A's-Callaspo Trade attempt

I'm sure everyone here has seen this, but I figured we could discuss it anyway. Who do the A's have that we would want?

Also, you gotta think Billy would take advantage of DM in a trade scenario...

3 months ago Dadunca 80 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Im sure Billy would get Callaspo Greinke and Butler

for Duchcher who’s contract is up, and much older than I thought.

This space for rent.

by averagegatsby on Dec 2, 2009 9:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pretty good analysis though.

The takeaway is that the Royals appear willing to discuss Callaspo now that they’ve acquired Chris Getz from the White Sox. Callaspo, 27 in April, hit .300/.356/.457 in 634 plate appearances this year while playing second and third base. His second base defense graded below average using UZR/150, but it’s only a 1240-inning sample from 2009. Callaspo is a valuable player, and he’s not even arbitration-eligible yet. He’s under team control through 2013. Getz appears to be the inferior player, so maybe the Royals should hang on to Callaspo.

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Dec 2, 2009 9:20 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Agreed.

by Dadunca on Dec 2, 2009 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I fear any dealings between GMDM and Billy Beane

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Dec 2, 2009 10:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If this trade went through, it was bye bye Kila and Callaspo and probably Duffy and Montgomery

Must…get…rid…of…good…players… Royals…must…always…suck.

by AxDxMx on Dec 2, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The good news is that the A's showed interest in Callaspo and Moore didn't just roll over and let himself get screwed

Hopefully that continues.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 2, 2009 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I hope this is a good sign. Hopefully if Moore can’t get good value in return he is willing to send getz to AAA for a year and keep Callaspo at 2nd and wait for a better deal.

We Royals fans seem to use the word hope a lot.

by wt on Dec 2, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Frequently used...

“hope” or “hopefully”
“future”
“let’s just see what happens”
“maybe”
“potential”
“2011”
“2012”
“dammit!”
“WTF?!”
“really?”

by brandonh981 on Dec 2, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just for fun... ;)

    * 10. ‘Chump’
    * 9. ‘Chumpette’
    * 8. ‘Yours’
    * 7. ‘Up’
    * 6. ‘Pimpmobile’
    * 5. ‘Bite’
    * 4. ‘My’
    * 3. ‘Shiny’
    * 2. ‘Daffodil’
    * 1. ‘Ass’

by sterlingice on Dec 2, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Didn't Callaspo's non-qualification for Super 2 status come out during the GM meetings?

That likely scuttled everything, as DM had assumed he was dumping some payroll. He’s here for another year, unless we get something significant I think. Then DM will dump him for nothing.

by AxDxMx on Dec 2, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Think positive

Like… “I’m sure we’ll get some magic beans named Field and Getz” or “I’m positive he’ll dump him for nothing”

by sterlingice on Dec 2, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is being positive.

The negative would be that someone gets the best of DM in a trade and we dump him for some no namer.

by AxDxMx on Dec 2, 2009 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm thinking

that Butler, Gordon, DeJesus, Montgomery, Melville, Hosmer, Callaspo and Duffy for Kurt Suzuki, Ryan Sweeney and Dan Meyer (and cash) will get it done.

Pull the trigger, DM.

"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt...he lives vicariously...through himself- He is the most interesting man in the world"

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 2, 2009 11:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ryan Sweeney was a 4.0+ WAR last year

He is the guy to target from the A’s.

by Gopherballs on Dec 2, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, but presumably BB knows that

he might ask us to add Moose and Kila in addition to the players above.

Seriously, though can we just all wait and see what happens before shitting all over DM? I would like to keep Callaspo and I too am a bit leery of trading with BB, but really that is just left over apprehension from Baird-era failures.

