Remember When This was So Fictional it Was Funny?

Another one from December that I hadn't thought to put here.  Check out the quiz at the end.

R̶a̶c̶h̶e̶l̶ ̶P̶h̶e̶l̶p̶s̶ Lew Wolff, a f̶o̶r̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶L̶a̶s̶ ̶V̶e̶g̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶w̶g̶i̶r̶l̶ real estate mogul, has i̶n̶h̶e̶r̶i̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶C̶l̶e̶v̶e̶l̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶I̶n̶d̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ purchased the Oakland Athletics baseball team from h̶e̶r̶ ̶d̶e̶c̶e̶a̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶h̶u̶s̶b̶a̶n̶d̶ a couple guys who didn't want to win. S̶he wants to move the team to the w̶a̶r̶m̶e̶r̶ richer climate of M̶i̶a̶m̶i̶ San Jose. In order to do this, s̶he must reduce the season's attendance ̶a̶t̶ ̶M̶u̶n̶i̶c̶i̶p̶a̶l̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶d̶i̶u̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶8̶0̶0̶,̶0̶0̶0̶ ̶t̶i̶c̶k̶e̶t̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶l̶d̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶r̶i̶g̶g̶e̶r̶ ̶
a̶n̶ ̶e̶s̶c̶a̶p̶e̶ ̶c̶l̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶m̶'̶s̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶C̶l̶e̶v̶e̶l̶a̶n̶d̶ to perpetuate the narrative that Oakland fans don't care about the team.  He alienates every fan possible starting at the introductory presser.̶ After s̶he moves the team, s̶he would also be able to release all the current players and replace them with new ones. S̶he instructs n̶e̶w̶ General Manager C̶h̶a̶r̶l̶i̶e̶ ̶D̶o̶n̶o̶v̶a̶n̶ Billy Beane to hire the worst team possible from a list she has already prepared. The list includes v̶e̶t̶e̶r̶a̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶t̶c̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶J̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶T̶a̶y̶l̶o̶r̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶l̶e̶m̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶k̶n̶e̶e̶s̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶M̶e̶x̶i̶c̶o̶;̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶a̶r̶c̶e̶r̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶
p̶i̶t̶c̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶R̶i̶c̶k̶y̶ ̶V̶a̶u̶g̶h̶n̶;̶ ̶p̶o̶w̶e̶r̶-̶h̶i̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶f̶i̶e̶l̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶P̶e̶d̶r̶o̶ ̶C̶e̶r̶r̶a̶n̶o̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶a̶c̶t̶i̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶v̶o̶o̶d̶o̶o̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶p̶ ̶h̶i̶m̶ ̶h̶i̶t̶ ̶
c̶u̶r̶v̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶l̶l̶s̶;̶ ̶v̶e̶t̶e̶r̶a̶n̶ ̶p̶i̶t̶c̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶E̶d̶d̶i̶e̶ ̶H̶a̶r̶r̶i̶s̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶e̶r̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶r̶m̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶o̶c̶t̶o̶r̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶
p̶i̶t̶c̶h̶e̶s̶;̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶r̶d̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶e̶m̶a̶n̶ ̶R̶o̶g̶e̶r̶ ̶D̶o̶r̶n̶,̶ ̶a̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶-̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶r̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶h̶i̶g̶h̶-̶p̶r̶i̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶
p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶n̶a̶.̶ trading current all-stars "to get back younger players in return than those they dealt. They aren’t hiding the fact that the players they’d be looking for are ones who’d be playing in any potential new stadium. The soonest the A’s could get a stadium completed would be in three years, for the 2015 season. So Double-A players, maybe even high Class-A players could be on their wish lists, conceivably."  As manager, P̶h̶e̶l̶p̶s̶ Beane hires L̶o̶u̶ ̶B̶r̶o̶w̶n̶ Bob Melvin, a̶ ̶t̶i̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶e̶s̶m̶a̶n̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶"̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶a̶g̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶T̶o̶l̶e̶d̶o̶ ̶M̶u̶d̶ ̶H̶e̶n̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶3̶0̶ ̶y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶"̶.̶ who had been twice fired and failed to get a job during the regular off season.

Think you know the difference between the 2012 A's and the movie "Major League?"  Click here to take the BISR quiz.

A's Give up on 2012-2014; Santiago May Opt Out

The A's have officially given up on the 2012 season and are just playing out the string. Long time fan Roberto Santiago has informed the team that he is considering opting out of his contract and exploring free agency.

According to Susan Slusser of the San Fransisco Chronicle the A's have traded All-Star pitcher Trevor Cahill to the Arizona Diamondbacks for prospects.  This move is in keeping with the A's philosophy as they look towards a future that involves moving to San Jose. As Slusser had previously reported the A's are looking to trade many of their recent All-Stars, "to get back younger players in return than those they dealt. They aren’t hiding the fact that the players they’d be looking for are ones who’d be playing in any potential new stadium. The soonest the A’s could get a stadium completed would be in three years, for the 2015 season. So Double-A players, maybe even high Class-A players could be on their wish lists, conceivably."

