If your pitcher can get you 20 wins, he's worth it. Can Pettitte get 20 wins for Houston? I'd kinda doubt it. Though I'd love to see him as a Stro, I think the price is getting too high. I'd be just as happy or happier to see them pick up a good starter from someone having a fire sale (see A's). Lilly was traded for a below average OF. While I think the A's are done unloading pitchers, except Foulke, I'd like to see the Astros check around and see what teams are talking. Pitching is, in my book, the most important part of a team. See the Rangers, then see the A's. By the way, I'd would have liked to have seen Hernadez as an Astro, but we are committed to Brad now. Oh well, I don't like Long - at all. As much as I like Guerrero, I'd take a 3.00 era starter over him any day. Of course, I'd love to have both.
Wow, that is a complete misconception of the A's organization. They are far from having a fire sale, the recent acquisitions are in perfectly alignment with Billy Beane's strategy and Oakland's fiscal limitations. In 2003, the A's had the worst outfield in the American League and the trades made recently by Oakland bolsters that unit. Your assessment of the Lilly/Kielty trade is way off. Kielty is the exact player that works in Oakland's organization, meaning that he is very disciplined and gets on base a lot, as evidenced by a career 0.367 OBP. He is also cheap, making nearly the major league minimum and won't be eligible for arbitration for a couple of years. Lilly is a nice pitcher, but he was going into 2004 as the A's #5 starter behind Hudson, Zito, Mulder and Harden. He is in the final year of his major league minimum contract and will likely command big bucks next season via arbitration, which the A's probably could not afford. Beane dealt from the team's biggest asset, its starting rotation, to improve the club's biggest weakness, its outfield. I'm still on the fence on the San Diego trade. Terrance Long is simply one of the worst everyday outfielders in the league, and Kotsay (again, an Oakland type player - >0.350 OBP average over the past 3 years) will be a marked improvement over Long. I'm still not sure if trading Ramon Hernandez in the deal will be worth it, especially since Kotsay's salary is equal to Long & Hernandez' so Beane's not saving any money. There are few serviceable offensive catchers in the league, and Hernandez is one of them, and Oakland seemingly has few options for a replacement. I wouldn't be surprised to see Oakland wiggle out of this deal considering their acquisition of Kielty. These deals were both far from a fire sale. In regards to Foulke, I'm also fairly soon that he will be traded by Oakland in the near future. Why? Because that's what Billy Beane does. He takes pitchers whose value is impaired for some reason or another, makes them closers, than deals them at the peak of their value. See Isringhausen, Koch, now Foulke - Rinse & Repeat.
Maybe fire sale was over the line but these deals, imo, make them cheaper not better. I agree with the Foulke, but I just don't see why you trade a very good starter (he would be a 2 for us) for a marginal OF who had trouble getting daily play in Toronto. Don't let his patience at the plate fool you into thinking he's a good hitter. Leadoff maybe, but the A's need hitters and he's a 250 hitter on a good day. Pitching is what makes a team and the Astros need a good starter (or 2) to really make it happen. Otherwise they are just a competitive team. I like Pettitte, but 10 million is just a touch over what he's worth. I think the Astros should shop around for someone wanting to unload a starter (aka Lilly) so that the other team can get cheaper. You can probably tell, I like Lilly and was shocked to see him traded for Kielty. I wish we could have been part of that deal. But maybe our OFs are too old or too overpaid or we want to keep them.
Just a head's up for everyone, the current Sportscenter (5-6:30 CT) mentioned in the opening a rumor involving Schilling and the Astros. I just heard it in passing so I'm assuming they mean Pettite to Houston and then Schill to the Yankees, but not sure.
A few points in response. 1. Lilly is not a 'very good pitcher'. He's a 'slightly above average pitcher'. Posting a career sub-0.500 record with a 4.68 career ERA while pitching for two of the best teams in the majors and pitching in two of the best parks for LHP in the league does not add up to a very good pitcher. Regardless of where he would land in Houston's rotation (and it would not be #2), he was still Oakland's #5 starter. 2. Kielty is a good young player. Kielty's value to Oakland's organization is different than to other teams because, as I said before, he is cheaper and he gets on base a lot. That's basically Oakland's motto - "We're Cheap and We Get On Base A Lot". Batting Average is not the be-all, end-all stat to determine value. It's one of the good ones, but there are others to consider. I'm not sure how you see that he had trouble getting playing time with Toronto. He was their primary RF after being traded. 3. Houston had no shot for Lilly for a couple of reasons. The primary one is that Hidalgo is the only OF the Astros would trade, and his salary makes him unbearable for Oakland. They already have one outfielder who is making a ton of money in Jermaine Dye, they certainly can't afford another. I'm sure the A's would love Berkman, but I'm just as sure that Houston would not trade him. Berkman fits the A's like a glove as well. His contract is managable, and there aren't too many guys that you can count on a 0.900 OPS from every year, and Berkman is one of them.
1. I disagree. Lilly was coming on strong again at the end of the year. He pitches in the AL. He's a lefty. His K to BB ratio was better than most of the Astro's SP staff. Since Oaklands staff consists of Zito, Hudson and Mulder (Harden is still young and has potential to join the ranks but I'm not putting him in 4 yet), I can see why he's 4/5, but I still think him no worse than a 3 on our staff. IMO, he'd be a nice, reasonably priced, addition to our staff. Like Pettitte, he is lights out on the nights he's on but will occationally get tagged on a few nights to drive up his era. IMO, Lilly can pitch with the big boys and showed some nice clutch pitching against Boston in the playoffs. 2. Kielty will not win you many games (Lilly will). He walks alot which raises his OBP, but not many pitchers are going to walk in runs. The A's are short on hitters and soon to be shorter once Tejada (though overrated) leaves. Getting on base doesn't give you runs without a hit. I still can't see trading Kielty for Lilly - unless I'm Toronto. 3. I agree. You are right in that we don't have any good, economical OFs on staff that we can trade. My point was that Pettitte's price seems to be getting higher than what I think is reasonable and some teams are trying to get payroll down (like the A's) and may be willing to trade a good SP for a player with "potiential" (like the Lilly/Kielty trade - imo). Of course, we'd have to give up (a) minor league prospect(s) or non OF in our case.