"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt...he lives vicariously...through himself- He is the most interesting man in the world"

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 2, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sweeney for Callaspo would be a steal for the Royals

by Gopherballs on Dec 2, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It might be

I assume that the vast majority of Sweeney’s value is in his defense. Do we have enough data on his defense to be pretty certain it is going to be great going forward?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 2, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If we do, I don't know that I'd be totally against Callaspo for Sweeney

Might as well throw Kila in too, he’s never going to play here.

by AxDxMx on Dec 2, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes...and no

Yes because we do have <~2 seasons worth of data. And hes been very consistent, especially in RF, constantly posting numbers around 30. That is what makes me think his 2008 CF numbers were a small sample size fluke (-22 in 51 innings) and that his 2009 CF numbers are probably more accurate (19 in 57 innings)

I refuse to set up a signature....DAMMIT

by RoyalPug on Dec 2, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we need a Sweeney on our team!

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Dec 2, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2008 was 51 games, not innings.

He had 486.2 innings in RF, 362.2 innings in CF, and 43 innings in LF in 2008. Those UZRs/150 were 29.6, -22.8, and -34.9.

Now, he did improve across the board in 2009. 600 innings at 32.5 in RF, 452.2 innings at 18.6 in CF, and 44 innings at 62.4 in LF.

Wow, that’s some ugly formatting. Sorry. But yeah, he looks to be good defensively.

Don't Stop Believing!

by KC Chris on Dec 2, 2009 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for less than a full season (800 innings or so)

You should use UZR, not UZR/150.

by Gopherballs on Dec 2, 2009 5:54 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is...

….2 years of defensive stats is the equivalent of about 4 months of hitting stats. Would we be confident about how good a hitter a play would be going forward if all we had was 4 months of hitting stats? Now there are minor league stats, but how much weight should we give to minor league Total Zone fielding stats? And has anyone seen them for Sweeney? (I haven’t)

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 2, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sweeney's minor league TotalZone

http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?pl=435220

Fans this year have him above average on the corners, below in CF

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he has about 2200 innings

MGL, who created UZR, has said you want 2000-3000 innings. He is +29 overall, so there is good data suggesting he is well above average.

by Gopherballs on Dec 2, 2009 5:39 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Four months of hitting

Isn’t that about all Callaspo has proven?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 2, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He has 975 MLB at bats

That’s the equivalent of at least 10 months of full-time play. And then we have his entire minor league statistical record as well.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2009 1:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Eyes Saw

Him put on a fielding clinic in RF the during thesame game in which Hoagy probably cost us 3 runs out there. IIRC, RF defense was the difference in that game. If he can go .260/.335/.440 I’d take him in a heartbeat.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 2, 2009 10:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oops! I Think

That might have been Travis Buck; I remembered when I saw his name in a post below. Getting old is not for pussies.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 2, 2009 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wait and hapen in this particular case?

Sure.

In general, do we really need to wait to assert that he’s a terrible GM? The idea that those who criticize Moore and assume the he’ll make bad decision are just being “unfair” is hilarious — two+ years of utter, mind-blowing incompetence coupled with incredible arrogance has more than earned the scorn heaped upon him, to the point where we get excited over a minimally competent move ilke the Teahen-Getz-Fields trade.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

D'oh

Make that

“Wait and see what happens in this particular case?”

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Wha' Hap'n?"

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 2, 2009 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A question for you, D_F

I agree with you that DM is a poor GM. But do you really think that the last 2+ years have shown “utter, mind-blowing incompetence” from DM? Back in May, in the DM approval rating poll, you put your vote halfway between “somewhat approve” and “somewhat disapprove.” Given what transpired after that, I can certainly understand your opinion involving to “he sucks.” (mine has as well) But does that retroactively change your opinion of DM’s past into “two+ years of utter, mind-blowing incompetence”?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 2, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

short answer: yes

I was wrong earlier. In light of later moves, we have a new perspective on earlier moves. Whereas the Guillen contract might have been seen at the time as a bad idea, but perhaps just a deviation from an otherwise sound conception, I think we now know enough to say that rather than a deviation, the Guillen contract is a paradigmatic example of Moore’s inability to evaluate baseball players and their market value.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's fair

I don’t know that I’d go quite to the extreme of “two+ years of utter, mind-blowing incompetence” but I’m with you in general. The bad moves wouldn’t have looked so bad if they had been the exceptions, rather than the rule.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 2, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am really confused here.

