SB Nation User Blog: thinwhiteduke

3-way trade idea. Let's bring back the Swish.

thinwhiteduke — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:38:10 -0000

The additions of Holliday & Giambi have been solid steps in adding offensive firepower to a lineup that last year frankly scared no one. Beane also seems intent on trying to go all-in for a playoff spot this year if possible. If that is the case, the A's need to examine any trade scenario that might strengthen them for this season without seriously altering our future outlook. I may have one such trade idea, and it is a feel good one to boot.

From rumor rumblings around the game, it would appear that the Yankees are entertaining the idea of moving either Swisher or Nady. Meanwhile the Nats seem at least open to the idea of swapping out Milledge. Those two maybe don't match up together on their own, but adding us into the mix could get something done, especially since Bowden seems to be interested in Barton.

The breakdown would go like this:

A's deal Barton and someone else, probably a young pitcher to the Nats.

Nats trade Lastings Milledge to the Yanks.

Yankees send Swisher over to the Athletics.

Swisher has some advantages over Barton, especially for this year. First of all, while coming off of a tough season, he's still a good bet to outperform Daric in '09. Second, he has the ability to play both first base and the outfield competently. Third, he's a switch hitter who hits lefties better than righties. Add these factors together, and I think he'd be a nice pickup.

With Swisher able to play multiple positions, it allows for additional in-game tactics in a four way revolving door for three positions (RF, 1B, DH). Sure, maybe its actually Holliday in RF and one of these guys in LF, the point remains the same. Giambi, Cust, Buck and Swisher would all receive significant playing time, but Swisher is a decent fit at any of the defensive spots. With the other three all being lefthanded hitters, at least one could sit against a tough LHS. Barton, of course, is yet another LHB.

The A's do take on additional salary with the move, but Swisher's contract isn't overly expensive and we certainly know what we're getting with him. The major hang up would be just who, additionally, the Nationals would demand along with Barton. As long as it was only an Outman or Braden type, I think it would be worth it.

What do you all think? Is this a realistic possibility? Is it worth trying to bring back the Swish?

Why you can't have too much young pitching.

thinwhiteduke — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:58:14 -0000

With John Sickels soon to be releasing his newest prospect book, I decided to take a peak at his 2002 book, back when he was still with Stats, INC. What struck me was just how many of the top pitching prospects from that year went on to completely flop. Now I know this was just one season, and a more complete analyisis over a greater time period could presumably yield some significant changes in the results. But I'm not going to take the time to do such an exhaustive examination, sorry.

Anyway, I looked at the top 24 pitching prospects from that class. All of these guys were rated between an A and a B+. Most were getting pretty close to being ML ready, since Sickels rarely hands out a super high grade to pitchers still working in the lower minors. If you're interested in taking a look at how they have since fared, please continue reading.

Here's a quick breakdown:

4 never even reached the Majors.

7 others made no meaningful contribution. That is to say, they ended up with less than one Win Share over their career totals.

So a total of 11 of the 24 can only be described as complete busts.

Only 9 at this point in time are likely to contribute anything meaningful in the future. The others are either out of the game or barely hanging on.

Only 4, maybe 5, have thus far pitched at an "all-star" level for any significant amount of time. And yes, I know that description is vague and subjective, and no, I'm not going to define it better than that.

Interestingly, in this already admittedly tiny sample size, an A grade did seem to have significance over the B+ guys. Of the five who scored an A or A-, only Dennis Tankersley completely "tanked". (The other 4 were Beckett, Juan Cruz, Prior, and Peavy).

What's my point to all this? Well, I guess it just shows how incredible the A's track record has been in turning their high grade pitching prospects into useful players at the Major League level. It also demonstrates why Billy Beane is so loathe to give out contract extensions to pitchers past their arbitration years. It just isn't a good bet. It certainly sheds light on why all of our top performing starters have either been traded away or were allowed to walk away over the last five years or so. Because in many cases, even the ones who do work out have a small window for truly being effective (Mulder & Zito prime examples).

So, that is why Billy has hoarded so many good arms, and why we won't keep them for more than a few years, even if they do manage to reach the top level. It is also why we can only hold our breath and hope that Cahill and Anderson turn out more like a Jake Peavy or Josh Beckett, or at least a Brett Myers or Adam Wainwright, and not a Jeff Heaverlo or Kenny Baugh.