Today, Slusser reports that the trade of Cahill, an All-Star in 2010, and RP Craig Breslow, “lines up with what Arizona is trying to do, and what Oakland is trying to do. Win now – or win three years down the road.”

This news may be the last straw for long time A's fan, Roberto Santiago who has expressed reservations about his future with the club ever since Lew Wolff bought the team in 2005 and immediately announced he was moving them to Fremont. Santiago, who grew up in the Oakland/Berkeley area told reporters privately that any impending move could jeopardize his future with the club.  With the A's clearly trying to alienate fans and tank in advance of the 2015 season Santiago's future with the club is very much in doubt.

Santiago has been tied to several major league markets including Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, and Boston. The Red Sox may be in position to sign Santiago after previously signing him to a ten day contract in 2008. To date that ten day deal represents the strongest move made by an MLB team to recruit the long time baseball fan since the 1989 World Series.

Despite the Red Sox strong financial commitment some speculate that Santiago might sign with Washington, where he keeps a residence, in order to be closer to his family.

"My son goes past the National's stadium everyday on his way to school so it would be cool to be a part of that." said Santiago. He continued, "With the new park, some good young players and a willingness to try for quality free agents Washington could be a good place for me."


Sources say there is little credit to the idea that Santiago would consider a move to the either of the New York teams. Much like the rumors around Cliff Lee last year there is a feeling that Santiago would be more comfortable in a smaller market. Even though he has family ties to both the Mets and Yankees, those close to the veteran fan doubt he would consider New York unless they made an overwhelming offer, several times what the Red Sox committed in 2008.

The Dodgers are thought to be ruled out due in part to their unsettled ownership situation and reports linking Santiago to the Angels and Orioles were dismissed as being completely without merit. According to one source, "His long time hatred for those two franchises would make them highly unlikely fandom destinations despite loose geographic ties."

There is still a chance Santiago could remain with Oakland, the franchise that drafted him in the first month of 1977. Santiago has stated that beyond this year, his decision to re-up with the club is likely contingent on them building a new stadium in downtown Oakland. In 2006 Santiago was quoted as saying, "I don't mind rebuilding, but I don't want to be involved in a move."

"I'd love to stay in Oakland my whole career." Santiago continued, "But it's not totally up to me. The team has to show that they want me. At the same time we all have to understand it's a business. We all have to do what's best for us and our families even when it hurts."

The Giants front office is rumored to have hopes the two sport fan who has been a long time supporter of the 49ers might follow former A's All-Stars Barry Zito and Vida Blue across the bay. This harkens back to speculation that the Giants might have been courting Santiago in 1997 when he was seen in a Candlestick Park luxury box with former Giants and one-time Athletics hall-of-famer Orlando Cepeda. Though those rumors never found legs, Santiago claimed it was merely a social call, it wouldn't be a surprise if people tried to draw a connection. Also Fueling the "Santiago to the Giants" talk is the story that as a kid in the late 80's Santiago liked those funky half A's/half Giants hats.

Dad

Tonight I did something I haven't done in several years, several more years than the four represented on the death certificate, I sat down and had a beer with my dad.  The last time I remember doing this, just the two of us, has to be around 1998.  He was managing a movie theater in San Mateo, California (or somewhere equally foreign to  Berkeley boy with no car) and he insisted that we walk around to the other side of the mall and have a couple tall boys in the parking lot.

The next time I remember seeing him we didn't drink, which was a bit of a surprise.  Dad always drank.  But this next time I saw him he was in his apartment and a problem with his foot wouldn't allow him to get around like he used to.  This time it was 2003 and I was there to extend an olive branch and invite him to my wedding.  He showed me around the apartment building, the pool, his car, the cute neighbor.  That was one of the few times we talked about our past.  About him disappearing for long stretches of my childhood.  It was one of the few time I got a glimpse of his shame though he never said "I'm sorry."  Through that shame shone the same man I'd come to know over the years.  The one who didn't understand that a kid doesn't need a hero or a grand gesture, all he needs is a dad.  All he needs is the dad he remembers best.  Not the one with presents or an old Cadillac, but the one who can throw a football in the park or who has just enough money for a malt in the bleachers.  He wanted me to forgive him then, as he had when he'd first gotten back in touch again, after vanishing for a period of years.  Again. What I had to offer him was a wedding invitation.  He accepted though he didn't actually come.  By the time the wedding came he couldn't drive.  His foot condition had gotten worse.  His helper was supposed to bring him but something came up. 