In essence, what you’re saying is that Moore performed well during a short period of time (aka small sample size), and because of that his overall record isn’t as bad as it looks.

I dunno, man, if someone else said “But look at Guillen’s June 2008! He hasn’t been a complete flop!” you’d run them on a rail.

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Dec 3, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think that's what I'm saying

I think D_F and I agree (at least in principle) that Moor had some early successes (such as Soria, Meche, Bannister and Callaspo) but they have been drown out in recent years by much more failure (I won’t listen them as I’ve just eaten). Every GM is going to make mistakes, and if mistakes like Guillen, Farnsy or Yuni had been more isolated events, rather than elements of a dominant pattern, they wouldn’t look so bad. And, more importantly, Moore wouldn’t be so bad.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who was Moore looking at I wonder?

Is there a catcher in that system?

*You think I'm good* "You know, that Farnsworth is pretty good." *You will give me 9 million dollars* "So, Farnsy, how does $9 million sound?"

by jackie ballgame on Dec 2, 2009 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

They've got Landon Powell

Powell was drafted ahead of Suzuki (catchers in the 1st and 2nd round?). I assume Suzuki makes him expendable? I don’t know much about him. He’ll be 27 though, so I assume they’d prefer to trade him over Suzuki. Like I said, I don’t know much about him…

Don't Stop Believing!

by KC Chris on Dec 2, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Josh Donaldson

Who they got in the Harden deal, is in the minors although probably not yet MLB ready.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 2, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Travis Buck

Seems like a guy that has fallen out of favor there that could actually help us.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 2, 2009 12:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes

The A’s have plenty of outfield depth. Aaron Cunningham and Eric Patterson are also interesting.

by Gopherballs on Dec 2, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cunningham is the most interesting to me

although I’m sure Beane knows it. Buck and Patterson have value. Buck is 26 and has had injury problems. He’s maybe above average, which has value. What’s his service time situation? Patterson is 27… questionable offense. Can he really play CF?

Cunningham is more interesting because he’s young (24 next season). It’s not clear whether he’ll be a CF or corner guy, though. Perhaps a potential Ryan Sweeney, 2?

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just from the standpoint

that he found Soria, signed Meche, and traded for Bannister ALONE would make the “utter, mind-blowing incompetence” argument a ridiculous one.

why can it not be that he may simply not be good enough?

"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt...he lives vicariously...through himself- He is the most interesting man in the world"

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 2, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Almost every GM has finds

The losses Guillen contract alone blows the gains from the Meche contract out of the water.

Allard Freaking Baird found Raul Ibanez on the scrap heap. It happens.

The Betancourt trade is a great example of sheer stupidity. Forget the defensive metrics — pretty much everyone watching Yuni (outside of the Royals front office, apparently) said that he was horrible defensively. He can’t hit. Yet Moore trades for him anyway, sticks by it, and apparenlty the Royals think the SS situation is solved.

Farnsworth.

The Gload contract.

Jacobs.

Bloomquist

Do I need to go on? These things are the norm rather than the exception. And it’s not like some good analysts thought they were good moves. They were near-universally panned, and rightly so.

“not good enough,” well, I agree. Someone who isn’t “good enough” at their job should be criticized and fired, not defended and extended (ugh, sorry for the rhyme).

And the critics pointing these things out shouldn’t be mocked when,you know, they’re almost completely correct in their criticisms.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hear what you're saying

but my point is that all GMs also have turkeys such as this on their resume:

Gary Matthews, Jr.
Juan Pierre
Julio Lugo
Carl Pavano

know the only difference between these and the ones you mentioned? the ones here are SIGNIFICANTLY higher dollars than the ones handed out by GM, with the exception of the Guillen contract.

