SB Nation User Blog: BlameChannel53

BP Top 100 Out

BlameChannel53 — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:46:40 -0000

Kevin Goldstein has released his Top 100 at baseballprospectus.com. Seven A's are included on the list as follows: Barton (22), Carlos Gonzalez (26), de los Santos (46), Anderson (50), Gio Gonzalez (56), Cahill (98), Carter (99). Five of the seven in the Top 100 came from the Swisher and Haren trades, and six of the seven in the Top 100 came from other organizations. Billy does know how to trade for prospects, doesn't he?

Chavez: A Trade Primer

BlameChannel53 — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:00:08 -0000

There have been an increasing number of fans calling for a trade of Chavez. Should Billy trade Chavez? Billy's decision is likely to have a huge impact on the future of the A's, and quite possibly will be the most important decision Billy makes in the next few years. A decision of this magnitude cannot be made lightly, and I will attempt here to lay out some of the considerations that fans should consider as they debate whether to trade Chavez. I would assume that Billy will undertake some similar analysis in reaching his ultimate decision. The advantage Billy has is that he actually has ways to acquire answers, while us fans are mostly stuck in the speculation phase. Let the speculation begin!

The decision whether to trade Chavez can be answered in four basic questions:

1. How will Chavez perform for the remainder of his contract?

Chavez has a career OPS of .834, so many fans would simply project that level of performance over the life of his contract. However, things are not so simple with Chavez. Chavez' OPS in the last four years looks like this:

2004 .898
2005 .795
2006 .786
2007 .699

It's fair to assume that Chavez will raise his 2007 OPS, because Chavez tends to be a second half player. However, the now four year OPS decline pattern is very disconcerting. Can Chavez reverse this trend? The optimist would say that Chavez will be better with better health. The pessimist would say that there is no reason to believe that Chavez will be healthier, given that he appears to have chronic injuries and is unwilling to surgically address any medical issues.

Another interesting thing to consider in projecting Chavez' future performance is a point raised in an article written by Matthew Namee of Hardball Times in 2004. Namee's basic point was that Chavez' contract was a risk because Chavez had not improved during the ages that most players see improvement, and that most similar players have not aged well. The interesting thing about Namee's article is that it is consistent with one of the observational gripes of many fans (and scouts) about Chavez: that he really hasn't matured in his approach as he has aged -- he still uses the same approach at the plate as he did in his rookie year.

My projection for Chavez in 2008-2010 is a .775 OPS. It is hard to see how he is going to get any healthier, and it is hard to assume that he will ever use a better approach when he never has before. However, Billy has more information than I do on this issue. For example, I don't exactly know what the nature of Chavez' injuries are, and I don't know whether Chavez is as much of a video game freak as legend suggests. I also don't know whether Chavez is a good candidate for surgery, and whether surgery would address the cascade of injuries he has suffered in his upper extremities. A healthy Chavez would likely comfortably exceed a .775 OPS. Of course, an unhealthy Chavez could continue to decline to even lower levels of production while missing significant chunks of time. Based upon what I know, however, my projection for Chavez weighs in favor of a trade, particularly given that the .775 OPS projection assumes that Chavez would need to miss 15-30 games a year to manage his injuries.

2. What is Chavez' value in trade?

This is obviously an area where Billy has access to far more information than fans can ever hope to obtain. Billy can quietly float Chavez' name and see what kind of offers emerge. Alas, us fans can't do that.

In the absence of actual knowledge, speculation is all we have. However, it is fairly certain that Chavez' trade value would be tremendous. His perceived value still remains high throughout baseball, and I would imagine that in the right scenario significant value could be gained by trading Chavez. I'm sure AN (grover?) will come up with trade scenarios that make sense. The value in trading Chavez also has to include any financial flexibility gained by trading him. Chavez is owed $11 million in 2008 and 2009, $12 million in 2010, and a $3 million buyout if his $12.5 million option for 2011 is not exercised. Depending upon what salaries are obtained in a trade, the A's could save some portion of the $37 million owed to Chavez through 2010 and use that money to acquire or resign other players.

Based on what I know, I would assume that the players/money we could acquire by trading Chavez would weigh in favor of a trade.

3. Who plays third if Chavez is traded?

This is perhaps the toughest question to answer as a fan, because there are no obvious candidates in our organization. Baisley or Snyder would be possibilities, but neither is anywhere close to a sure thing offensively or defensively. It is almost certain that whoever we acquired from outside the organization would be a downgrade from Chavez. The question, however, would not be that basic. If we somewhat downgraded at third base while significantly upgrading one or two other positions with the players/money we acquired in a trade, the team would be better off.

Based on what I know, at this point this factor would weigh in favor of not trading Chavez. It's hard to trade Chavez without a replacement available. Of course, Billy has the ability to inquire into the availability of other third baseman. Any ideas on potential candidates, AN?

4. What effect would trading Chavez have on the team and fans?

This factor is important but mostly unquantifiable. On the positive side, a Chavez trade may allow young guys like Swisher and Buck to develop as leaders on the team. Chavez is a bit defeatist and pessimistic, and dynamic guys like Swisher and Buck might create a more optimistic and confident team. On the negative side, Chavez is loved by his teammates, and would surely be missed. Chavez has also been a good guy, and his low key attitude may keep the players relaxed. As far as the fans go, Chavez is without a doubt the biggest draw for the A's, and losing another star would hurt the A's at the box office. However, if trading Chavez led to more wins in 2008-2010, any loss of star power would likely be outweighed by fans coming to see a winner.

Overall, I would think that a trade would likely be a negative for the team and fans, but I don't think it would be a large enough negative to prevent a trade if it makes sense otherwise.

After looking at these four questions, and basing a decision on what I already know along with reasonable assumptions about what I don't know, it is my belief that Chavez should be traded if the right deal can be found. Owing $37 million over the next three years to a guy who may be in the midst of a decline phase is not an enviable position for a team with a limited payroll. A Chavez trade is likely to return significant talent that can be used in the pursuit of an Angels franchise that is unlikely to be anything but good over the next 4-5 years given their payroll capabilities along with young talent and and productive draft strategy. What do you folks think?

Is 2007 an evaluation year?

BlameChannel53 — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:26:49 -0000

It's been a strange offseason for the Oakland A's, and the growing restlessness among the faithful at AN is obvious. What is Billy thinking? How can we compete in 2007 when we lost Thomas, Zito, and Payton and replaced them with Piazza, (insert favorite in-house candidate for 5th starter), and an injured and inexperienced Ryan Goleski? Has Billy lost his touch? Does Billy care more about his role as corporate darling than fielding a winning baseball team? At some point this winter, most of us have probably raised these questions to ourselves. After getting tired of arguing with the voices in my head as to what I believe, I have decided to present my current theory and let the wise folks at AN attack it.

My theory of 2007 is this: the question marks surrounding the team in 2007 are simultaneously the major cause of concern for the folks at AN and the justification for Billy's offseason. I have a feeling that Billy views 2007 as an evaluation year: a year to find out what we have in an effort to deal with the large shadow that the Angels will cast upon the AL West over the next 4-5 years.

Prior to the 2005 season, Billy was fond of saying that the A's were a young team that was going to get better and better as the years went by. Of course, GMs and owners always say shit like that; Allard Baird, Cam Bonifay, etc. have made careers out of promising future growth in the midst of dwindling talent. In Billy's case, though, his 2005 optimism was based on reasonable assumptions. Rich Harden was a rising superstar who had not begun his Mark Prior impersonation. Chavez was a super talented player who was entering his prime and appeared ready to join the superstar class. Dan Meyer was one of the best left-handed pitching prospects in baseball, and Dan Haren was a good young pitcher who had just pitched really well in the postseason at a young age. Our up the middle defense/offense was very strong, led by a healthy Kotsay, a budding star in Crosby, and newly healed Ellis to go along with a catcher coming off a .395 OBP in 2004. At that time, our minor league system was still considered solid, and the sky appeared to be the limit for the future.

Fast forward to this offseason, and many of these reasonably based optimisms have not turned out to be true. Harden is a huge question mark because of his health, Crosby is a question mark in a medical sense and a baseball intelligence sense, Ellis has been brilliant defensively but erratic on offense, Chavez has been hurt and has now declined offensively for three straight years, Meyer has become a sad reminder of why stat guys say TINSTAAPP, Kotsay appears to be in an irreversible decline because of chronic back problems, and Kendall had a horrific 2005 followed by a mediocre 2006. To add insult to injury, our minor league system is now considered weak by every major prospect expert.

Of course, despite these crushing blows, good things have happened. We were competitive in 2005 despite Ratto's "expert" predictions. Haren, Street, Swisher, and Duke have surprised. In 2006, we leveraged a year of Thomas, solid pitching, and a bit of luck into an ALCS appearance.

Faced with the question marks created by the failure of reasonably optimistic assumptions about players to materialize, what does Billy do in 2007? Does he give up a 2007 season and rebuild for 2008? Billy has never been willing to tank a season, and it was not reasonable to expect that he would do so in this offseason. However, Billy is willing to risk a season to find out what he has, 2005 showed that Billy is willing to "reload with risk." I think this is what Billy is doing in 2007. Billy is willing to risk the A's 2007 season in an effort to see what he is going to get in the future from Crosby, Chavez, Gaudin, Kennedy, Ellis, Johnson, and Harden.

Is this a smart strategy by Beane? For 2007, it is a risky option. We are basing a lot of our season on players that are large question marks for 2007. However, it seems to me that the A's may benefit in the future from this strategy. The one nice thing about this offseason is that we have not taken any steps that limit our future options. We have signed no players to long-term contracts, and we have not traded anyone who was a part of our future. If the disappointing players continue to disappoint in 2007, I believe we will see a housecleaning prior to 2008. For this year, I think it's a reasonable decision on Beane's part to buy time while assessing what we have. The weakness of the AL West still gives the A's a fighting chance to compete in 2007. It's not what I wanted going into the offseason, but I can accept this strategy if no major moves are made prior to Spring Training.