FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Shane Peterson was a wasted pick. Take away a dozen of the walks his junior year and you’ve got a guy drafted after the 10th as organizational filler. I guess there are some scouts that liked his hitting mechanics more than I did, but I’m glad we found a taker because I don’t think he sniffs the big leagues.

    I’m hesitant to read too much into a sinkerballer’s minor league numbers, but on the other hand our minor league defenses haven’t exactly made Brad Thompson look like a chump. I have a hard time seeing Mortensen sticking even as a back-end starter without improvement.

    Comment by cpebbles — July 27, 2009 @ 10:06 am

  2. What pebbles said.

    Comment by Bob — July 27, 2009 @ 10:15 am

  3. I basically agree with everything here about Shane Peterson who is yet another not-power hitting AAAA corner outfielder for the A’s. Seems very similar to Buck, Sweeney, Cunningham, Patterson, etc. Oakland would not have gone out of their way to get someone of this profile so he must have been a throw-in. If you’re the A’s and the Cards have agreed to part with Wallace, you basically want to get that done and not rock the boat.

    We’ll see with Mortenson though because the A’s actually have a need for AA/AAA starters, having promoted so many this year. Maybe they see some real potential in him. This franchise has a good record of spotting diamonds in the rough when it comes to young pitchers.

    Comment by Joe — July 27, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

  4. The way I like to look at this deal is: would you trade Wallace, Mortensen and Shane Peterson for Carlos Gonzalez, Greg Smith and Huston Street?

    Comment by joser — July 27, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

  5. I know this is going off topic but I need to disagree with this line of thinking, which i’ve seen a lot. Where does a half year of Holliday’s services fit into your equation? That the A’s traded C. Gon., Smith, Street to get Holliday has no affect on what they would ask for to trade him away half a season later. The players’ values changed, the baseball climate changed, and the teams’ needs changed in that half season. C. Gon, Street, Smith are the baseball equivalent of sunk costs. You have to look at each trade in isolation and forget irrelevant actions of the past.

    Comment by Joe — July 27, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

  6. Right, right, but since the A”s have given up on their season, a half year of Holliday’s services count for nothing, essentially. It’s nice for his career counting stats (or not so nice in the case of April), but amounts to zero as far as the A’s are concerned. They traded away some pieces to get a guy they thought could help them win a weak AL West. That didn’t happen. So the value of his services is zero (unless he brought in a few fans that wouldn’t have come otherwise)

    The A’s didn’t have Holliday before this season and they no longer have him now. But they did have those three guys before and they have three different guys now. So are the A’s better off for having Holliday pass through their hands, or not?

    Comment by joser — July 27, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

  7. I really think you have to count the greater chance you have to reach the postseason for something. This sport is not deterministic. What if (god forbid) Holliday got injured in a freak accident and his services counted for nothing and the A’s were not able to trade him. Would you be arguing it was a bad deal for the A’s who traded some decent players for nothing? I happen to think the various deals were good for the rockies, a’s, and cards who all addressed their needs at various times and did it for a fair price.

    Comment by Joe — July 27, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.265 Powered by WordPress