Interesting quick tidbit...

thinwhiteduke — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:08:53 -0000

Has anyone noticed that coming into tonight's play, Kurt Suzuki leads the team in games played with 144? He is followed closely by Hannahan's 143 and Cust's 142. Since Hannahan is apparently out for a few games, it would seem likely that Suzuki will end up with the team lead to end the season. Does anybody know the last time a full time catcher lead their respective team in games played? I would think this feat must be quite rare.

A season in review: Why does it seem like we lost our way?

thinwhiteduke — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:25:00 -0000

Ok. I'm going to preface this by stating that I believe Billy Beane and his staff to be bright, capable and forward thinking individuals who have a long-term rebuilding plan for this team. I haven't lost the faith. But...

...it doesn't seem like it so much lately, huh? The last couple of months have seemed more like, "Let's throw something out onto the field and see what sticks." Yes, several (more) injuries to those few veterans still left in town has played a part in this second half debacle. But so, too, has Billy & Co.'s decisions to rush several prospects who clearly were not ready for the show. The question is why did they do this? The A's front office's stance seems clear. They believe that since the season is a wash anyway, why not start building up the experience for these players at the Major League level now. And I agree that this kind of experience has no substitute, that most young players do in fact go through some growing pains. But I also believe that you should choose to bring a player up when, and only when, he is properly equipped to face a Major League lineup or pitcher. And while there is ample evidence that no matter how mature a young player may be physically & mentally, a time of adjustment is usually still needed, there is also ample evidence that rushing a player can hurt his development and confidence. There have been other possible misteps along the way as well, so without further ado, I'd like to re-examine our 2008 season.

This offseason I felt Billy was at his best. The hauls we got back in both the Haren & Swisher trades were well thought out and the talent impressive. Not only did we get some true "blue-chip" prospects, we also importantly received some lesser talented but Major League ready players, too. It showed a masterplan. Everything started out well enough. Eveland and Smith in the rotation. Check. Sweeney and Denorfia in the outfield mix. Check. The idea was that these guys, while maybe lacking a ton of upside probably wouldn't embarrass either. Let them play, and the best of them would still have a job as a 4th outfielder or back of the rotation starter once the "kids" were ready for primetime. The Davis aquisition was another such move. Fast forward to the Blanton trade. This deal, too, made sense to me. Blanton, while an innings eater, was still only a major league average pitcher. He certainly has value, but his time under our control was coming to an end. The main player we received back was a promising young middle infielder, a spot where we still lacked front-line talent. Unfortunately, Adrian has struggled since coming into the A's system, but that doesn't change the fact that the deal made sense at the time (and Cardenas still has plenty of time to turn things around). Everything was copasetic. Then the wheels came off.

Since that point, I think the front office has made a lot of questionable calls. And yes, I know hindsight is 20/20. But I honestly felt that these were mistakes at the time, too.

Mistake #1: Bringing up Cargon. This actually occurred slightly before the Blanton trade, screwing up my timeline a bit, but, whatever. Carlos has a lot of natural tools. What he doesn't have is a great mastery of the strike zone. There was no dire need to rush him along. We had no shortage of outfielders, and besides middling/stopgap outfielders are a dime a dozen anyway. Injuries paved the way (or at least proved the excuse) to bring Gonzales up. But it wasn't like we had to. He had not seen significant time at AAA before the promotion. His production at Sacramento was not so noteworthy it "forced" a call-up. He clearly still had/has much to learn. So why risk turning the guy into Corey Patterson? And why use up valuable service time to a season where, (despite the hot start) we had no realistic reason to believe we would contend.

Mistake #2: The Harden trade. It was clear that Harden, after proving he could make a few healthy turns in the rotation, should be dealt. By the time we were ready to contend again he would be entering free agency. He was a high-risk, high-reward player, and those guys are better served on a team with playoff aspirations. The Cubs were a nice enough fit. But the returns were befuddling. To point:

Murton: Yet another A's corner outfielder with middling power. Not a tremendous asset defensively. No longer young enough to reasonably expect vast improvement. If you need a guy like this (which we didn't) you can go dumpster diving and turn one up. A few years ago he had some value on the trade market. By the time of the trade he was approaching throw-in material.

Patterson: Offensively, showed fairly well-rounded skills in the minors. But, lacks a true position and does not have the upside to warrant carving out a spot just to keep his bat in the lineup. He's the perfect example of a baseball tweener, and he had no natural spot for a position of opportunity on this team (like third base maybe?). If the A's truly believed he could legitamitely handle second base, they should have immediately dealt away Ellis while he still had some return value. Instead they hedged their bets, and luckily so, as Eric's struggles at the Big League level have made him look like even more of a suspect than a prospect. It doesn't look like he'll hit enough to warrant a corner spot in the outfield, and he isn't strong enough with the glove to play a premium defensive position. But then, that was what all the scouts were saying about him before the deal was made, so this hardly comes as a surprise. But I ask you, if the team didn't really think he could take over for Ellis, and they had no need for another outfielder, why acquire him in the first place?

Gallagher: Sean is the best chance at salvaging this trade. His arsenal is pretty impressive, he just needs to harness it better. He's still young enough to fulfill the potential there, but I don't think he is an ace in the making. There are also some health concerns.

Donaldson: A wildcard. He mashed last year, struggled at Peoria, but went back to mashing in Stockton for the A's. There are apparently questions about whether he can stick as a catcher. If he can, he probably has a Big League career ahead of him.

Gaudin: WTF? Why was this guy included in the deal? He could have immediately slotted into the spot left vacant by Harden. He was still under team control for a couple of more seasons and if he didn't have much trade value (evidently the case) why wasn't he allowed to remain here as a place filler until our young guns were ready? Now we are left with trotting out the likes of Dan Meyer just to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he is not, in fact, a Major League calibre starting pitcher and that, yes, the Hudson trade was indeed a full-blown disaster.

Mistake #3: Rushing Gio Gonzales. He, like Cargon, was seeing AAA for the first time this season. And like Carlos, while his performance wasn't bad, it did not warrant a call-up. And Gio, too, has trouble controlling the strike zone, only from the pitching end. I just cannot see the wisdom of placing a 22 year old with only a 2/1 IP to BB ratio in the minors on your active roster. Yes, he showed improvement in Sacramento as the year went on, but again, not to such a degee as to force a move. I am also of the Earl Weaver school of thought that it is better to work your young starters into the rotation by first letting them get their feet wet in a relief role. I think a smarter play would have been to call up Gio in late August and have him work out of the pen for the rest of this year. A DiNardo or Saarloos type filling in rotation gaps for the rest of the season may have left some screaming for the youngsters, but the wiser course of action would have been to let them scream.

Mistake #4: Not trading Huston Street. I love the guy, but he should have been dealt. His slump and minor injury just before the deadline did not help matters, but we really should have traded him sooner than that anyway. You just don't need an experienced "closer" on a rebuilding ballclub. And we have plenty of additional firepower in the bullpen to fill the hole created by his absence. Even if the return was less than exceptional, I would have made a move, or perhaps packaged him with Harden since it would be a contending team most interested in his services anyway. In our present state, Gaudin had more value to the club than does Street, IMO. Again, it is unfair to look at what has happened since as a way to justify my present position. But the fact is, Huston is no longer even the closer on the team, and that has to diminish his trade value in the offseason even further.

Mistake #5: Holding on to Emil Brown. Why is this guy still on the roster? He should have been dealt or DFA'd long ago - especially once the Harden deal was made and we had such a logjam in the outfield. Brown clearly is not in our long-term plans. Maybe Murton, Davis, Denorfia and Patterson are, maybe not, but why not maximize the opportunity available to all of of them to prove something at the Major League level this year? We now have so many outfielders in the mix for possible September playing time it's almost comical.

And so that pretty much brings us up to the present day, and I'm feeling rather glum about the future, instead of excited. This seems strange based on all the young talent we have acquired. But this season has seemed to raise more questions than answers, and I can't help but feel that the team lost the proper direction somewhere along the way. Then again, perhaps the perceived chaos is all just a part of Billy's master plan. After all, he's a heck of a lot smarter than I am.

Poll

What was the A's biggest mistake this season?

Failure to allow Cargon a full season at AAA.

9 votes

Poor choice of return on the Harden/Gaudin deal.

40 votes

Rushing Gio to the majors.

8 votes

Holding on to Street.

4 votes

Not cutting Brown loose.

3 votes

Are you crazy? Beane knows what he's doing.

8 votes

72 votes | Poll has closed