"Brilliance is in asking the questions."
If this is your first time to ELEPHANTS in OAKLAND, read a quick guide on 'HOW DOES IT WORK'.
Matt Holliday to the A's.
Why?
That's what I can't wrap my head around. I did my quick rip over and follow-ups at SF GATE, and it looks like there is some confirmation on the deal at this point. At least that Holliday is involved and Greg Smith going to Colorado for a physical. There are still items that have not been crossed off the list to make the trade official.
Still. Why make this trade if you are the A's?
The deal for Holliday does not make sense on a lot of levels. Trying to figure out the WHY is getting harder and harder.
It can't be a salary dump; the A's are taking on more salary.
It can't be to compete in the AL West; the A's need to add 200 runs and Holliday only adds 50 or so at an extreme 'best'.
It can't be to 'flip' Holliday; the Rockies couldn't trade Holliday at the deadline last season.
Even if the A's did some how 'flip Holliday to another team they would have to get back a closer, a #2 Starter and an OF'er.
Acquiring Matt Holliday is not necessarily a 'bad move'. It all depends on what you choose to focus on. Here, then, some particulars on Matt Holliday:
- Holliday is due to make $13.5 Million for 2009 - as a Scott Boras client he'll get a hefty raise no matter who he signs with (it won't be with the A's)
- As free agent at the end of 2009 - this could mean a 1st Round Pick in 2010 for the A's an a Supplemental pick.
- Holliday is a solid defensive Left-Fielder but by no means good - the A's thrive on defense.
- His splits away from Coors Field make him merely an above-average OF hitter
- The Rockies were shopping Holliday for 2/3 of the season last year (along with Brian Fuentes) and could not make a deal
- Holliday had an injury to his hamstring last year causing him to hit the DL
- Holliday stole 28 bases and was caught only twice last season and over the last 3 seasons he is 49 for 60 in SB - a 74% success rate over his career...and his numbers are improving.
Wait, huh? Stolen bases?
Yah. He may not have range in the OF to get to balls in the alley but he is a good baserunner. And 28 steals and being caught only twice are tremendous. His On Base Percentage last season was .409 and .405 the year before. Holliday gets on base and gets into scoring position. Holliday gets on base and scores runs. He missed 23 games in 2008 and still scored 107 runs. Even if he doesn't club the ball he still get son base. Something the A's have failed to do en masse for six seasons and counting.
Okay...so what? Get back to the deal.
Again, it's not such a bad deal to acquire Matt Holliday. But Why? The A's won't compete in 2009 against the Angels by adding Holliday and subtracting any combination of the players rumored to be involved on the A's side:
- Greg Smith
- Huston Street
- Carlos Gonzalez
- Bret Anderson
- Ryan Sweeney
Let's look at what the A's have and stand to lose with the above players.
Greg Smith is a good 4th or 5th starter and he's cheap. He's an innings eater on a team that doesn't expect to flirt with much more than .500 record on the season. But he doesn't miss bats and his groundball/flyball ratio is less than .80. That's not good. Throw in that Smith had surgery to remove loose bodies in his elbow a few weeks ago. Smith could get better, he could stay the same, and/or he could be a lot worse. The later seems to ring a little louder. I can stand to see Greg Smith go but I don't have a lot of faith in what the A's have to replace him.
Huston Street is still a closer. Just not on a championship team. He's a closer on a team like Colorado who might make a run here or there. For the A's Huston Street has worn out his benefit of the doubt. A lot of that can be directly laid at the feet of the ongoing Ken Macha/Billy Beane saga of 2005-2006. Street also didn't take very good care of himself or seem to work very hard to improve himself. He does not hold runners well and has not developed a 3rd pitch. He's fastball/slider and not much else. I wouldn't mind to see Street go but the A's could have trade him two seasons ago and gathered a bounty for him. He's at the tail end of his value. His value could improve with solid work out of the pen in 2009. A reliever who pitches in high leverage innings appears to have more value in a mid-season trade than in the off season, though. Then again, Street hasn't been adept at closing doors - more fanning flames.
