SB Nation User Blog: iglew

An open letter to Bob Geren

iglew — Sat, 24 May 2008 07:37:03 -0000

(One won lost won mentioned this idea in response to my comment on the game wrap-up thread. I was inspired. Hence this post. If you agree, "sign" the letter by voting in the poll. If you don't agree, don't vote.)

Dear Bob Geren,

Next Tuesday, May 27, is Frank Thomas's 40th birthday. On that day, the A's are scheduled to start a series against the Toronto Blue Jays, Frank's former team. The media is bound to notice that and give it a little attention.

We, the undersigned, believe that we know the perfect way to celebrate Frank's birthday. We believe he should bat lead-off in that game. According to Baseball Reference, Frank has never started a game batting lead-off. We think he'd get a big kick out of it.

Now I know what you're thinking: "Lead off? Frank Thomas? He's a great hitter, but he's not at all what you want in a lead-off hitter." Yeah, so what? It's not like any of the other guys on the team are classic lead-off hitters either. (Seriously, Kurt Suzuki?) And Frank's hot right now. So what the heck, why not just give it a try?

According to Baseball Reference, although Frank has never started a game at lead-off, he's had two plate appearances in the #1 slot as a pinch-hitter. And you know what? In one of them he walked, and in the other he hit a home run! Of course, we here at Athletics Nation recognize what a ridiculously small sample size that is. Still, you can't argue he hasn't had success there.

Most of all, baseball is about entertainment. Sure, you want to win the game, too. We're all A's fans here. We want the A's to win every game. We would never recommend you do something stupid that would lessen the team's chance of winning. But on a call like this, where maybe it would work or maybe it wouldn't, but strategically it's not likely to make a big difference at all, sometimes you just gotta go with what would be the most fun. Lineup order is mostly psychological anyway, and the guys on the team would love it. Big Frank batting lead-off on his birthday? What's not to like?

If for no other reason, you have to do it because of that: It would be really really funny.

Yours truly,

Poll

Signed:

Team with only three names

iglew — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:03:29 -0000

In yesterday's game thread, Future Ed asked, "How many names are needed for a complete line up? 4?" and he proposed a lineup made up of Suzukis, Sweeneys, Ramirezes, and Sanchezes. I'm sure one could complete a lineup card with just three names, it's only a question of how deep one has to dig into the minor leagues to do it.

This suggests an amusing puzzle: What's the best team you can construct using only three last names? Go ahead and fill out the roster as far as you like, but I guarantee you'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel by the time you reach 25. Pitching counts, too. Try to come up with enough staff to get through a playoff series.

No restrictions on where the players come from, but every player is considered in terms of his talent right now. So if you want to promote someone from the minors (or college, or Japan) or bring someone out of retirement, go ahead ... but if he's not in the big leagues right now, it's probably because he isn't that good.

Here's my best effort:

Lineup:
• Hanley Ramirez, SS (Florida)
• Aramis Ramirez, 3B (Cubs)
• Manny Ramirez, LF (Boston)
• Melky Cabrera, CF (Yankees)
• Miguel Cabrera, 1B (Detroit)
• Ramon Hernandez, C (Baltimore)
• Orlando Cabrera, DH (White Sox)
• Asdrubal Cabrera, 2B (Cleveland)
• Jolbert Cabrera, RF (now playing in Japan, I think)

Bench:
• Luis Hernandez, 2B/SS (Baltimore)
• Alexei Ramirez, CF/2B/SS (White Sox)
• Yordany Ramirez, OF (Houston, AAA scrub)
• Anderson Hernandez, 2B (Mets, AAA scrub)
• Max Ramirez, C (Texas, AA prospect)

Rotation:
• Felix Hernandez (Seattle)
• Daniel Cabrera (Baltimore)
• Livan Hernandez (Minnesota)
• Horacio Ramirez (unemployed!)