The next time I remember seeing my dad, or even talking to him was a few years later.  I was bringing my new fiancee, or maybe she was still "just" a girlfriend at the time, to meet him.  We went out for Mexican food.  I took a short video of them dancing in the restaurant.  I think it was the last time I saw him.  He didn't make it to that wedding either.  Diabetes had taken his sight and his mobility.  He'd already survived throat cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, at least one pneumonia induced coma, alcoholism, heroin addiction, and the Bronx.  He was in no shape to travel.  I couldn't commit myself to keeping in touch.  After all, this was the man who'd abandoned me so many times and who kind of shrugged off my attempts to hash this out.  I knew he was sorry, I knew he was as damaged by it as I was but I just didn't care.  I wanted my pound of flesh.

My wife got pregnant at just about the very first possible chance after we were married.  My mom had been dead for a year already at that point and my contact with that side of the family was dissolving.  I kept meaning to call my dad and tell him but something, friends, work, resentment, always came up.  Besides, we were waiting three months before telling people because we knew the statistics.  About a week before we were ready to tell the world that there would indeed be another generation of the Santiago line I came home to find a business card stuck in the screen of my front door.  It was from farther away than I'd have expected and my first thought was that my grandmother had been compelled to drive farther than she should have.  When I called the number and got the news I couldn't believe it, mostly because I'd expected to hear it twenty years earlier.  Then ten years earlier, then five.  "We regret to inform you that your father is dead.  He was found by a friend.  Here are some numbers where you can reach people who knew him."

While my dad's death was a shock it wasn't really a surprise.  The amazing thing is that he'd lived this long.  My senior year of college I'd spent three weekends driving from Los Angeles to the Bay Area to be by his side because the doctors swore "He's going to go this weekend."  This was his pneumonia (and vodka and pills) induced coma.  After three weeks he still wasn't dead.  I stopped going.  Two weeks later they found him wandering around the ICU.  He'd woken up suddenly, pulled all the tubes out and was trying to go home.  He'd been on a respirator.  He had a tube running down his nose to his stomach to feed him.  None of that seemed to matter to him, he just pulled it all out which means he was either on a ton of pain meds or just a complete bad ass.  Whenever we'd discuss any of his seemingly life threatening ailments later he'd always come back to one explanation, which he'd draw out in his raspy, one-lunged-life-time-smoker rattle, "Nothing can kill me, I'm from the Bronx."

In the end he was right.  It wasn't the various cancers that got him.  It wasn't the diabetes or the vodka.  In the end the only thing that could kill my dad was himself.  One day he called his case worker, told him what he was going to do, took a shit load of who knows what, laid down in his La-Z-Boy and went to sleep.  I got the card from the coroner's office a few days later. A few days before I was really going to call and tell him he was going to be a grandfather.  A few days before I might have given him something to live for.

I've carried that guilt with me the last four years as I've watched my son grow up without half his heritage.  I don't know if my dad would have been any better a grandfather than he was a father, but I wish we'd had the chance to find out.  Now, instead of answers or apologies, I have a five by seven by three inch box.  It's strange to think that all that we are can be distilled to 105 cubic inches.  I always felt like I was going through the motions when I tried to openly converse with the dead.  There's something about talking to a headstone or a photo that always seemed like I was just acting out a trope from a thousand staged dramas.  But recently it's felt real.  So tonight I sat down to have a beer with my dad.  To forgive him. To thank him for the good things I remember. For the lessons he provided, if not by instruction, then by example.

I love you dad.  I miss you.  I wish you could have met Feechy Jr.  Thank you for giving me baseball.  Thank you for buying me that yellow Pittsburgh Pirates pill box cap even though we were at a Giants game.  For letting me love Willie Stargell.  For letting me see those old rainbow Astros unis in person.  For letting me steer the van as a kid.  For teaching me about the Three Stooges, Little Rascals, and Honeymooners.  For taking me to one of the last lunch counters.  For giving me some moxie.  For that little taste of the South Bronx.  For my name, for my looks, thank you.

I love you dad.  I forgive you.  Happy Father's Day.

We are the 27%

The cries of the in-debt college graduate remind me a little bit of the underwater homeowner of a few years back.  Some who were underwater were basically victims of unscrupulous lending. If someone says you can afford the loan, you believe them. Not all were duped by predatory lenders but some were.  In some ways college graduates over at least a generation were given a similar lie, “Hey, it’s cool.  You can totally afford this. The market always goes up.”  As we are seeing now, and as we saw in the housing market, there is always a bubble.  Now that the education bubble is seen to be bursting I see many people suggesting that all college loan debt be forgiven.   Facebook is periodically awash in petitions for legislation that would forgive student loan debt.  The basic premise is a mix of, “It would stimulate the economy” and “It’s time the rest of us got a break.”  What really disturbs me is that many of my friends who claim to be “The 99%” and who opposed the Wall Street bailouts are now calling for their own handout.  This seems both naïve and short sighted.  After all, wouldn’t this just take billions off the books of the very same banks we just bailed out?