Carlos Gonzalez. I don't like it when I appear to be right on the money with a call. I watched Gonzalez in Spring Training in 2007 and more intently in 2008 with the A's. I didn't see it then and I don't see it now. While everyone seemed to think Gonzalez was Carlos Beltran (thanks Ray Fosse and some of the A's beat writers) he has turned out to be fodder. Gonzalez has attitude and had issues. He wouldn't take a seat on the bench when instructed to 'watch and learn'. When he was called up I clearly stated he was not ready. Looking at his PECOTA numbers and 2008 performance he might not ever be ready. Trading Gonzalez now would appear to be an admission of guilt - calling him up too early after failing to cross-check his scouting reports when he was acquired. Something a young, impudent General Manager might do (for the love of dark chocolate take the damn hint that David Forst runs the A's - not Billy Beane). On a note - Gonzalez has a tremendous, but not accurate arm in the field. It's never too far to fathom that a team convert him to a left-handed pitcher. Losing Gonzalez is not a loss. However, Gonzalez has tools and who knows what a solid season or more in AAA could have meant in developing his skills and trade value.
Bret Anderson is what some A's fans are talking about in hushed tones as a Mark Mulder redux. That's a stretch. They are both tall lefties but Anderson is nowhere near as athletic as Mulder. Anderson is still growing into his height. But Anderson is all of 20 years old and could be in Oakland in September of 2009. Trading Anderson in any combination for Holliday that does not include the deed on the Comstock Lode would be criminal.
Ryan Sweeney is the type of the player I get excited about for a lot of slide-ruler type reasons. He is at worst a solid 4th outfielder. If he can trust his body he could be an above average centerfielder in the field and on the basepaths and average at the plate. Sweeney has power but his mind has been warped by the White Sox hitting coaches. At least he can still hit for average. Maybe the power re-emerges. I can live with Carlos Gonzalez going, but not my dear RySwy. There's too much realistic potential at age 23 based on what Sweeney has produced at the big league level. While I am not posting Sweeney up against Dave Henderson or even Mark Kotsay at this point - but he's a 23 year old centerfielder on a bad baseball team. Solid defense in center who could turn out to be a guy who hangs around for 4 or 5 seasons on the cheap. Better than a complete flop and waste of talent, no?
A combination of Huston Street, Greg Smith and Carlos Gonzalez seems like an awful lot to give up in youth and economy for a one year rental. I can live with that but as A's fans we shouldn't have to. Matt Holliday is the player the A's should have been after 3 and 4 seasons ago rather than the Mike Piazza's, Bobby Kielty's, Jay Payton's, Scott Hatteberg's and Charles Thomas' who lingered. If only Billy Beane had not been burned out and traded Eric Byrnes for Matt Holliday instead of Joe Kennedy and Jay Witasick in 2005.
But back to the 'WHY' of it all - forget about what it does for the line-up.
Holliday brings risk in that his numbers will deflate in the heavy gravity of the Oakland Coliseum. Holliday has cost in terms of salary and what the A's have to give up to get him. This would appear to be a $20 Million deal in salary, service time and VORP for a team that should be able to subsist on peanuts.
Again, I don't get the 'WHY' of it. And losing Smith, Gonzalez and Street are not catastrophic. It would appear, though, that the trio of A's could bring more than a single Colorado Holliday.
I did want to point to two other items that were published today. First, the semantics of Lew Wolff's answer when asked what Billy Beane was involved with in the possible trade:
From ESPN News Services:
Oakland owner Lew Wolff, attending a regional luncheon of Associated Press Sports Editors, wouldn't confirm or deny a trade but said he had already spoken with general manager Billy Beane three times on Monday.
"Billy's doing different things right now," Wolff said"
What was the question that prompted that answer and where is the follow up? This might be the break in the dike many had been waiting for when it comes to who is actually running the A's. My take is that Lewis Wolff has as much confirmed that Billy Beane is in fact not in control of day-to-day operations of the Oakland Athletics Baseball Club. Now some beat writer needs to get in there and have Wolff or Beane confirm that David Forst is the de facto General Manager.
The other note is that Wolff is whining about his money.
"Right now we're playing in a football stadium. It's not good for baseball."
- Oakland A's Minority Owner, Lewis Wolff (November 10, 2008)
"Lew, The A's have been playing in a football stadium since 1968. It's fine for baseball, just not for increased profits for minority owners."
- Elephants in Oakland Editor-at-Large, Zachary D Manprin (November 10, 2008)
CONTINUE READING AT THE FORUM AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS
|