Bullpen:
• Ramon Ramirez (Kansas City)
• Edwar Ramirez (Yankees)
• Fernando Hernandez (White Sox sent him back to AA)
• Erasmo Ramirez (now in AAA somewhere, I think)

I'm afraid I don't really have a fourth starter -- not until Orlando Hernandez comes off the DL, anyway. Ho Ram is terrible, but I don't have any better ideas. There's another Ramon Ramirez in Cincinnati's AA rotation. I suppose I could give him a try. My bullpen is also pretty thin, though there's probably a few more guys I'm not thinking of. (Baltimore's Fernando Cabrera is also on the DL.)

The top of my lineup looks great, but it falls off pretty dramatically at the end. If it were just the lineup, I could improve it by dumping Hernandezes for Lees (Derrek! Carlos! Cliff!), but then my rotation suffers. It's bad enough I don't have a fourth starter; I'm not willing to go out there without even a third.

Lots of other tempting names out there -- Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Jones, Johnson, and probably more I'm not thinking of -- but I couldn't get them to add up to a whole team.

Can you do better?

(Warning: If you take this challenge seriously, be prepared to waste a lot of time. I thought it would be fun to play around with it for a lark, and then the next thing I knew three hours had gone by....)

Poll: Should you be required to preview before you post?

iglew — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:56:16 -0000

This hasn't caused a great deal of discussion on AN because we're used to it. Before the upgrade, it was impossible to post a comment or reply without clicking preview first. After the upgrade, it's still impossible to post a comment or reply without clicking preview first. Nothing has changed in that regard, so most of us haven't even thought about it.

Preview became mandatory with the Ajax upgrade, which was implemented at about this time last year. That's the same upgrade that gave us other features, like recommending diaries and adding tags. AN and a few others got Ajax, but many other SB Nation blogs did not. If you go to one of the latter, such as Lookout Landing, you'll notice that it lacks a lot of things you were used to from old AN (eg, recommended diaries). Folks on LL have always been able to post without previewing, so they think of that as normal.

Now, with the current upgrade, some readers from LL and other non-Ajax sites have come over here to check out the new system, and for them being required to preview is a new thing. It got mentioned in one of the threads here, and it's been discussed quite a bit at LL.

The main complaint seems to be that it slows down posting. That prompted the observation that it's really just one more click so it's not a big deal. That prompted the observation that for the exact same reason that it's no big deal, it doesn't accomplish much either: Anyone who doesn't want to preview his or her comment won't look at it anyway, and making them click a second time won't make them. By the same token, anyone who does want to preview still has that option if it's not mandatory. I pointed out that in case of an egregious error -- like if you accidentally bracketed a big chunk of text with "<" and ">" causing it to be swallowed by the software, or if a picture you inserted is much more ginormous than you realized -- mandatory preview can force you to notice even if you don't reread your words.

Opinion at LL is strongly against mandatory preview, but they're open-minded enough to realize that, unlike us, they aren't used to it. Someone there wants to hear objective opinion from those of us who are actually used to it. Does it bother us? Do we like it? Do we care at all? Hence this poll.

Important: Since the purpose of this poll is to gauge the experience of those of us who are used to mandatory preview, please don't choose any of the top five answers (the ones that say "I'm used to it") unless you're at least a semi-regular user of AN or another Ajax SB Nation blog. For the rest of you, so that you don't feel disenfranchised, there are three more choices at the bottom (the ones that say "I'm not used to it").

Poll

How do you feel about being required to click preview before you can post?

Poll of polls

iglew — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:31:15 -0000

Over on the fanpost about the latest format updates, there was an inquiry about making poll votes public. In case you didn't notice, in the new AN, you can go to any user's profile, look in the "recent activity" section, and find out how they voted in any poll. Some have questioned whether this is a good idea.

Responding to the inquiry, Clockwerks explained,

We didn't realize that people would want to keep their vote private. We'd often see people commenting after voting, explaining why they voted one way or the other. If a lot of people don't like the public votes, we can get rid of that.

So let's find out:

Poll

Should votes in polls on AN be public or private?

Center field defense over the years

iglew — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:02:54 -0000

I'm not sure this really warrants its own diary, but I have a question and I don't see any other likely diary to put it in.