1. It's all about sample size. One year of data is better than half a year. Three years is better than one year. You can argue that Lilly will get better due to experience, but his performance actually regressed from 2002 to 2003. Lilly threw a total of 9 innings in the postseason. What exactly can you tell from 9 IP? Just because it was the playoffs does not make him a superstar. 2. That is a ridiculous argument. No player wins games by himself, not Kielty and not Lilly. Actually, Kielty contributed to more wins in 2003 than did Lilly. Kielty had 12 Win Shares in 2003 against Lilly's 10. The goal is to score more runs than your opponent, and OBP is an important factor in scoring runs, which you don't recognize. Oakland values OBP far more than any other organization. Why? Because most people are like you and don't value walks at all, so players who draw walks can be had fairly cheaply. Like I said, I'm sure Beane would much rather have Hidalgo than Kielty - I know that I would - but adding that kind of payroll is not an option for him. That's why Oakland can consistently win despite the financial handcuffs that they work under. They value stats that contribute to wins differently than every other franchise, although with Beane disciples Riccardi in TOR and Epstein/James/McCracken in Boston, that will change soon.
For what it's worth, Gammons reported on ESPN yesterday that Pettitte is definitely returning to the Yanks. For him to sign in Houston, he would have to sign for $4 million less per year than what the Yanks have offered. Gammons said that Pettitte wasn't willing to make that sacrifice in order to play close to home. Gammons also said that he is visiting the Red Sox only as a ploy to get more money from the Yanks. I hope Gammons is wrong. I have seen stranger things happen.
i missed that...i watched sportscenter last night and gammons was talking about sheffield perhaps going to the yankees..saying that the yanks may not do it if they sign pettite to a rich deal, but that they still need to see how pettite will decide. interesting. of course, gammons is the same one who gave us the "done deal" biggio for glavine trade about 4 years back.
Hammer, you sound like you've read Moneyball...welcome to the Billy Beane fan/jealousy club folks. hehehe
They have it on ESPN Motion right now on the MLB section. It's under the title with the Sheffeild talks.
It's a very good book, but it's just a book. And written from the perspective of an author given an inside tour and look at every facet of the A's. So naturally there will be a bias. You say Oakland can consistently win despite financial constraints due to their emphasis on OBP and taking pitches. I don't see the statistics supporting this as Oakland was 21st in the majors in team OBP, behind such offensive powerhouses as Pittsburgh and San Diego who scored 753 and 678 runs respectively. (Oakland scored 768 runs, and Boston lead the majors with 961) Would you agree that runs scored is an effective measurement for offensive production? I would instead argue that Oakland consistently wins because they have drafted 3 amazing pitchers that they have under contract for little money: Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson. I do agree with you that the A's are not in a firesale situation. With the big 3 and now Rich Harden in Oakland's rotation, and god knows who they have in Triple A ready to come up and pitch, Lilly was not a priority to keep around. Good trade.
Gammons also said back when the Astros made the trade for Randy Johnson that he was defnitley going to Cleveland And we all know that didnt happen He never even mention us as potential suitors.... Gammons has a great baseball mind... mut Tim Kukjian knows more about Hot stove reports that Gammons
1) You'd rather have Kielty than Lilly. I'd rather have Lilly than Kielty. 2) So all players should be paid the same. No player wins them by themselves but to say each player has the same importance is...well not good logic. Biggio will win you the same amount of games as Bonds? Hampton will win you the same amount of games as Oswalt? Zito has as much importance on the team as Long? Wins shares {snicker} ... really? I guess Long is 3X the player Mulder is?
Well good job, you've really figured out the intracasies of the Oakland A's organization...and the secret to a great team: Good players. Genius, pure genius.
Intricacies is the word you were looking for, I believe. The point I was making wasn't that good players are the secret to a good team. That much is obvious. I was rather disputing Hammer's point that the organizational emphasis on high OBP is the reason for the A's success while overcoming its financial constraints. In my opinion, it's the fantastic drafting and development of pitchers such as Zito, Mulder, and Hudson that has propelled the A's organization. Nice try though.
Perhaps I didn't phrase my argument correctly. Obviously the club's pitching is the big reason it is so successful, and I said exactly that. It still stands that one of the reasons that Oakland is so successful is Beane's ability to do so much with so little money. I don't think you've seen me refer to Oakland's offense as anything but adequate the past two seasons (it was Top 5 in the AL the from 1999-2001), but the fact that they score as many runs as they do, using the players available to them, is still remarkable. As I stated before, the reason that there is an organizational focus on OBP is because right now, that stat is undervalued by the market. I'm certain Beane would love to make a pitch on a high-profile free agent, or re-sign Miguel Tejada, but they can't. That's why they settle for guys like Bobby Kielty.
Hammer - Man I'm all about OBP, and I love Moneyball. I just think people are all too willing to embrace everything that book says as gospel. Just wanted to clarify on the actual reason I think the A's are winning, and it ain't OBP. And I was on your side about the trade. It was a good one, as usual.
I agree that a lot of people take Moneyball way out of context. The point of the book wasn't that Beane thinks that high OBP players are the best way to win, it's that they are the cheapest way to win. I would venture to say that if Beane were the GM of the Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox, he would not covet the same players (ie Kielty) that he does in Oakland.