I mean, we can throw out good and bad moves all day…I am not denying that he’s made terrible moves. My point is simply that I believe he needs more time and that he can learn from his mistakes and improve. I don’t deny he needs to make better decisions and I’m not mocking anybody who criticizes him, but I do think that it’s way over the top to say, “worst ever” or “mind-numbingly stupid”. We all try to top what has been said before and go over the top to make our point, but in my mind that lessens someones credibility.

I mean, if someone has a valid point (i.e., DM is not good enough at his job), isn’t that going to stand on it’s own merits? Or do we have to raise the chorus ever louder, and whoever throws out the most outrageous and loud claims wins? It’s kind of the opposite of a sabermetric approach, no?

The bottom line is wins and losses, so we’ll see how it transpires. I hope I’m right and you’re wrong, but we shall see.

"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt...he lives vicariously...through himself- He is the most interesting man in the world"

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 2, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Gary Matthews deal was quite the headscratcher at the time and blows Guillen out of the water

Pavano was injured the whole time in NY, can’t really blame that on the GM. Don’t know much about Lugo or Pierre.

The point isn’t that other GMs don’t make bad moves sometimes, the point is DM makes bad moves MOST of the time. There are really only a couple of GMs to compare him to, and the one in Seattle that was comparable was fired over a year ago. The other comp is in NY with the Mets. Can he get better? He’d almost have to since he can’t do much worse. So far this offseason hasn’t been anywhere like last year’s, which is sort of encouraging. I’m willing to give him til midseason and then reevaluate, but every dumb move makes it harder to see any upside. The Betancourt deal was a complete confirmation of what most of us already thought last year. He’s going to have to work extra hard to have us change our perceptions.

by AxDxMx on Dec 2, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think most

of his moves have been bad. Several, yes but not most. Anyway, it’s semantics and I would think that everyone can agree that he needs to turn things around very quickly or he has failed.

"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt...he lives vicariously...through himself- He is the most interesting man in the world"

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 2, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we need a thread with all of DM's moves classified into good, bad, and neutral

The bad will significantly outweigh the good.

by AxDxMx on Dec 2, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

If bad moves outnumber the good, then isn’t it “mostly” bad?

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Dec 2, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok, let's classify every move he's made

and assign stars to exceptionally bad (guillen) and good (soria) moves, including drafts, and see where he ends up. maybe just grade whole drafts since doing each player would be a tedious exercise, and see where he ends up.

while i am honestly open minded on the issue, the fact that the drafts would have to be rated incompletes at this early stage would mean that there really is no way to say for sure if he’s bad or good, which is my entire point.

it may be (again, without knowing all his moves off the top of my head I can’t say for sure) that he skews bad for major-league signings to this point, but that is not the totality of his purview.

any true analysis of his acumen must wait until we see the results of his drafts, IMO. If Hosmer and Moose bust in the near future, then you can pretty much close the book on him, but not yet.

"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt...he lives vicariously...through himself- He is the most interesting man in the world"

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 2, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he has enough of a record to be evaluated pretty thoroughly

Sure all of the drafts get incompletes, but they don’t look great so far. So far it kind of looks like he’s done pretty well in the 2-6 round area, but he’s shit the bed in the first round — and that round is pretty important, especially when you’re talking about top 5 picks.

it may be (again, without knowing all his moves off the top of my head I can’t say for sure) that he skews bad for major-league signings to this point, but that is not the totality of his purview.

I think if you look at the totality of his acquisitions, you’ll see that he’s done a very poor job. But let’s look at the skills he’s shown:

- Evaluating pitchers: mixed results — he did a very good job with Soria and Meche, and a very poor job with a host of other pitchers including but not limited to Farnsworth, HoRam, Ponson, Mahay, perhaps Davies, etc.

- Evaluating position players: MUCH more bad that good results here — I won’t even get into the list of horrors here

- Evaluating the market so that he can recognize the appropriate dollar value of various players in that market: simply awful — he’s thrown away insane amounts of money to players who didn’t deserve it when he likely wasn’t even bidding against other teams for their services.

