Balta1701 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) It has been suggested that Cespedes was destined for a corner spot anyway, so maybe it's not all that odd. If he can't come in as a plus-defense-CF, then this money is even riskier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottyDo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:46 PM) If he can't come in as a plus-defense-CF, then this money is even riskier. I'm also not sure that the contention that "Crisp can't be a corner OF" makes a lot of sense...if you think Cespedes is an impact bat, you regain the on-field value lost by Crisp's transition by placing offense at a spot where it is not commonly found. Then, Crisp moves on in two years and you have Cespedes with a couple of seasons under his belt and, potentially, a more valuable corner player. I don't think Crisp enters the equation that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) I'm also not sure that the contention that "Crisp can't be a corner OF" makes a lot of sense...if you think Cespedes is an impact bat, you regain the on-field value lost by Crisp's transition by placing offense at a spot where it is not commonly found. Then, Crisp moves on in two years and you have Cespedes with a couple of seasons under his belt and, potentially, a more valuable corner player. I don't think Crisp enters the equation that much. The sense that Crisp enters the equation is that the Oakland A's are now paying what, $50 million, for 2 CF's to cover the next 4 seasons? If you're Billy Beane and you've got $7 million to spend after signing Cespedes, would you spend it on a CF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottyDo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:55 PM) The sense that Crisp enters the equation is that the Oakland A's are now paying what, $50 million, for 2 CF's to cover the next 4 seasons? If you're Billy Beane and you've got $7 million to spend after signing Cespedes, would you spend it on a CF? I mean, it's definitely sub-optimal but still very manageable. Certainly not worth passing on a player you evaluate very highly, particularly if the price tag is somewhat lower than you expected. That said, I'm not terribly upset that the Sox didn't spring for this deal. It's not so much the dollars that bother me, it's more that 4 years probably isn't enough control for a very unproven commodity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 08:34 PM) I can't fathom why the A's would do that either. Do the A's think they have a 4 year window? If not, then they're just blowing money on a guy so they can trade him. I saw the movie! And your suggestion may not really be all that far fetched. Trade Cespedes for younger talent would be a Billy Beane move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 04:13 PM) I saw the movie! And your suggestion may not really be all that far fetched. Trade Cespedes for younger talent would be a Billy Beane move But spending $36 million on him (and winding up in a position where he is forced to trade him because there can be no arbitration/compensation) is not a Billy Beane move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Not a great job by Katz. If he is going to sign short term he needs to go someplace that will play to his power not Oakland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 It would be interesting to see what the rest of the offers even looked like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 A's probably signed him so they can trade him for more parts at some point....I kid...kinda.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 04:46 PM) A's probably signed him so they can trade him for more parts at some point....I kid...kinda.... I don't think you're kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Soxfan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) A's probably signed him so they can trade him for more parts at some point....I kid...kinda.... To agree with others, that is not kidding, that is Beane's MO. That is exactly how he approached this. Is Oakland supposed to get a new stadium soon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:24 PM) To agree with others, that is not kidding, that is Beane's MO. That is exactly how he approached this. Is Oakland supposed to get a new stadium soon? They're trying but there's no agreement in place, so if they manage to get one, it would only really have a shot at happening in the last year of this deal, if that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) But spending $36 million on him (and winding up in a position where he is forced to trade him because there can be no arbitration/compensation) is not a Billy Beane move. Moneyball is not as some purport (not you) solely about OBP. It's about exploiting market inefficiencies. So no matter how much A's payroll goes to one player is immaterial. What it's about is getting bargain buys, and what Beane is betting on is that right now major league teams are undervaluing Cuban players. It's a Beane move, in that it's taking a new trend by the horns and looking for an advantage through it. The sheer dollars isn't anything crazy, because Oakland's payroll isn't $1M per player or something crazy like that. There's a total amount he gets to spend, and it looks like from here on in a lot of it will just happen to go to one player. But obviously this contract isn't Pujolsian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:44 PM) Moneyball is not as some purport (not you) solely about OBP. It's about exploiting market inefficiencies. So no matter how much A's payroll goes to one player is immaterial. What it's about is getting bargain buys, and what Beane is betting on is that right now major league teams are undervaluing Cuban players. It's a Beane move, in that it's taking a new trend by the horns and looking for an advantage through it. The sheer dollars isn't anything crazy, because Oakland's payroll isn't $1M per player or something crazy like that. There's a total amount he gets to spend, and it looks like from here on in a lot of it will just happen to go to one player. But obviously this contract isn't Pujolsian. Do you really think that $9 million a year for a guy who has effectively never played above A ball is exploting a market inefficiency? Especially given where the A's are in terms of who they already have in their OF and the number of players they have sold in recent years. This is only a "New trend" in that the new trend is spending a fortune on these kind of guys from Cuba. Kenny Williams clearly pulled off the moneyball here in finding the market inefficiency, then Beane came in with big money later once the inefficiency had ironed out. And in fact, he may have paid a premium, given that the international-cap takes effect in only a few months and that has pushed this price up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 02:21 PM) $9 million a year is league average? No, 2 WAR/yr is league average, and market rate per WAR is roughly $4-5m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) No, 2 WAR/yr is league average, and market rate per WAR is roughly $4-5m. Wait, how can 2 WAR possibly be league average? Doesn't anyone see the flaw in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:23 PM) Wait, how can 2 WAR possibly be league average? Doesn't anyone see the flaw in that? A starter is around 2 WAR, a bench player is considered 0-2 WAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 06:23 PM) Wait, how can 2 WAR possibly be league average? Doesn't anyone see the flaw in that? A replacement level player and league average MLB player are two different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:23 PM) Wait, how can 2 WAR possibly be league average? Doesn't anyone see the flaw in that? WAR measures a player's value above that of a replacement level player and a replacement level player is below average, basically equal to your standard AAAA player. So league average for a starter being 2 WAR means he's worth 2 wins more than replacement level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (3E8 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) A replacement level player and league average MLB player are two different things. This ^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 This is not a Moneyball move in the slightest. This is simply gambling on a potential middle of the order bat, because other options were too expensive or unwilling to come to Oakland. Beane realizes he has a huge need to fill (impact bat) in order for his team to ever have a chance of winning big and he's rolling the dice on Cespedes being that guy. Obviously it's a very risky move, but Oakland isn't going to win shot without that big bat to build around. Reminds me a lot of the Peavy move in that sense. Teams can make the playoffs without an ace, but KW realized having one expotentially increases your chances of winning once you get there. Unfortunatey, legit aces are damn near impossible to come by and cost a ton of money or talent to acquire. KW took a gamble on an injured Peavy and it didn't work out. I will always give KW a pass for that trade, because it was the right move to make given our circumstaces. That's why I can't fault Beane either. If he can't acquire a potential impact bat any other way, then he's got to get creative. I have no idea if Cespedes will live up to hype, but I totally agree with the reasoning behind the move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 All I know is I'm done with all things Twitter. Well, at least when it comes to MLB. Lee to the Phillies last year. Fielder to the Tigers. The Pineda/Montero trade. The Latos deal. Pujols to the Angels was even a "WTF." Where the hell did the A's come from? Even with all this Social Media out there, GMs have become more stealth than ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeFabregas Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:32 PM) If he can't acquire a potential impact bat any other way, then he's got to get creative. I have no idea if Cespedes will live up to hype, but I totally agree with the reasoning behind the move. He can't draft one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 05:54 PM) He can't draft one? That's an even lower probability move and how long would it take for said player to become am impact bat? They clearly feel Cespedes is ready now or they wouldn't have agreed to a 4 year deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) The funny thing is that Willingham will basically be making about the same amount of money...$21 million for 3 years. Obviously, they see Cespedes as being a "higher impact" All-Star level player who can be leveraged when he proves himself for 2-3 "superprospects" once/when/if his contract begins to seem like a bargain. Still a huge risk if there's no new stadium deal and you're going to start another rebuilding process with the prospects you get back from dealing him. It's an interesting move, that's for sure. Edited February 14, 2012 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.