After reading the namesake of this post, it made me wonder what the post would have looked like if it had actually been researched a little bit.  (Now, I have not made too many substantive post on AN, because I am also too lazy to do the research, but here an attempt at providing something of value.)

It seems like there would be numerous opportunities for a starting third baseman like Adrian Beltre that just completed one of the best seasons relative to his 3B peers.  However, for a variety of reasons, most teams are looking for a new third baseman at this time.  Some of those reasons include:

1)A team may already have a younger, cheaper, better third baseman.  Tampa Bay may be the only team to be undisputedly in this category.  But wait, there is more...

2) A team may have a better third baseman.

3) A team may have a younger and cheaper third baseman (where youth and cheapness is the priority for the team.)

4) A team may have an OK third baseman for which a Beltre signing would not provide a big enough or certain enough upgrade for the team to spend the money.

5) A team may have payroll constraints (even if they do not have a young cheap third baseman.)

So, who are the teams out there in each category?

Continue reading this post »

With the makeup of the starting rotation coming out of spring training looking somewhat arbitrary, should the A’s consider starting the year using a six-man rotation?  Gallagher did not impress, during the spring, but his numbers were about as good as the five guys who were named starters.  Pitching in baseball today is controlled by pitch counts and total number of innings pitched. Especially, when a team is looking at a bunch of young arms and restricting them to 180 innings on a season.

If you work every sixth game, you will have 27 starts during a full season. In a five-man rotation each pitcher has 33 starts. Those extra six starts are what give young arms too many innings. If you average six innings a start and have 27 starts, you end up with 162 innings. At 33 starts you have 198, and teams don’t want young arms having that many innings.As was pointed out a few days ago in the post “What is going to happen sometime around July?” none of our pitchers have ever approached 200 innings.

Player, IP 2008, IP 2007

Braden 124.3, 148.1
Eveland 189.0, 37.2 (132.2 2006)
Anderson 105.0, 120.1
Gallagher 143.4, 115.4
Outman 122.6, 159.1
G. Gonzalez 157.0, 150.0
Cahill 124.1, 114.1

It could make since to keep their innings down until they are old enough to rent a car.  Furthermore, if by chance the A’s are still playing in October, it could add another 20+ innings to our young starters arms.  If our target were 180 innings on the season and we begin in a five-man rotation they will rack up too many innings and will therefore not be useful in October. If they start in a six-man rotation, then they will have 20 innings, or three starts, left for October.

There are some problems with a six-man rotation, but they might not apply as much to the 2009 A’s.  One problem is that your best pitcher pitchers less often in exchange for starts by a lesser pitcher.  OK, who exactly is our best pitcher and who is a lesser pitcher?  Has anyone seen the dartboard lately? Another objection could be that a six-man rotation knocks pitcher off of their routine.  Again, I think that might be a bigger issue with a 10-year veteran than with a 10-start veteran.  Actually, almost all of the teams in Japan use a six-man rotation.  I don’t think there is any biological magic about 5 days.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that a six-man rotation will result in a six-man bullpen.  This could be a concern, but again I am not sure it has to be.  All the starters normally have a throwing routine of 20-30 pitches on a day halfway between their starts.  One option would be to have a starter available each day in the bullpen for long relief, which would take the place of their side session.  If they don’t get used then they can still throw in the bullpen.  The 4 guy would end up covering for the 1 guy; the 5 guy would be available when the 2 guy is starting and so on.  That way some of the wasted wear and tear that normally happens on off days would actually eat some innings.

Do you believe the pitching staff should consider using a six-man rotation?

The list keeps getting shorter.  In the past couple of days Pettitte has resigned with the Yankees Garcia to the Mets, and now Garland is signing with Arizona.  Any one of the top 3 remaining pitchers would be nice, but it may not happen.  One of the top three will go to the Mets.  Another will probably end up with the Dodgers.  And the Rangers could be a player.  If no other pitching starved teams show up, then one of the top three could see his price drop into the A's price range.  But I think someone from the bottom of the list may be a more likely signing.

If we don't get one of the top 3-4 remaining pitchers we will be picking over the elderly, the injured, and the not very good.  Last I saw on the front page post about starting pitching more than 75% thought we needed to add at least one arm.  So who is it going to be?

I agree with everyone’s analysis that the A's could really use another SP for this year.  But unlike some, I do not believe that deal will happen any day now.  There are still 20-25 SP free agents looking for a home, with 6-8 of them being capable of being a #3 starter or better.  For that top group of starters, I believe there are less than 6-8 teams ready to add them at their asking price.  After the next several SP are signed the asking price for the remaining free agents will really start to decline.  Combine that with the time ticking off the clock, and 1 or 2 or 3 of these guys will not get what they are worth in a vacuum.  The way I see it, Beane will wait out the list of SP musical chairs and pick from that last pared down list of 1-3 SP in early February and try to see whom he can get at the best bargain.  So what does the list look like today?

Personally, I see Perez and Sheets as being the next two to sign a contract.  I would probably also eliminate Pettitte, because I think he is very unlikely to sign below market value and will be more likely to sit out a month or two, until some team calls him in May.  Likewise Byrd is planning to take a couple of months off.  So that, in my mind, leaves Wolf, Garland, Looper, and Pedro.  I don’t see Beane being interested in Pedro, (and some other sucker GM probably will be) so he is out.  I suspect Beane will wait for one more of the W,G,L trio to sign and then pluck one of the remaining two for 1-2 years at $4-$5 Million per year.  That is if he decides to go the high end (lower risk) route.

His second choice would be to pick a name from the bottom of the list.  When another three weeks tick off the clock, one or two of those #5 starters (or coming off injury starters) will be available for $1-$2 million per year on a short-term deal.

Of course the third option is to bring back Kenny Rogers.

I think Beane will make a SP move, but he is going to let the clock do the hard work for him.  Come mid-February, we will have one more innings-eater to get excited about.