So, from the evidence we have, it appears that Moore is a GM who doesn’t evaluate talent very well, nor does he evaluate the dollar value of that talent in the marketplace. What does that leave us? That he’s a good motivator?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

looking at drafts, trades, and players signed is a bit like looking at batting average

There are a host of other facets to being a good GM that we can’t know or evaluate. Such as, did Moore get Glass to open the pocket book? how about the improvement of the farm system in general, including adding NW Ark? starting to sign international talent and improve their training facilities?

I’m not making a case for Moore as a good GM, just saying that there is way more to it than what we can see on the surface…I’m sure there’s a “wOBA” for GM’s too.

Blank

by benfunke on Dec 3, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't add NW Ark, took the Wichita team there.

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Dec 3, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

didn't we add a farm team

A-ball, maybe?

Blank

by benfunke on Dec 3, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

saw NY’s comment below —Burl, NC

Blank

by benfunke on Dec 3, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, there is a wOBA for GMs, it's called WINS at the MLB level

He’s not doing so hot in that statistic.

by AxDxMx on Dec 3, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that is a perfect example of what i'm talking about

WINS involve a number of factors, including luck, and are dependent upon payroll. If a team gets lucky, it has more wins. Looking beyond just the immediate W-L totals to see what’s behind the curtain. (Now, obviously wins are the ultimate goal—“We play to win the game”)

Blank

by benfunke on Dec 3, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The players would have had horseshoes up their butts last year

to be lucky enough to do what Dayton thought that mess was capable of. It’s very telling that he’s only made marginal gains at the MLB level in 3.5 seasons. How much more time does he need to prove his incompetence to you?

by AxDxMx on Dec 3, 2009 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Skip the wins and look at their Pythag and 3rd order,

are they any better? If not, luck hasn’t kept the team from winning. The players and management has kept them from winning.

I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Dec 3, 2009 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Moore gets credit for the things he's done well

And these include, but are not limited to getting Glass to spend more money (particularly on player development and acquisition in Latin America), adding a new minor league Affiliate (Burlington, NC – Appy League). But I really don’t think these things outweigh his massive, repeated failures. And these have been failures both in results and in process.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

part of my point was just to advise that we all should avoid

excluding variables that aren’t easily observed/quantified. what we can observe and quantify is that he’s done a terrible job of evaluating/acquiring ML talent/salary structure. but that doesn’t tell the whole story (not that the rest of the story reprieves him — we just don’t know)

Blank

by benfunke on Dec 3, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The unseen variables are probably the least important variables

The most important variable to me is the players that the GM acquires. The best training facility in the world can’t make the no talent players he’s signed into something good.

by AxDxMx on Dec 3, 2009 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

are you trying to prove my point?

you say unseen variables are probably the least important, but how can you know what is or isn’t important if you can’t even detect it and measure it? that’s the pitfall of not accounting for variables that are hard to measure.
again, not trying to vouch for GMDM, just trying to evaluate him (and all others) in the most complete and accurate manner.

Blank

by benfunke on Dec 4, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If they are hard to measure then how can you be sure that they

are more important than his player acquisition skills? You are essentially arguing for intangibles. Most MLB organizations have training facilities, etc. that are on par with most other MLB teams. The Royals were a subpar team prior to Moore’s arrival. Anyone that took this job would have insisted on being able to move to the same level that other teams play on. If they didn’t they were either complete idiots, or didn’t have any leverage and wanted the job so bad, they’d do anything just to get it, and worry about the rest later (Hello, Mr. Glass! Yes, I am available for 80 hour weeks and I work for peanuts!). Dayton’s been here too long to show no improvement at the big league level. Hopefully for Glass this is a make or break season, but something tells me he won’t make a move until the KC media turns on Dayton.

by AxDxMx on Dec 4, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure that they’re more important, but I am sure that they must not be ignored.