The other thing I wonder is whether the Feds still own our debt or if it's been securitized and sold off. If its backing bonds then forgiveness would essentially default those bonds and hurt investors which could have other nasty macro-economic effects. If the Feds guarantee the bonds and forgive the debt then they put themselves in a huge hole that tax payers, including those who never had the chance to go to college, would need to pay off.

But, maybe like or unlike the underwater home "owner," we did it by choice. Beyond that, we did it by privilege. Sure we're not the elite but we had opportunities that not everyone has. And I say this as someone who's had to fight, in one way or another, for almost everything I've achieved. Still, I know I've also been very lucky.

My question is, why do I deserve say, $60K more than the really smart motivated person who had to forgo college to help raise their siblings, or take care of their parents, or didn't qualify for loans or whatever it was that kept them out of school? Why do I deserve it more than someone who never had a chance to mortgage themselves?

Also (sorry for the rant here but I am still me) the thing about the indebted educated class is if we suddenly find ourselves out of debt it's no sure thing that we'll go out and stimulate the economy. In fact I'd suggest that we're way more likely to put that extra money towards our credit card debts or other things we're already paying for. Maybe a little extra principle payment on that second higher rate mortgage they made us get as part of our home purchase. Or maybe we'll just put it in savings. The point is we won't do much to actually stimulate the economy. Just like trickle down economics didn't stimulate job growth. Just like bailouts for Wall Street and tax breaks for oil companies and bailouts of airlines didn't create jobs or save jobs or stimulate lending or reduce gas prices or get us back to the sweet sweet Clinton Era.

I like what Kai Ryssdal suggested, If you really want to stimulate the economy give $10K to kids between the ages of 13 and 19. They don't save. They buy all kinds of stuff.

The thing that bothers me is that there's a lot of people with student loan debt championing this thing and not many people asking what else is affected if it happens.

Sure, I'd love an extra buncha money, but what is the real economic impact? How many of us just want free stuff?

Also, are all mortgaged selves equal? If you spend $200K getting a PhD in something that's got no job prospects are you contributing to society the same as an engineer or MD? Should we, the American taxpayer subsidize a degree that doesn't contribute to the GDP? I think there's a lot of issues here that go beyond helping out our best and brightest.

I hope PhDs are valued, I'm getting one right now. But I'm getting one in an employable field. I’m not saying PhDs aren't important but if you get one in a field with no prospects you basically made a poor choice. Why should I, the taxpayer, subsidize someone's vanity degree?

Right now we're desperate for engineers and doctors. Our Federal government is importing them from other countries. Maybe if we had more doctors the ones we have now could work normal shifts and not make mistakes that kill people. Maybe (but not likely) supply could keep up with demand and drive down costs. There may be a problem with having too many MDs and engineers but we're decades away from having to think about that.

My real question is, where is the real value to the economy of forgiving this debt? Especially since we're likely to put our savings towards things that don't stimulate growth?

I feel you, oh educated and indebted minions. I am a farmed-out adjunct making next to nothing. I'm also facing a future where tenure track jobs may not exist. But I'm doing it with my eyes open, not expecting the government to come in and wipe out my debts. It's not that a PhD in English is "bad," it's that if you do it we can presume you're smart enough to know what you're getting into. If you're doing it for love of the subject or love of teaching or whatever then that's great! I am all for it. I just don't think the Feds, and by extension tax payers, should be subsidizing the dream.

I also don't think we should be giving huge tax breaks to billion dollar corporations, I'm not for most farming subsidies, or tax breaks for the rich. If I don't think others should be getting handouts based on their decisions I have to apply the same standard to us.

Also, taking it away from the philosophical "are college students valuable or deserving" discussion, can anyone show that this would actually help the economy, aside from this vague idea that we'd then have disposable income, which seems unsubstantiated? I know if I had an extra $2,000/month or whatever my household will be paying when I'm done with school, I'd be putting it towards my mortgage or a college fund for the kids. I would not be putting much or any of it back into the economy.

True, I have a mortgage. But I already bought the house so forgiving my debt isn't going to get me to buy more houses, the money from that purchase is already out there. It's a done deal. The trends I've seen seem to show that our people, the educated middle class, are not inclined to go out and do a bunch of spending. It's why the Bush stimulus didn't work. If you send me $600 I'm not spending it. I'm paying down credit cards or saving it. It doesn't really help the economy.

I did some very rough fast research. If the national student loan debt is roughly $850B let's say the government holds 1/4 of that. So $200B. Let's say half of that has been turned into bonds. If you forgive it you have to call those bonds at a cost of $100B plus the forgiveness is going to cost you $200B. So you're now at a $300B outlay. Then you figure you're not getting interest that you would have gotten on those payments so maybe that's another $100B. So now we're looking at $400B for this idea. Roughly half of the Wall Street bailout. Is that really what we want? Without knowing the projected gain it just doesn't seem worth it.

I've seen this a million times and yet no one has actually presented on HOW this would stimulate the economy when people with degrees are more likely to SAVE than SPEND.

I didn't want bailout for the privileged class above me, why should I support a bailout that ignores those less fortunate than me?  How is this anything than another hand out for people who have a higher earning potential than those who did not have the good fortune to need a student loan in the first place?

More on Beane's Post-Moneyball Trades

Yesterday we broke down some Billy Beane's post-Moneyball trades to see if he could still be considered a genius.  The results were split, the Hudson trade was terrible, the Mulder trade a stroke of artistry.  Today we look at two trades that also involved two top of the rotation talents and the Nick Swisher deal, all from 2008.  As we did yesterday we are using Wins Above Replacement as our measure of how players fared after each trade.  The higher the WAR the better the performance.

Rich Harden SP:

-6 years, 36-19, 541.2 IP, 3.42 ERA, WHIP 1.238, WAR 11.8

-2 years, 14-10, 212.0 IP, 3.31 ERA, WHIP 1.217, WAR 4.0

Sean Gallagher SP:

-2007, 0-0, 14.2 IP, 8.59 ERA, WHIP 2.114, WAR –0.5

-2 years, 3-5,  71.0 IP, 6.34 ERA, WHIP 1.746, WAR –1.5

Scott Hairston OF:

-2008, 362 PA, .248 AVG, .791 OPS, WAR 2.1

-1 year, 248 PA, .236 AVG, .653 OPS, WAR –0.8

Kevin Kouzmanoff 3B:

-2009, 529 PA, .255 AVG, .722 OPS, WAR 1.1

-2 years, 735 PA, .242 AVG, .666, WAR 0.6 (Sent to minors due to bad defense)

Eric Sogard IF:

-2009, 530 PA, .293 AVG, .771 OPS (Minors)

-1 year, 9 PA, .429 AVG, .984 OPS, WAR 0.0 (Still in Minors)

Eric Patterson 2B/LF:

-2008, 53 PA, .239 AVG, .625 OPS, WAR –0.5

-3 years, 325 PA, .221 AVG, .638 OPS, WAR -0.5

Fabian Williamson SP:

-2010, 9-5, 128.1 IP, WHIP 1.590

-No appearances, still in minors

Matt Murton LF:

-2007, 261 PA, .281 AVG, .791 OPS, WAR 0.7

-1 year, 31 PA, .100 AVG, .262, WAR –0.2

Corey Wimberly UTIL:

-2008, 449 PA, .291, .716 OPS, (Minors)

-No appearances, in minors elsewhere

Josh Donaldson:

-2008, 461 PA, .267 AVG, .772 OPS (Minors)

            -1 year, 34 PA, .156 AVG, .487 OPS, -0.3 (Currently in minors)

So Harden was an amazing talent who actually wasn't that helpful averaging just under two extra wins/year during his first stint with the A's.  After he left it was more of the same as he averaged the same two Wins Above Replacement in his next two years with Chicago and Texas.  The guys who came back in that trade and the guys those guys got traded for were actually much worse combining for a -3.3 WAR if we don't count the WAR shares from Kevin Kouzmanoff that we counted yesterday.  Still, unlike the Hudson trade this wasn't a bad deal at the time.  Billy, Rich, Rich's mom, and the rest of us knew he was going to get hurt again, and again, and again so trying to get something for him was the right move.

Joe Blanton SP:

-5 years, 47-46, 760.2 IP, 4.25 ERA, WHIP 1.330, WAR 8.9

-4 years, 26-16, 476.0 IP, 4.46 ERA, WHIP 1.380, WAR 2.6

Josh Outman SP:

-2007, 12-7, 159.1 IP, 2.99 ERA, WHIP 1.374 (Minors)

-3 years, 8-6, 139.2 IP, 3.67 ERA, WHIP 1.303 WAR 2.5

Adrian Cardenas IF:

-2007, 564 PA, .295 AVG, .770 OPS (Minors)

-Still in minors

Matthew Spencer OF:

-2007, 198 PA, .263 AVG, .789 OPS (Minors)

-Still in minors

Aaron Miles 2B:

-2009, 170 PA, .185 AVG, .466 OPS, WAR –1.4

-Never appeared for the A’s

Adam Rosales 2B:

-2009, 266 PA, .213, .620 OPS WAR –0.2

-2 years, 315 PA, .253 AVG, .696 OPS, WAR 1.0

Jake Fox LF/IF:

-2009, 241 PA, .259 AVG, .779 OPS, WAR 0.4

-1 year, 106 PA, .214 AVG, .591 OPS, WAR –0.5

Ross Wolf RP:

-2009, 4-2, 82 IP, 3.95 ERA, WHIP 1.256 (Minors)

-1 year, 0-0, 12.2 IP, 4.26 ERA, WHIP 1.421 WAR 0.0 (In minors elsewhere)

Win!  In limited action over the last three years Outman has already equaled Blanton's WAR production roughly 1/4 the number of innings.  Yes Blanton won a World Series but it wasn't the Joe Blanton show.  Spencer was turned into Aaron Miles, who never appeared for the A's, and Jake Fox.  Miles became Adam Rosales who's been worth 1 extra win over the last two years.  Sure Fox cost the team half a win and was traded for nothing but we're still up on this one.  Right now anything the A's get from Cardenas is a bonus.

Nick Swisher RF/1B:

-4 years, 1924 PA, .251 AVG, .825 OPS, WAR 9.0

-4 years, 2142 PA, .241 AVG, .800 OPS, WAR 9.7 (With Yankees)

Faustino De Los Santos RP:

-2007, 10-5, 122.3 IP, 2.65 ERA, WHIP .916 (Minors)

-1 year, 2.1 IP, 3.86 ERA, WHIP .857, WAR 0.0 (Prospect)

Gio Gonzalez SP:

-2007, 9-7, 150 IP, 3.18 ERA, WHIP 1.153 (Minors)

-4 years 20-25, 435.1 IP, 3.95 ERA, 1.413 WAR 5.6 (Doing well)

Ryan Sweeney OF:

-2007, 49 PA, .200 AVG, .599 OPS, WAR –0.3

            -4 years, 1453 PA, .290 AVG, .735 OPS, WAR 5.0 (Solid) 

Basically Swish has been Swish.  He hasn't changed much over time.  In return the A's got three very good prospects from the White Sox.  Sweeny and Gio have more than replaced Swisher's production with the downside being that they've taken up two positions on the field to do it.  If Sweeny had been able to equal Swisher's out put on his own this would have been a great trade.  As it is, the real story of this trade will likely depend on what Gio does for the rest of his time in the green and gold.  A likely scenario is that he'll eventually be traded for more prospects.  De Los Santos is likely on his way to Oakland right now and if he can produce this thing could swing slightly in the A's favor, as it is it's basically a wash.

Next time we wrap up this three part series by looking at actual replacement players.  Billy's let a few guys walk as free agents, I'll examine the value of those decisions.  Cheers.

Billy Bails

The 2011 MLB trade deadline has come and gone and even though the A's are going nowhere Billy Beane only made one move, sending relief pitcher Brad Ziegler to the Diamondbacks for a couple prospects. It may turn out to be a great move but the fact is the A's could have done so much more. Hideki Matsui, Coco Crisp, Rich Harden, Josh Willingham, David DeJesus, and Brandon McCarthy are all free agents at the end of the year and are unlikely to return. I for one was hoping for a complete fires ale of all players not under club control beyond this year but either Billy thinks he'd rather see what these guys have so he can gauge resigning them or the rest of baseball is scared. The A's did have a deal in place to send Rich Harden to the Red Sox but that fell through when the Sox got spooked. Maybe they saw a preview for the Moneyball movie and remembered how Billy fleeced so many other teams in the past.

So without much to analyze this year let's take a look back. Not all the way back, I don't want to ruin the movie for you so let's look at the post-Moneyball trades and see how good Billy has been. Some people have looked at the A's struggles since 2006 and scoffed that the Moneyball ideals don't work anymore. Of course this is complete buffoonery since the stats so revered in Moneyball (i.e. OPS) are now driving huge salaries in New York and Boston. Of course what the Moneyball philosophy is really about is finding out what people aren't paying huge money for and trying to get that skill on the cheap. In recent years in Oakland that's meant a return to valuing speed and defense, exactly the skills overvalued prior to the release of Moneyball.

So, how has our man Billy done since everyone found out how smart he is? Below is a break down of the major trades Billy's made since, and including, breaking up Oakland's vaunted Big Three back in 2004. The chart looks at three measures of player value, On-base Plus Slugging (OPS_ for hitters, Walks and Hits per Inning Pitched (WHIP) for pitchers and Wins Above Replacement (WAR) for both. For context here's how career OPS looks for three hitters, two are very good and one is famously bad:

Barry Bonds: 1.051
Albert Pujols: 1.041
Mario Mendoza: .507

You probably know Bonds and Pujols are great hitters. Mendoza is the name sake of "The Mendoza Line" which represents a .200 batting average.

For more context here's the WHIP numbers for three pitchers, again, two very good and one very bad.

Cy Young: 1.130
Sandy Koufax: 1.106
Vin Mazzaro 1.630

Cy Young is the guy they named the Cy Young award after. Sandy Koufax is someone you should look up if you don't know who he is. Vin Mazzaro recently had two of the worst days a pitcher has ever had. First he gave up 14 runs in 2.1 innings and was sent to the minors. It was statistcally the worst game ever pitched by anyone in the majors ever. For the year Mazzaro's WHIP sits at 2.137 which is just gawd awful.


I think the WAR stat is the most instructive here as it tells us what the stats meant in terms of each player contributing wins to the club over multiple seasons.

The chart is a little funky, each time you see an indent and a player's name and stats it means the indented player was traded for the player above him.  Each player blurb reads like this:

Name Name Pos:
-What they did the year(s) before the trade (and at what level)
-What they did after the trade (Comment)

For example, let's look at a trade that did not work out well for Oakland even if you figure the player, Tim Hudson, wasn't going to resign with the A's.


Tim Hudson SP:
-6 years, 92-39, 1240.2 IP, 3.30 ERA WAR 28.9
-7 years, 79-54, 1147.2 IP, 3.54 ERA WAR 19.5 (Still in ATL)

• Charles Thomas OF:
• -1 year, 267 PA, .288 AVG WAR 2.1
• -1 year, 55 PA, .109 AVG WAR –0.2 (Last Appearance, out of baseball)

• JD Closser C:
• -2006, 112 PA, .196 AVG WAR -0.1
• -No Appearances for Oakland (In minors elsewhere)

• Juan Cruz RP:
• -2004, 6-2, 75 IP, 2,75 ERA WAR 1.1
• -1 year, 0-3, 32.2 IP, 7.44 ERA WAR –1.1 (Doing OK elsewhere)

• Brad Halsey SP:
• -2005, 8-12, 160 IP, 4.61 ERA WAR -0.1
• -1 year, 5-4, 94.1 IP, 4.67 ERA WAR 0.4 (Last Appearance, in minors elsewhere)

Dan Meyer RP:
-2004, 9-6, 126.1 IP, 2.49 ERA (Minors)
-2 years, 0-6, 44.0 IP, 7.98 ERA WAR –1.8 (Journeyman, in minors elsewhere)

So how do we read this?  Well, Hudson did well enough in 6 years in Oakland that he likely helped the team win almost 29 extra games over that span, roughly 5 games/year.  In return the A's got three guys, plus two guys from a subsequent trade who combined to help them lose a combined 2.7 (negative WAR means the player is costing you wins) extra games over the next two years.  Essentially the A's would have been better off keeping Hudson in 2005 and then letting him walk.  In the meantime Hudson has continued to be pretty darn good for Atlanta helping them win almost 3 extra games/year compared to an average replacement player.

Now, let's look at a much more complicated but also much more successful trade, Mark Mulder:

Mark Mulder SP:

-5 years, 81-42, 1003 IP, 3.92 ERA, WHIP 1.284, WAR 17.5

-4 years, 22-18, 311 IP, 5.04 ERA, WHIP 1.531, WAR –1.4 (Last Appearance, out of baseball)

Kiko Calero RP:

-2004, 3-1, 45.1 IP, 2.78 ERA, WHIP .816, WAR 0.8

-4 years 8-8, 159 IP, 3.96 ERA, WHIP 1.321, WAR 1.8 (Journeyman, out of baseball)

Daric Barton 1B:

-2004, 393 PA, .313 AVG, .956 OPS (Minors)

-5 years, 1765 PA, .252 AVG, .740 OPS, WAR 6.2 (Recently sent down to minors)

Dan Haren SP:

-2004, 3-3, 46 IP, 4.50 ERA, WHIP 1.348, WAR 0.1

-3 years,  37-26, 662 IP, 3.64 ERA, WHIP 1.212, WAR 11.7 (Doing well)

Brett Anderson SP:

-2007, 11-7, 120.1 IP, 3.07 ERA, WHIP 1.564 (Minors)

-3 years, 21-23, 371 IP, 3.66 ERA, WHIP 1.267, WAR 5.9 (Doing OK)

Chris Carter 1B/LF:

-2007, 545 PA, .291 AVG, .906 OPS (Minors)

-2 years, 79 PA, .183 AVG, .573 OPS, WAR –0.7 (Prospect)

Dana Eveland RP:

-2007, 1-0, 5 IP, 14.40 ERA, WHIP 2.60, WAR –0.4

-2 years, 11-13, 212 IP, 4.92 ERA, WHIP 1.627, WAR 0.8 (Last Appearance, in minors elsewhere)

Aaron Cunningham OF:

-2007, 573 PA, .308 AVG, .885 OPS, (Minors)

-2 years, 144 PA, .211 AVG, .609 OPS, WAR –0.6 (Meh)

Kevin Kouzmanoff 3B:

-2009, 529 PA, .255 AVG, .722 OPS, WAR 1.1

-2 years, 735 PA, .242 AVG, .666, WAR 0.6 (Sent to minors due to bad defense)

Eric Sogard IF:

-2009, 530 PA, .293 AVG, .771 OPS (Minors)

-1 year, 9 PA, .429 AVG, .984 OPS, WAR 0.0 (Still in Minors)

Carlos Gonzalez CF:

-2007 547 PA, .288 AVG, .814 OPS (Minors)

-1year, 316 PA, .242 AVG, .634 OPS, WAR 1.1 (3^rd in MVP 2010 for Colorado)

Greg Smith SP:

-2007, 9-5, 122 IP, 3.54, WHIP 1.510 (Minors)

-1 year,  7-16, 190.1 IP, 4.16 ERA, WHIP 1.345, WAR 2.0 (In minors elsewhere)

Matt Holliday LF:

-2008, 623 PA, .321 AVG, .947 OPS, WAR 4.8

-1 year, 400 PA, .286 AVG, .831 OPS, WAR 2.4 (Doing well for Cards)

Shane Peterson OF:

-2009, 571 PA, .288 AVG, .768 OPS (Minors)

-Still in minors

Brett Wallace 3B:

-2009, 600 PA, .293 AVG, .822 OPS (Minors)

-No Appearances for Oakland now in majors with Houston

            Michael Taylor OF:

            -2009, 491 PA, .320 AVG, .850 OPS (Minors)

-Still in minors

Clayton Mortensen SP:

-2009, 0-0, 3 IP, 6.00 ERA, WHIP 2.00, WAR –0.3

-2 years, 2-4, 33.2 IP, 7.22 ERA, WHIP 1.693, WAR –1.0 (Meh)

            Ethan Hollingsworth SP:

-2010, 12-8, 170.2 IP, 3.31 ERA, WHIP 1.839 (Minors)

-Still in minors

 

So, Mark Mulder who in five seasons in Oakland was worth 17.5 extra wins all on his own, an average of 3.5 wins/year goes to St Louis and costs them roughly a game and a half over four injury plagued years.  In return the A's got Daric Barton, Kiko Calero, and Dan Haren, a direct combined WAR value of 19.7 over the last seven years.  Just with that the A's clearly win this trade and Billy's a good GM.  But the fun doesn't stop there because Haren (and a couple other spare parts) was turned into the fantastic haul of Brett Anderson, Chris Carter, Aaron Cunningham, Dana Eveland, Carlos Gonzalez and Greg Smith who contributed another 8.5 Wins Above Replacement.  But wait!  There's More!  Aaron Cunningham became Kevin Kouzmanoff and Eric Sogard and another 0.6 wins.  CarGo and Greg Smith became Matt Holliday's 2.4 wins for half of 2009.  Trading Holliday actually cost a win no thanks to Clay Mortensen but it also gave s Brett Wallace who became Michael Taylor who should be up in Oakland the September.  All told the Mulder deal netted the A's 30 wins over what they would have gotten from your average players over that time plus prospects.  If you factor in avoiding the losses Mulder incurred that's a net of almost 35 extra wins over the last seven seasons.  WINNING!


OK, I think that's good for now.  Next post we'll break down the Rich Harden and Joe Blanton trades.

Quick Thought on Libertarians

Is there any group that seems more confused than Libertarians? I get the feeling that people who call themselves Libertarians rarely know what the term and the ideology really are. It seems that many of them just like to hate the government and they've hit on a few ideas they heard somewhere and decided to say "Hey, I'm a Libertarian." I mean, these are the people who, along with the Tea Party, do things like plan huge rallies in DC to protest taxes and government services and then complain that the city didn't ramp up metro service to accommodate them.

Now here's the thing. I don't know much about being a Libertarian either. And I'm not super motivated to find out. I looked up Ron Paul and it seems like he has some interesting ideas that would never ever work in a million years. They wouldn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work on a national level, they're predicated on people doing the right thing. In the case of communism the reliance on people giving an honest effort and then taking only what they need ignores the fact that people are complete assholes. Ron Paul's ideas hinge on things like corporate stewardship and the belief that companies will take care of their employees and only charge what they need to for goods and services. Basically he ignores 2011 years of world history. My friend who suggested I look up Ron Paul works as a government contractor. I asked him about Paul wanting to cut most government services possibly including the one that employs this friend and his answer was, "Well hopefully not all of them."

Now, how did I get on this? I've recently made a couple of acquaintances who call themselves Libertarians and they say thing that confuse me vis a vis their supposed political stance. The one that got me thinking involved my taxes. I was telling someone that I got a tax break last year because I'm renting my house in California for less than what the mortgage and property taxes cost. The result is that it became a business loss. So instead of having to pay taxes on the rental income as I feared, I got a huge credit. Yay me!

The response from one of my new Libertarian friends was basically, "Great see, this is what's wrong with this country. The government is paying people to fail." Well thanks pal. But come on, if they'll do it for Wall Street why not for me? I never could tell if he had been for or against the Wall Street bailout but he was certainly against my tax break.

It wasn't until later that I realized how non-Libertarian his little freak out was. First of all, he should be happy I wasn't taxed on my income. Second it wouldn't make sense for me to be taxed since there really wasn't any income. My "business" lost a ton of money. I didn't "get paid to fail" all I got was not taxed to death while also losing money. If the feds came along and said "Hey, give us $3,000 on top of not making a profit." it would just be piling on. After all, it's income tax. You can't really tax income that isn't there. So shouldn't Libertarians be happy for me? The government is basically leaving me alone to fail or succeed on my own without either helping me or dipping into my pockets. Isn't that what the Libertarians want?