Athletics Deal Mark Ellis, Commit to Jemile Weeks

Jemile Weeks has been as advertised for Oakland. Through his first 20 games, the younger Weeks has compiled a .303/.346/.461 line to go with six stolen bases in eight attempts, adding up to a .359 wOBA and a 131 wRC+. The second baseman of the future for the Athletics has quickly become the second baseman of the present.

Just as quickly, Mark Ellis became the second baseman of the past for the Athletics. His ineffectiveness had those around the A’s discussing Weeks’s impending arrival; his early-June hamstring injury began the Weeks era. At his return, the A’s had a decision to make. The A’s decided quickly, moving the venerable second baseman to Colorado for pitcher Bruce Billings and a player to be named later. The trade sees the exit of a player who defines the Moneyball Athletics, as Ellis compiled $83.5 million worth of value for only $27.3 million in salary as an Athletic.

The return for Ellis is unsurprisingly slim, as the 34-year-old and his 54 wRC+ didn’t offer much encouragement to teams looking for an offensive boost, even if his defense can still play. Billings, the minor league pitcher involved, is nothing special. For the Rockies minor league teams, he’s posted FIPs in the low-to-mid 3.00s. He throws the standard righty reliever fare: a fastball-slider combo, but the fastball tends to stay in the low-90s. At age 25, his upside appears limited.

For the Athletics, though, this trade was never about the return. It was about the collapse of Ellis, a player who embodied so much of what made Billy Beane‘s Oakland A’s the Oakland A’s for the last decade, and the rise of Jemile Weeks. Ellis was a key part of the A’s division championships in 2002, 2003, and 2006. His current contract, however, was no insignificant part of the Athletics’ recent failures. This year, he has provided nothing in a weak AL West, and although he was productive in 2010, he was also weak in the initial year, 2009. Overall, with the Rockies taking on $1 million of his deal in the trade, the A’s ended up paying Ellis $15.5 million for 4.6 WAR. A respectable $3.4 million per win total for most franchises, but for the A’s, extending Mark Ellis was supposed to be a significant money-saving move, not a marginal victory for the pocketbook.

Now, with the shift to Jemile Weeks at second base, the A’s will have cheap production at second base once again. This time, it’s not coming from an unheralded, defense-first diamond in the rough. This time, it comes from a hot prospect, poised to deliver through speed, contact, and patience. Jemile Weeks only embodies the Moneyball philosophy with his high walk rates, a quality that hardly qualifies as a market inefficiency anymore. Players like Weeks who put the ball in play, run well and play an up-the-middle position are hot commodities everywhere.

That doesn’t mean Weeks can’t be a long-term star for the Athletics. For the A’s to truly succeed, they don’t need to change their philosophy. They simply need to put a product on the field bolstered by successful young players, with efficient veteran signings serving as the mortar. Billy Beane and the Athletics will be counting on Jemile Weeks to be a firm part of their organizational foundation for years to come.




Print This Post

Jack Moore is a blogger for CBS Sports and operates ESPN's SweetSpot Brewers blog Disciples of Uecker, among other things. Follow him on twitter at @jh_moore.

55 Responses to “Athletics Deal Mark Ellis, Commit to Jemile Weeks”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Click here to view comments in a non-threaded output.
  1. Brandon says:

    You know, the Moneyball philosophy was NOT strictly finding player who took a lot of walks, but rather finding market inefficiencies. At that time, time market undervalued walks, so that’s what Beane went after. It pains me to see people in a baseball forum continue to get this wrong….

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Ballens says:

      To be fair, he did say OBP isn’t really a market inefficiency anymore.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • AK says:

      Did you miss this portion, which explicitly makes the point that “pains you” to see someone miss?

      “Jemile Weeks only embodies the Moneyball philosophy with his high walk rates, a quality that hardly qualifies as a market inefficiency anymore. Players like Weeks who put the ball in play, run well and play an up-the-middle position are hot commodities everywhere.”

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • joser says:

        Well, pain can sometimes interfere with reading comprehension.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • quincy0191 says:

        Except in this case it seems the problems with reading comprehension led to the pain, so unless pain also leads to temporal anomalies I think we need a new theory.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Dan says:

        It is hard to read from way up on a high horse. The pain probably came from falling off of it.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jon says:

      Methinks Brandon didn’t read the article.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • shthar says:

      Hey, we’re not selling jeans here!

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. camelot says:

    A’s also have no shortage of 2b types with sizemore, rosales, cardenas, sogard.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Jason says:

    Anyone ever notice how all of those teams Billy Beane assembles by exploiting market inefficiencies can’t hit their way out of a paper bag.

    Question: How do you lose with pitching like the A’s have?

    Answer: With hitting like the A’s have.

    Those teams really are painful to watch.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • brendan says:

      yeah, it’s been tough to watch these impotent A’s lineups last few years. even hitters who were good elsewhere lose there effectiveness! Willingham and DeJesus, in particular, have really disappointed this year

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Blue says:

      Legend of Billy Beane = How much easier it is to get to playoffs in a 4-team division.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • KingCollosus says:

      The teams of the early 2000′s couldn’t hit?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jason says:

        Not very well. Its why they could be beat despite their superior pitching.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Danmay says:

        @Jason

        2000 3rd in wRC+
        2001 4th in wRC+
        2002 5th in wRC+

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Antonio Bananas says:

        I think this little section of comments may be right. Hudson, Mulder, and Zito were pretty awesome. I wonder if Beane had been the GM of the Brewers during the same period if he’d be as famous. The 4 team division does help a lot. If you luck out and 2 of the teams suck. Let’s say you take 2 teams out of the NL Central and leave the Pirates, Cubs, Astros, and Reds. That COULD be the quality of this years AL West.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • williams .482 says:

      Question: how do you build a good offense in an extreme pitching park with a $40 million payroll and a market in which good offensive players are far from undervalued?