Blank

by benfunke on Dec 6, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll agree, but the stuff that can be measured hasn't been good

by AxDxMx on Dec 6, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MOORE DOES ALL THE THINGS THAT DON'T SHOW UP IN THE BOX SCORE OR STANDINGS

= INTANGIBILES = WINNER

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 3, 2009 11:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

So if his drafts are ok, you can live with the signings of Willie Boom Boom,

Horacio Ramirez, Ross Gload, Kyle Farnsworth, Jose Guillen, etc? If he can’t judge a player at the MLB level, what makes you think he can do it in scouting? I think they are just hitting on a few of these guys because they are drafting consensus top talent after the top rounds. He continues that and learns how to better at the MLB level, he might survive.

by AxDxMx on Dec 3, 2009 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

His drafts would have to prove to be spectacular in order for him to be considered even a decent GM

And so far, they appear to be far from spectacular.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The four turkeys you listed

were all signed by big-market teams who can afford to waste some money. The Royals can’t afford to do that. Every dime has to count. A turkey like José Guillén gets stuffed with $36 million over three years. With that amount of money you should be able to get a decent outfielder, a veteran catcher, a #4 starter, and a couple of relievers.

Yeah, I know it’s David Glass’s money, and he has plenty of it, but you can’t just give big contracts to guys who suck, such as Guillén, Farnsy, Gload, Jake, and company.

It's pronounced Poo-ZHOLS in Catalan.

by Juancho on Dec 3, 2009 3:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

That's a great point

Not all $36M failures (or even $9M failures) are equal. Large market teams can afford to waste money on a player and then just spend a bunch of money to make up for that mistake a year later, thus minimizing the damage. When a small market team screws up on a big contract, they have to wait until that contract has expired to attempt to remedy the mistake.

Large market GM’s can afford to be more loose with their money and roll the dice on expensive players. Juan Pierre-like failures don’t cripple an organization like the Dodgers for years. But Guillen-like failures sure do cripple teams like the Royals.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Dec 3, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again

Jose Guillen, June 2008.

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Dec 3, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A's have multiple OF and pitching to offer

Buck- injuries, fallen out of favor
Sweeney- 4.1 WAR value
Corey Brown- tied or AFL lead in rbi
Desme- tied w/ brown rbi in AFL, hit 40+ hr last season.
Cunningham/Patterson- nice minor league track records, but bloked by scott hairston
AA OF’s: Spencer/Sulenti/Peterson
1b/OF types in Carter/Doolittle

by Asfan4ever723 on Dec 2, 2009 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I like Hairston

but would he really be blocking other guys? Unless the As are going to make a run at contention this season, wouldn’t a 30 year-old slightly-above-average OF like Hairston be more likely to go than the 24 year-old Cunningham?

Just asking seriously, seems like it would make more sense for the As to trade Hairston than some of the other guys who they have under longer control and are like further from their peak abillities.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to us, I hope.

We’d have to get one of DM’s now-coveted 0-3 guys for Callaspo. I’d love to have Sweeney.

by Dadunca on Dec 2, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As long as it's not Mike "0-3 months played per year" Sweeney

If DM is bent on trading Callaspo, there are worse players than Ryan Sweeney we could get for him. I’m warming to it, as it means Guillen is out of a job in RF or DDJ will be traded or shifted back to CF.

by AxDxMx on Dec 2, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

But why did they acquire him in the first place? They gave up some decent talent to get him just a few months ago. Seems odd htey would turn around and deal him again. But that’s Billy Beane for you.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 2, 2009 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember thinking they didn't give up jack

I wrote about it here… don’t remember much about it. I don’t know much about the prospects, but while Hairston might be the best for now (and thus has trade value), for the Royals in particular acquiring him doesn’t make sense. Seems like Hairston would/should be the first to go in a trade.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

At the time it didn't look like much

But Webb ended up pitching pretty well in the bigs the rest of the way, and the PTBNL ended up being Sean Gallagher who has slipped some, but is still young enough to be fairly valuable if he can turn it around.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 2, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs