Jump to content

A's sign Esteban Loaiza


bkmoney

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(toasty @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 04:06 PM)
This isnt a trade, how's come its over here on trade winds and my post on soxtalk main forum got nixed?

trade winds is the forum we use for everything hot stove, rumors, other teams signing (i guess it could also go in around the horn too). Pale hose talk is going to be used just for white sox talk.

 

If you have any more questions, feel free to pm me or any other mod :cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 04:14 PM)
I disagree with it being a horrible deal, looks abotu right to me. I do however agree with you that something will likely follow and that could be Zito being traded at the GM meetings.

7 mill for a guy who is likely to post an era between 4.7-5? I'd call that a horrible deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am stunned that Esteban Loaiza continues to parlay his 03 season with the White Sox into the heavy contracts he has recieved from the Nationals and A's. Those contracts would seem to fit someone who had continued success, not a one year wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:29 PM)
I am stunned that Esteban Loaiza continues to parlay his 03 season with the White Sox into the heavy contracts he has recieved from the Nationals and A's.  Those contracts would seem to fit someone who had continued success, not a one year wonder.

 

Loaiza was pretty good last year. I don't think he'll have a 5 era at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:37 PM)
Loaiza was pretty good last year. I don't think he'll have a 5 era at all

RFK is an extreme pitchers park and his numbers on the road were pretty brutal. That plus going back to the AL, I fully expect his era to be right around 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The A's have signed Esteban Loaiza to a 3 year deal for 21 mil. Solid starter for a staff that is already one of the best. THe A's should be dangerous next year they need to sign a big bat, dont see why they arent in the Konerko running. We all no what kind of trouble we have with the A's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 03:39 PM)
RFK is an extreme pitchers park and his numbers on the road were pretty brutal.  That plus going back to the AL, I fully expect his era to be right around 5.

Well, at least last year...Washington was probably a better hitting park than Oakland, at least if you take the park factor points without analysis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:44 PM)
Well, at least last year...Washington was probably a better hitting park than Oakland, at least if you take the park factor points without analysis

???

 

Do you know how to read these park factors?

 

Oakland had 1.2% more runs scored than the average park, and had almost 9% more HRs than the average park.

 

RFK had 14% fewer runs scored, and 22% fewer HRs than the average park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:52 PM)
???

 

Do you know how to read these park factors?

 

Oakland had 1.2% more runs scored than the average park, and had almost 9% more HRs than the average park.

 

RFK had 14% fewer runs scored, and 22% fewer HRs than the average park.

Thought I was going crazy for a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 03:52 PM)
???

 

Do you know how to read these park factors?

 

Oakland had 1.2% more runs scored than the average park, and had almost 9% more HRs than the average park.

 

RFK had 14% fewer runs scored, and 22% fewer HRs than the average park.

I'm not totally sure how to read the numbers...but somehow I think you and I have to be looking at different numbers. In 2005, when I sort by "runs scored", McAfee is ranked 28th...and RFK is ranked 23rd. Coors field is naturally ranked first. By just that metric, the way I'm looking at the data...McAfee gave up fewer runs on average than RFK.

 

I guess I have to be wrong somewher,e but I don't see where that comes out of the numbers I'm seeing at all.

Edited by Balta1701
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:57 PM)
I'm not totally sure how to read the numbers...but somehow I think you and I have to be looking at different numbers.  In 2005, when I sort by "runs scored", McAfee is ranked 28th...and RFK is ranked 23rd.  Coors field is naturally ranked first.  By just that metric, the way I'm looking at the data...McAfee gave up fewer runs on average than RFK.

 

I guess I have to be wrong somewher,e but I don't see where that comes out of the numbers I'm seeing at all.

The link you just gave us has completely different numbers then you're seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 06:52 PM)
???

 

Do you know how to read these park factors?

 

Oakland had 1.2% more runs scored than the average park, and had almost 9% more HRs than the average park.

 

RFK had 14% fewer runs scored, and 22% fewer HRs than the average park.

 

I would say anything +/- 5% is about the norm. So Oakland's is fairly close to the norm, but Washingtons is definitely a Pitcher's park.

 

I know this is unrelated, but it is suprising to see Fenway with a 0.974 HR ratio. Also, San Diego's HR ratio is horrible 0.691.

Edited by WinninUgly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Esteban Loaiza's three-year deal with the A's is worth $21.375 million.

It includes a $3 million signing bonus, which will be spread out over the life the contract, and yearly salaries of $5 million, $6 million and $7 million. The A's have a $7.5 million option for 2009 with a $375,000 buyout. Nov. 28 - 6:43 pm et

Source: The Associated Press

 

per Rotoworld.

 

He'll be moved before '08.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 04:00 PM)
The link you just gave us has completely different numbers then you're seeing.

How in the world can that be?

 

Cutting and pasting: (sorted on the runs column, this is the bottom of the list, at that same ESPN Park factor link)

 

Rk Park Name Runs HR H 2B 3B BB

21 Shea Stadium (Mets) 0.889 0.994 0.946 0.860 0.951 0.963

22 Comerica Park (Tigers) 0.865 0.749 1.005 0.762 2.194 0.919

23 RFK Stadium (Nationals) 0.860 0.775 0.851 0.888 1.051 0.953

24 Safeco Field (Mariners) 0.854 0.793 0.926 0.838 1.091 1.123

25 PETCO Park (Padres) 0.837 0.691 0.895 0.895 1.519 1.046

26 Dodger Stadium (Dodgers) 0.825 0.988 0.894 0.719 0.485 1.031

27 Angel Stadium (Angels) 0.818 0.612 0.828 0.925 0.292 0.825

28 McAfee Coliseum (Athletics) 0.703 0.622 0.678 0.686 0.407 0.594

29 Turner Field (Braves) 0.655 0.756 0.689 0.773 0.526 0.613

30 Bank One Ballpark (Diamondbacks) 0.540 0.477 0.553 0.644 1.278 0.559

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 05:57 PM)
I'm not totally sure how to read the numbers...but somehow I think you and I have to be looking at different numbers.  In 2005, when I sort by "runs scored", McAfee is ranked 28th...and RFK is ranked 23rd.  Coors field is naturally ranked first.  By just that metric, the way I'm looking at the data...McAfee gave up fewer runs on average than RFK.

 

I guess I have to be wrong somewher,e but I don't see where that comes out of the numbers I'm seeing at all.

The data fields from ESPN got broken somewhere along the way....They were fine in '04, but got all fished up sometime in early '05. They haven't been right since.

 

B-R lists the 2005 park factor (which unlike the ESPN stats isn't a straight %) for the coliseum as 103 and RFK at 93, with 100 being neutral.

Edited by Gene Honda Civic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 28, 2005 -> 03:39 PM)
RFK is an extreme pitchers park and his numbers on the road were pretty brutal.  That plus going back to the AL, I fully expect his era to be right around 5.

Oakland is a pitchers park as well (stats be damned). I don't anticipate much change in the numbers as long as he's healthy. That said it seems like a lot, but compared to Eric Milton getting what he got last year (and Odalis Perez) this seems pretty on par with the market.

 

I'd think Beane would have opted for something else, but he isn't paying him too much in the 1st two years of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...