In the course of an unrelated discussion over on Athletics Nation, I happened to be thinking about Adam Jones and whether he'll be traded. And then I'm thinking that even though I understand both Jones and Ichiro are awesome, and I totally get why you'd want to hang on to both of them, it's kind of a waste to have two guys on the same team who can play good defense in CF, when so many other teams out there are resigned to picking the least bad of their corner outfielders to play in the middle. Surely there's better value to be had by trading one of them to another team that will make full use of the defense?

And then I started thinking, why the heck did you guys waste Ichiro in RF for so long, when statistically you know he's going to save far more runs playing in CF. But then I remembered ... well, Jeremy Reed, whatever other problems he had, was pretty good defensively. And so was Randy Winn. And Mike Cameron. And Junior when he was young and uninjured. And holy crap, have you guys ever had bad defense in center field?? Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but I can't think of any.

Or maybe I just have low standards. I root for the team that fills CF with guys like Nick Swisher, Eric Byrnes, and Terrence Long. They're decent players (well, maybe not T-Long...), but they're not exactly defensive whizzes. And that's not even counting this past season when injuries made us play something like 15 different guys in CF.

Are my standards of CF defense unreasonably low? Or are yours unreasonably high because you're spoiled? Maybe past-his-prime Randy Winn seemed lousy to you. Maybe you think Adam Jones' defense is no big deal.

So my question is: When was the last time that the Mariners had what you would consider sub-par defense in center field? I don't mean just the occasional sub when the starter needs a day off or is on the 15-day DL. I mean a time when your real center fielder isn't very good defensively.

What would a unicorn do?

iglew — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:11:41 -0000

An illustrative comment on yesterday's DLD contemplates how Mark Ellis might handle a broom-wielding confrontation.

Looking at the options, I can't help thinking that "chase a rainbow" sounds more like something Travis Buck might do.

It's a slow day, so maybe this warrants a new discussion thread.

Which A's player (or former A's player) do you think is most likely to do each of the following:

Chase a rainbow
Leap across a ravine
Impale evil things
Graze on honeysuckle
Race the wind
Nuzzle a newborn
Believe in miracles
Prance through a waterfall
Majestically gallop
Whinny and rear
Pose on a windy cliff
Frolic in a meadow

Calling Bllsht on Billy Beane

iglew — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:40:29 -0000

The demands of real life have kept me from AN for about a week, and now I've spent the better part of this evening reading the zillion hot warm stove diaries I missed during that time. Most of them are too old to reply to, but I see that I made NSJ's list of posters who need to write more diaries, so here you go.

Nearly all of the discussions of the team's future are centered around the idea that the team has come to a point of major decision: either we can contend in 2008, or we can't so we may as well "blow up" the team. Here at AN, the debates rage on about how much to blow up, whether we can contend after all, how various moves by the Angels affect our decision, etc, etc. It's all we talk about now.

It's no mystery where this idea came from. It's straight from Billy Beane himself. As quoted by Tom Verducci in Sports Illustrated, Beane said,

We're at a fork in the road. ... We're either going forward and going for it or cutting it down and rebuilding. There is no middle ground in our market. When we hit the bottom, small market teams like us don't bounce."

Now, wait a minute. Since when is there no middle ground in our market? That's not what Beane has said before. Just last year he was telling us exactly the opposite. He said he believes in reloading, not rebuilding. For as long as he's been the GM he's always said he believes that the A's need to be competitive year after year. Indeed, he has even cited the team's particular market situation as a reason for that.

So why has he suddenly changed his tune? Why are the A's now a candidate for a Marlins style fire sale? Is it just because of one losing season? In the SI article, all Beane offers for a reason is that he's "monitoring the health and rehabilitation status of several key players". The article names Chavez, Duchscherer, Harden, and Kotsay. How does that make any sense? I'm not saying the health of these guys won't make a big difference to the team's success in 2008 (well, the first three anyway...), but what exactly does Beane expect to learn about Rich Harden between Nov 7 and Dec 3 that's going to tell him whether he needs to blow up the team?

