<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> <object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui> </object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

Or, an attempt to read Billy Beane's mind.

At the beginning of the offseason, it looked like Billy Beane would continue to stockpile talent in preparation for a run in 2011 and beyond, and possibly sign a few short term deals (the A's have the payroll flexibility) to try to steal a weakened AL West in the interim without sacrificing future success.

Then, the A's traded Carlos Gonzalez, Huston Street, and Greg Smith for Matt Holliday.  Because the A's don't have a strong track record of keeping their best players into their free agency years, many fans assumed that the club would use Holliday as further trade bait, or sign several other free agents to make a serious run at the weakened AL West.  Then came the Furcal debacle.  There have already been many pixels wasted on that situation, so all I'll say is that it sent mixed signals.  Were the A's intent on contending this year?  If so, why not sign Furcal, a 3-4 win upgrade that would make the A's the favorite in the West?  If the A's wanted to build towards 2011, why trade Gonzalez, a valuable long term asset, and two nice pieces of trade bait for a one year upgrade?  Draft picks? CarGon, Street, and Smith are worth more than two draft picks. Is Beane planning a future trade? Would the A's really be able to get much more for Holliday than the Rockies? It didn't (and doesn't) make sense.

It doesn't make sense, that is, unless the A's are willing to sign Holliday to a long term deal.  This would be consistent with the idea of the A's competing in 2011-2012, and explains their possible frugality w/r/t Furcal.  The A's have plenty of payroll flexibility for the next few years, and with Crosby coming off the books this year, and Chavez the next, the A's will have freed up an additional 15 million per year.  That money is available-but where to spend it?  More and more teams have been locking up their young stars to long, bargain basement deals.  Players like Albert Pujols, Chase Utley, Joe Mauer, and Evan Longoria are signed for the foreseeable future at bargain contracts.  The A's won't be able to trade for them, so they must look to the free agent market to add an impact player, by which I mean a player who will be demonstrably better than the legion of average to above average players who have come and will likely come out of the A's system during the next few years (Buck, Cunningham, Barton, Cardenas, Doolittle, Carter, Suzuki, Sweeney).  A premium talent, a dependable 6-8 WAR player, would go a long way towards giving the A's a core that could win 90-95 games multiple times.

But, as mentioned, that quality of position player hits free agency very rarely-one a year, if that.  Mark Teixeira and Carlos Beltran are the only two I can think of over the past four years.  If you wait two years, and it turns out that Teixeira only wants to play on the East Coast (just making stuff up), then you are truly up the creek without a paddle.  So, it seems that Beane is trying a more proactive approach: trade for a star player heading into a walk year, and try to keep him.  We just saw the downside of this approach with the Teixeira situation (from the Angels POV), but that is the worst case scenario. It's not necessarily the case that the same thing has to happen with Holliday.

The other question is whether or not Beane would be willing to sign a great player to a long term deal.  I think he would.  While he has a track record of dealing players once they become expensive, the last position player the A's had who was almost as good as Holliday was a young Eric Chavez.  Beane surprised many by signing him to a long term deal.  Beane also reportedly had a long contract offer to Jason Giambi, coming off of two great years.  While those two deals didn't work out so well because of injuries, the curse of Larry Davis can't strike everyone, right? Right?

Assuming Beane's strategy, as hypothesized by me, succeeds, and Holliday signs a 7 year 160 million dollar contract (or thereabouts); was it a good move?  I think so.  While it limits the A's ability to keep players like Buck and Barton once Cahill, Anderson, Cardenas et al hit arbitration, it makes them a much better team over the next several years, including in the hypothetical targeted peak of 2011-2012 without crippling team payroll.  The improvement will likely increase fan interest, which will increase revenue, and make it more likely that the A's get a stadium deal, which will bring in even more money.  Now we just need someone on the A's to convince Holliday to stay in the Bay Area for the next 6-8 years.  Let's get those Nick Swisher trade rumors started!

Joe Gordon was the only player elected to Hall of Fame by thte Veterans committee. Personally, I think he was the 2nd best player on the ballot, behind Ron Santo, but he is a worthy addition to the Hall. The Veterans committee has been known to make mistakes, but sometimes they also admit deserving players who have been overlooked by the BBWAA. This is more of an Arky Vaughan situation than a Phil Rizzuto.

Some may look at Gordon's career numbers-.268 batting average, 1530 hits, under 1000 runs, under 1000 runs batted in, and question whether he was a great player. He was. Gordon broke into the majors at age 23 on one of the most loaded teams of all time-the 1938 Yankees. He was replacing a Hall of Famer, Tony Lazzeri, who had been released following the 1937 season. Gordon got to the majors and immediately started producing. He hit 25 home runs in only 127 games while playing his typical outstanding defense during his rookie year.

The next year, 1939, Gordon would explode. He hit .284/.370/.506 with 28 home runs and 111 runs batted in. He was also one of the best fielders in the league-Baseball Prospectus' fielding stats (the only ones we have for that era) rate him as roughly +11 runs above average per 150 games for his career. His peers viewed him as a great fielder as well; I would recommend the Joe Gordon chapter in Bill James' Politics of Glory for more information.

Gordon would make the All-Star team in 1939-the first of 9 straight all-star appearances. He wouldn't miss the all star team again until 1950, his last year. The Yankees, meanwhile, put together arguable the greatest single season ever, despite losing Lou Gehrig, behind strong performances by Gordon, Joe DiMaggio, Bill Dickey, Charlie Keller, Red Rolfe, George Selkirk, Red Ruffing, and Lefty Gomez.

Gordon would keep up his production over the next couple years, hitting .280/30/113 in 1940 and .276/24/87 in 1941 with outstanding defense. As a Gold Glove caliber middle infielder who hit 25-30 home runs a year in a home park that was death on RH power hitters, he was one of the best players in baseball, but the best was still to come.

In some ways, I think 1942 may have made Gordon underrated. After all, Ted Williams won the Triple Crown that year and had one of the best offensive seasons ever. And Gordon won the MVP. I'm not going to argue that Gordon should have won the MVP that year because Williams was clearly better.

Yet, Gordon had a great year-something that is often overlooked. This was no Zoilo Versalles or Justin Morneau season. As league wide offense plummetted in 1942-the American League OPS dropped 49 points-Gordon hit .322/.409/.491 with his typical outstanding defense. The only players besides Williams to have a higher OPS were Charlie "King Kong" Keller and Wally Judnich. Keller was a very strong man whose career was ended by a back injury. He was a fantastic hitter, but didn't have nearly the all around game as Gordon. Wally Judnich was a center fielder who had been blocked by DiMaggio in the Yankees system, was sold to the Browns, and had a few good years-1942 being the best-before going off to war. He came back in 1946, played ok for a couple years, then retired. Gordon was better than both of them, and the other candidates like DiMaggio, Johnny Pesky, Vern Stephens, Tiny Bonham, and Tex Hughson. His 1942 season should be remembered as a great year in its own right.

Gordon had a down year that looked worse than it was in 1943. His batting average fell to .249, but he set a career high with 98 walks and continued to hit for power.  After the season, Uncle Sam came calling, and Gordon spent 1944 and 1945 in the military. It is likely that those missing years cost Gordon an early induction to the Hall. If he had played, he likely would have ended his career with 1800+ hits, almost 300 home runs, 1100+ runs batted in, and the same defensive reputation.

However, Gordon missed those years, and was terrible when he came back in 1946, hitting .210 in 112 games (but still making the all-star game). The Yankees traded him to the Indians for a 30 year old journeyman pitcher named Allie Reynolds. Reynolds would become one fo the few players in baseball history to peak in his mid thirties, going 20-8 with a 2.06 ERA as a 35 year old in 1952.

Gordon wasn't quite done, though. In his first year as an Indian, he hit .272 with  29 home runs, one shy of his previous high. He finished 7th in the MVP voting as the Indians climbed from 6th to 4th in the AL with a 12 win improvement. The next year Gordon topped himself, hitting .280 with a career high 32 home runs and 124 runs batted in, finishing 6th in the MVP voting, as the Indians beat out the Red Sox and Yankees in a classic pennant race, Gordon and MVP Lou Boudreau being arguably the best middle infield combo of all time.

Gordon declined the next year, hitting .251/.355/.407 as a 34 year old, and then .236/.340/.429 in 119 games in 1950 at age 35. He was still a league average hitter, and above average player, but decided to retire.

Gordon has always had two "what ifs" attached to his career. As a right handed power hitter in Yankee Stadium, he lost a lot of home runs in the cavernous Death Valley. His home run total spiked after he left the Yankees to play for the Indians. Also, he lost two seasons to military service, as did many of his contemporaries (some even lost 3). Despite these factors keeping his career numbers low, he should be remembered for what he was: a brilliant fielder and very good hitter, and one of the best players of his generation.

When deciding whether or not to sign/trade for Adam Dunn, Jason Giambi, Pat Burrell, or Nick Johnson, it's very important to asses the worth of the man they'll (mostly) be replacing, Daric Barton. If we expect Barton to hit .226 again, the decision becomes a no brainer-sign whoever you have to in order to upgrade the lineup. However, if Barton lives up to the potential he showed in the minors, where he hit .299/.410/.456, even Dunn won't be a significant upgrade.

Per Fangraphs we saw that Bill James (.331 wOBA) and Marcel the Monkey (.333 wOBA) have Barton pegged as roughly a league average hitter. Even more impressively, Marcel doesn't take into consideration Barton's impressive minor league numbers. (I'm not sure if Bill James does). Of course, those projections aren't very reliable, simply because of Barton's lack of major league playing time (including his 2007 callup, he has 607 PA).

Is there another way to look at Barton as a hitter? Let's try his comparables. Via Baseball Reference his comparables through age 22. Here's how his comparables hit in their age 23 season.

Wally Pipp: Barton's #1 comparable. Hopefully Chris Carter can fufill his end of the deal :) .262/.331/.417 in 1916. The main reason for Pipp's improvement was power. He jumped from 4 home runs in 1915 to 12 in 1916.

Derrek Lee: This didn't go so well. Lee had hit .233 in 1998, but had shown good plate discipline and power potential. However, he cratered in 1999, batting .206/.263/.326 in 70 games, and spending half the year in AAA. Lee rebounded in 2000, playing the whole year and posting in OPS+ of 124. He's been fine ever since.

Ed Stevens: A guy that broke into the majors in 1945 at a age 21, had a 'meh' year in 1946, came back in 1948 (age 23) to hit .254/.313/.396 and played his last major league game in 1950 at 25 years of age.

George Scott: kind of the reverse Derrek Lee. He was decent as a 22 year old rookie in 1966, and then exploded in 1967 to hit .303/.373/.465. He had a terrible 1968, but recovered to have a fine career. He wasn't really that similar of a hitter to Barton, though-much less patience.

Willie Crawford: .234/.313/.381 He struggled in his year 23 season (1970), but developed into a fine hitter who played RF and LF for some good Dodger teams.

Ed Konetchy: Another deadballer! In 1908, Konetchy had hit .248/.309/.354 as a 22 year old. That doesn't sound too impressive, but he was actually an above average hitter! The National League as a whole hit .239/.299/.306 that year. Konetchy would explode in 1909, hitting .302/.397/.425, and stay at that level for several years. A good defensive first baseman, Konetchy is actually a very good comparable to Barton.

Howie Schultz: WW2 really ruined baseball for a few years, didn't it? Schultz broke into MLB in 1943 as a 20 year old. He stuck around as a below average hitter for the next couple years. As a 23 year old, when the real ballplayers came home in 1946, Schultz hit .253/.298/.353. He played his last MLB game in 1948.

Watty Lee: A two way player who hit .256/.319/.366 as a 22 year old in 1902. He hit .208/.265/.277 the next year, which was bad even for the deadball era. He played his last game in 1904. Somewhere, he's smiling down on Brooks Kieschnick.

Reggie Smith: He was league average as a 22 year old, then hit .265/.342/.430 in the pitchers heaven of 1968 on his way to becoming one of the most underappreciated players of all time.

Keith Hernandez: He was bad in half a season at 21 (.250/.309/.362), then made the leap between 21+22, hitting .289/.376/.428 in 1976 at age 22 and .291/.379/.459 at age 23.

What does this list tell us? That, unless it's WW2 or 1902, you don't get to the majors and show plate discipline at 22 unless you're a good hitter. 7 of the 10 players on the list had good to very good careers, and the three that didn't were playing in leagues with wildly fluctuating talent pools (the AL in 1901-04 and WW2 years). They were the watered down competition Cy Young and Hal Newhouser feasted on.

To conclude these ramblings, Daric Barton has hit .243/.341/.388 over a full MLB season. He has hit .299 over his minor league career. A simple regression to his mean in BABIP (his BABIP was .324 in Sacramento in 2007-though he'll likely hit below that) would make Barton a good hitter, and combining that with the expected improvement from age 22 to age 23 makes me expect Barton will rebound strongly. How strongly? Given what we know of his minor league track record, I think he'll beat his Marcel-which has him at average-and be between 0 and +10 runs with the bat. If he's +5 ( Derek Jeter was about +2 at .300/.363/.408), then his defense (+4 according to Sean Smith's 2009 projections) makes him about one win above average before considering a positional adjustment.

As a comparison, how is Adam Dunn compared to the average player? Looking at his BB-Ref batting runs (same as I used for Jeter), since 2004 he's been +41, +36, +13, +30, +26. I think +25 is reasonable. The defensive projection I used for Barton has Dunn at -6 at 1B (his outfield numbers are Custian). Not worrying about positional adjustment, since we're comparing two players at the same position, 'my' projections have Dunn roughly 10 runs, or one win, better than Barton for 2009. If you tihnk Barton is an average hitter, then Dunn's 15 runs ahead. If you think Barton will hit .226 again, sign Dunn.

23 year old players with the plate discipline and minor league track record of Barton don't come around every day. When they do, they are usually good players even if they struggle at first, as Barton's comparables show. Signing Dunn would help the A's in 2009, but I think the upgrade would be less than expected.