WEEKEND OMNICHATTER for September 10-12, 2021
(118 - 10:26pm, Sep 15)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
Newsblog: 8th? BBTF Central Park Softball Game: SEPT 18, 2021
(205 - 9:51pm, Sep 15)
Last: LuisD
Newsblog: There are only about 3-to-5 candidates to run Mets -- here’s who we think they are
(7 - 7:20pm, Sep 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Does Javier Báez’s enigmatic nature make his impending free agency messier?
(1 - 6:50pm, Sep 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(251 - 4:56pm, Sep 15)
Last: spivey 2
Newsblog: Athletics Hall of Fame inducts 10 members of Philadelphia A’s
(40 - 4:52pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jesse Barfield's Right Arm
Hall of Merit: 2022 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(180 - 4:43pm, Sep 15)
Last: kcgard2
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
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.
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.
Then again, his name is Collin Cowgill. How the hell can you be any good when you're named "Collin Cowgill"??
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.
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
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?
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Sorry--just had to see what that looked like in boldface. Carry on...
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.
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.
Well, soon we will also be able to battle cry that we are better than the Astros.
Especially when Oakland already has Breslow.
I'd hope they get more than a C+ (from Sickles) OF especially if they add in Breslow.
I haven't even heard his name before. So he's a corner OF then? AG#1F, what type of hitter is he?
Trading for players you already have is the new market inefficiency!
Sickels says Cowgill is more a 4th OF and I tend to agree. He's been a stat darling though.
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.
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.
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.
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 ERA+ HR1 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.......
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.
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.
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.
I'm gonna have to go ask Tristram E. Speaker, Tyrus Raymond Cobb, and Napoleon Lajoie.
EDIT: forgot another good one - Carlton Ernest Fisk.
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.
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.
Cowgill up?
D'oh!
So it's even worse then. Cahill by himself isn't good enough for Parker+Cowgill+other dude? No way.
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?
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.
NEVER !!
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:
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 ERA2010 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
I am glad I live in DC now and have the Nats as a second team.
And, Rosenthal assures us that they'll trade Gio and Bailey too.
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...
Yes, exactly.
#64 is nonsensical. Sigh...
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.
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.
"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.
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)?
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?
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.
Unless I missed the Royals getting involved, its Ryan Cook, not Aaron 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....
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.
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.
Six years, the last two options. The fear of losing him to free agency can't be a factor at all.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Nothing, I just thought it was interesting.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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!
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....).....
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. ;-)
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main