It's remarkable to me how quickly and thoroughly we've all bought this line, both the fans here on AN and all commentators throughout the sports media. Has no one noticed that this is a complete 180-degree change in philosophy by Beane? Are we so enamored of the idea of rebuilding and "blowing up" the team when you can't contend, that when Beane -- for the first time ever -- shows accord with the idea we just push away his entire history and breathe a sigh of relief that he has returned to the fold of orthodoxy?

The more I think about this, the more fishy it seems. You know what? I don't think Beane has changed his philosophy at all. I think he still believes in reloading, not rebuilding. I think he still believes you make the team as competitive as you can year after year, rather than take your best shot at the World Series before breaking up the team for a new batch of prospects. I think this new line about a "fork in the road" and "no middle ground" is grade-A Billy Beane bullshit.

So why would Beane say such a thing? Two reasons come quickly to mind.

First, the winter meetings. Beane loves to trade players, regardless of whether his team is "contending" or "rebuilding". He has always said no player is off the table and he's always open to any trade suggestion that will make his team better.

But Beane has a reputation, and it has gotten harder for him to make good trades. No GM wants to be caught having made a bad trade with Billy Beane. With another GM you might take a chance, but because of Billy's reputation, there's a stigma attached to being swindled by Beane that isn't suffered when one makes an equally bad trade with, say, Jim Hendry.

Beane's greatest successes have always been with the unfamiliar names -- minor players he's gotten as "throw-ins" in larger trades. But other GMs are wary of that now. If Beane is talking to some other GM about, say, Blanton, and he asks about two obscure minor leaguers that the GM has never even heard of, that GM is going to say "Whoa, who are those guys and why is Billy Beane so interested in them?" By the same token, if out of nowhere Beane starts showing a willingness to trade Dan Haren, GMs are going to ask themselves, "Why would he trade away his star pitcher? Is there something wrong with him? What does Billy Beane know that I don't know?"

I don't think there's anything wrong with Dan Haren. But maybe Beane senses the possibility that he's overvalued. He wants to see what offers are available and if one is good enough that it could improve the team, he'll go for it. Not because the team can't contend, but because he's always open to any trade that might make the team better.

Beane's new line about rebuilding gives him valuable cover in these conversations. If he asks about some obscure low-level prospects, it's just because he needs to restock his depleted farm system. If he offers up a good player like Haren, Blanton, Ellis or Street, it's because he's blowing up the team. If Kenny Williams or Omar Minaya is on the verge of making a big trade with Beane, instead of worrying that he's about to be swindled, he can take smug satisfaction in the idea that Beane's team is in the dumps so it's time to cash in on the fire sale.

The second reason is for the players. How must Joe Blanton have felt in the second half of the season, seeing his name thrown around in so many trade rumors? For that matter, how must the other guys on the team have felt, seeing that Beane was willing to give up one of their best starters? Was he giving up on the team?

This line about the "fork in the road" makes it possible for everyone to feel reassured. All the guys on the trading block are up there not because Beane doesn't value them, but because they're good players who shouldn't be wasted on a team that can't contend. More important, if it turns out Beane doesn't hear any offers he likes and all the players don't get traded, then the message will be that we've decided we can contend after all, so everyone can take that extra boost of confidence into the new season.

And what's the downside for Beane for pushing this line? None that I can think of. I think it's pure win-win bullshit. The fans are buying it, and the press is buying it. Will the other GMs buy it, too? I hope so.

Three other thoughts about the diaries I read tonight. They're unrelated to the main topic, but it's my diary. You can think of them as special bonus topics.

One. Someone mentioned the idea that teams don't trade within the division. I think this is a canard. It's easy for us to believe it here in Oakland because it so happens that two of the other three in our division won't trade with us, but I don't think it has anything to do with being division rivals.

Some GMs just won't trade with Billy Beane. I believe Bavasi is one of them, and many sports journalists seem to agree. Bavasi made one trade with Beane, in 1999. In his last major trade as GM of the Angels, he sent Omar Olivares and Randy Velarde to the A's at the trading deadline. Since he took over in Seattle, Bavasi has done no trades with Beane, and as far as I know they've never even discussed any.

Some GMs trade a lot, some don't. Bavasi trades a little but not a lot. Bill Stoneman hardly traded at all with anyone, so it's no shock that he never traded with Beane. Maybe the new guy will be different. I don't know. But I don't think it has anything to do with being in the same division.

Two. I see that the debate about the team's budgetary process for player payroll rages on. The next time someone interviews Beane, can we please have some serious questions about this? Unlike so many topics we're tempted to ask Beane about, this is one where he could actually provide some meaningful information. Obviously he's not going to come out and say "I'm not allowed to spend more than $75 million this year," but he could shed a lot of light on the process that would make our discussions here more informed. How fixed is his budget? Is it directly tied to revenues? How separate are player salaries from other player development expenses? If there's a target budget for the year, how much flexibility does he have to exceed it if an opportunity warrants it? Conversely, if there is a target budget for the year but the opportunities really aren't there, does he still spend the money the best he can, or does he prefer put it back into the company, whether to retain as capital or distribute as dividends?

I'm not saying he's going to tell us all the details about how the company is run, nor give out any real financial figures, but it seems to me there's quite a bit he'd be happy to discuss if only someone were to ask the right questions.

Three. Our former interest in Lastings Milledge. Yeah, I wonder if that was bullshit, too. Since when is Beane interested in guys above the radar? He's notorious for expressing phony interest in popular names in order to better hide his interest in the under-the-radar guys he truly wants. Not just in trades, but in the draft, too. Remember Nick Swisher.

What about trading a real pitcher?

iglew — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:14:30 -0000

Although AN is more savvy than most other baseball forums, I think that in trade threads we could still use a little more attention to what's in demand by other teams.

When I look around the league with the trade deadline approaching, what strikes me most is how weak the supply of starting pitching is this year. With any trade deadline, any team in a serious playoff race would like to add a legitimate starter to the rotation. Usually there are one or two really good ones available for "sale" and all the "buyers" bid for them.

But who are the pitchers being discussed this year? With Buehrle re-signed it now looks like the White Sox won't be offering up anyone better than Jose Contreras. Who else is there? Bronson Arroyo? Matt Morris? Dontrelle Willis? Guys like that could be an upgrade but none of them are the stuff of blockbuster trades we've seen in Julys past.

So it begs the question: if some non-contending team were to break the ice and actually offer up one of its "untouchables", putting a real legitimate starter out there, how high would the bids go?

By happy coincidence, two such candidates will be facing off tonight.

MLB Trade Rumors asks:

So who's the best available starter?

Assuming the Erik Bedard whispers weren't serious, I'd have to go with Bronson Arroyo. Javier Vazquez doesn't really seem available, and Matt Morris and Jose Contreras just aren't good right now. And I doubt any AL team would go after Arroyo. The point many have been making bears repeating: the market for pitching is downright awful. I wonder whether Billy Beane will take advantage of that and trade Joe Blanton for a king's ransom.

We're always talking about trading Joe Kennedy. Who are we kidding? Kennedy is garbage, no one wants him. Sometimes we'll mention Harden or Loaiza, but neither is healthy. On the other hand, we've got three pitchers who are the real deal. Even the least of them (ie, Gaudin), even after a couple of bad starts recently, in this year's market would still go straight to the top of everyone's list. What might a desperate contending team be willing to give up? King's ransom, baby!

Yes, yes, I know. Our guys are awesome, they're cheap, they're young. They could anchor a rotation for years to come. Sure, and the other teams know that, too. Make 'em pay for it. We're always complaining that we don't have any superstar young hitters. Well, here's your chance.

For whatever reason -- whether it's the bias of our home park or something about our team's development, I don't know -- we're able to cultivate top-of-the-line all-star pitchers. So maybe we have to give up a top-of-the-line all-star pitcher in order to get some top-of-the-line all-star hitting prospects. Look at it this way. Suppose we did trade away, say, Blanton. What are the chances that Billy will somehow miraculously pull a magic act and come up with another great young starter to take his place in 2008? Hey, it could happen. By contrast, what do you suppose are the chances that he's going to come up with the next Miguel Cabrera - Prince Fielder - Ryan Howard type prospect? A lot harder to imagine, isn't it?

So if you want a good young hitter or two, make the trade. If ever there's a time to make other GMs forget that our park makes pitchers look better than they are, the frenzy of the trading deadline is it. This year happens to be a seller's market for starting pitching and we happen to be out of the playoff picture. There'll never be a better time to make a sale.

What would it take to talk you out of Gaudin? Blanton? even Haren?

Trade for Mark Loretta?

iglew — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:07:17 -0000

A recent post at MLB Trade Rumors notes that the Houston Astros' season has tanked and speculates that the team might soon be ready for a fire sale.

Of all the names listed as possibly available, the one that really catches my eye is Mark Loretta. I believe Beane has shown interest in him in past years. He's a "Moneyball" style player in the sense of having a good eye for the strike zone and consistently good OBP. (Born in California, too!) He's a flexible infielder who could play at any of the four infield positions. And he's hitting very well this season.

Houston signed him to a one-year contract for $2.5 million with incentives possibly up to $3.5 million. If Beane were to obtain him in trade, I expect it would probably be a deal like Ray Durham or Jose Guillen, ie, plan to have him for the rest of the season but not count on anything beyond that.

With a .400 OBP and a moderate price tag, Loretta is a player who could draw some interest from several other teams, but he's not such a superstar commodity that we couldn't compete for him.

I assume our offer would include Bobby Crosby. If Houston is giving up on the season they're in a position to take a gamble on a guy who has potential but is in a rut. Crosby can be Houston's starting SS for the rest of the season. Possibly the change of scenery helps him turn it around, in which case they end up with a decent young player with several years ahead of him. Or if not and Crosby still sucks, then it's not like they bet the season on him.

Obviously Crosby alone isn't enough for Loretta. I figure him to be the second piece behind whatever it is that Houston really wants. Which is what? I don't know NL teams well enough to say. MLB Trade Rumors figures Lance Berkman is staying put, which would mean the Astros have no interest in Dan Johnson. Might they be interested in a mid-level starting pitcher like Joe Kennedy?

If Houston is going into rebuilding mode, I would assume what they really want most is prospects that are ready to come up soon. Which of our better prospects would we be willing to give up, and who might Houston want? Kevin Melillo? Landon Powell? Richie Robnett?

I'd be curious to know what AN thinks of the idea. Do you want Mark Loretta? What would you be willing to give up for him? What do you think it would take for the deal to be genuinely plausible?

Jan 31 true DLD - protest the recycle

iglew — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:47:08 -0000

Huh? I've been waiting all day for the new DLD, and what finally shows up? Someone copies yesterday's dump and posts it again? That's so totally lame.

I've got nothing about baseball, but I do have something hot for AN's teenage girl contingent, who I know are all drooly over Harry Potter. (My wife thinks he's hot, too, even in the early movies where he's little and dweeby. I don't get it.)

The new West End production of Equus is fast approaching, and they've recently put out some publicity pictures. Boy oh boy are they steamy. Too hot for this family blog, so you'll have to follow the link and read all about it. But don't click if you're sitting in the school library with a teacher nearby!

Equus really is a great play, by the way -- by the same guy who wrote Amadeus. It's not just about the one nude scene. The new production has at least one other Harry Potter connection. Dr Dysart, the other lead role, is played by the guy who is Uncle Vernon in the movies.

SB Nation User Blog: iglew

An open letter to Bob Geren

Signed:

Team with only three names

Poll: Should you be required to preview before you post?

How do you feel about being required to click preview before you can post?

Poll of polls

Should votes in polls on AN be public or private?

Center field defense over the years

What would a unicorn do?

Calling B*llsh*t on Billy Beane

What about trading a real pitcher?

Trade for Mark Loretta?

Jan 31 true DLD - protest the recycle

Calling Bllsht on Billy Beane