      Answer: …

      +27 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bryz says:

        All the factors that the Beane haters will always overlook.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Sam says:

        Actually, the A’s started the year with their 8 highest paid hitters owed $40 million. Those guys have produced a total of 3 WAR thus far. And that 3 WAR has come from Crisp/Suzuki/Jackson, while Ellis, Willingham, DeJesus, Matsui, and Kouz have combined to be replacement level.

        This is fairly typical of the A’s over the past 5 years. They put out enough pre-arb talent on the field that they should be able to compete, even with their modest payroll, but they end up barely getting anything out of the mid-tier guys (and Chavez) they splurge on.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jason says:

        Their payroll is actually about $60M. There are nine teams with lower payrolls. At least 8 of them (and probably all of them) hit better than the A’s. ….so it can be done.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • shthar says:

      Would you rather have the royals?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. bookbook says:

    It helps if one of the teams is the M’s.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. TheGrandslamwich says:

    As an A’s fan, and despite his recent ineffectiveness, I am sad to see Ellis gone. One of my favorite moments at an A’s game was his walk-off grandslam off the left field foul pole. I wish him the best in Colorado and hope Weeks can keep up what he’s done thus far in his MLB career!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Colin says:

    Re: Title

    I don’t think at this point you can say that because they dealt Ellis they are committing to Weeks. Ellis did have a 0 WAR at the moment, they really didn’t need an excuse to deal him.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Yumabob says:

    It really makes me mad to see the “A” give Ellis the boot. It was said buy one of the announcers that “how do you replace a gold glove 2nd baseman with a rookie” This I really agree with. I watch as many games as CSNCAILF. televises Channel 698 on Diretv. I just might change from routing for the A’s

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Edwincnelson says:

    It will interesting to se how Ellis responds in Colorado. If he can hit well enough to stay on the field their pitching should improve.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Sam says:

    His current contract, however, was no insignificant part of the Athletics’ recent failures. This year, he has provided nothing in a weak AL West, and although he was productive in 2010, he was also weak in the initial year, 2009. Overall, with the Rockies taking on $1 million of his deal in the trade, the A’s ended up paying Ellis $15.5 million for 4.6 WAR. A respectable $3.4 million per win total for most franchises, but for the A’s, extending Mark Ellis was supposed to be a significant money-saving move, not a marginal victory for the pocketbook.

    ————

    So the A’s getting $4.5M in surplus value over three years of a free agent contract (plus whatever unlikely returns they get from Billings and the PTBNL), is a significant cause of their recent failures?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Matt says:

      Not insignificant != significant

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Sam says:

        Uh, yeah it does.

        1) Something is either significant or not significant.
        2) Insignificant means not significant.
        3) If it’s not insignificant, it is consequently significant.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. fakdaddy says:

    Safe to say this Bruce Billings character is most likely going to end up being a stud pitcher. Considering Beane always makes out better in these deals.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. Menthol says:

    Considering his fairly impressive minor league career, why is Weeks’s ZiPS (R) so crappy? I’m trying to figure out if he’s worth keeping as my fantasy 2B – that position has been a black hole for me most of the year (I drafted Beckham), but I picked Weeks up two weeks ago and he’s been a real help. I just don’t know whether I should stick with him or maybe go with Chris Getz. Thoughts?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Eminor3rd says:

    It seems like we’re assuming Weeks is legit on a very small sample…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. tmacdaddy says:

    I don’t think Billy would have made a deal like this without a solid backup option if Weeks doesn’t work out (Cardenas). But I’m still wondering what the long term plan is for Adrian because I do not see him as a major league OF or 3B. Probably try to trade him for a washed up Youk.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Moe says:

      That is wrong on so many levels. A) The Redsox would never do that B) Yeah, that’s exactly what the A’s wanna do pick up more salary. They totally have the ability to take guys on the decline with big contracts.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. CircleChange11 says:

    @Williams

    The answer to that question is steroids.

    It’s amazing how much of the “Moneyball” success comes from having a great defensive shortstop turning into a power hitting MVP and Giambi raking with a high OBP.

    Imagine if the current A’s got 30+ HR from their present SS and 1B. That wouldn’t be “Moneyball” working it’s magic.

    This is the same field the “Bash Brothers” played on, right?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Sam says:

      Yeah, because the A’s were the only team using steroids (which have obviously disappeared from the game due to the rigorous testing program).

      And steroids magically turn Penningtons and Bartons into Tejadas and Giambis.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. CircleChange11 says:

    Yeah, I was saying the A’s were the only team that used steroids. Clearly that was my point.

    The Moneyball A’s were good because they had good young starters, didn’t overpay for bullpen, didn’t take on huge salaries, made good trades with players nearing the end of their contracts, and played in the AL West.

    The point I WAS making was that OAK’s difference in offense was that they got huge production from a light hitting great defensive shortstop turned MVP and an on base machine with great power, both under team control that left as FA or trades.

    They also got good value by letting go of two lefties that did not pitch as well after leaving the pitcher friendly park and/or were on the downswing.

    I’m not necessarily seeing where they outsmarted everyone, but it’s been a while since I’ve read Moneyball.

    Not overpaying with long megacontracts for stars was not something they had as an option, and that’s one thing that other clubs do/did that gets/got them into trouble.

    Before Moneyball and the salary explosion, the A’s were pretty good with 3 consecutive ROY’s and career reclamations by Duncan (Stewart, Eck, etc).

    The A’s are currently built on good value in return for trading stars with contracts that won’t be renewed by OAK. They’ve went with pitching and defense because power costs big money, which they don’t have. Not necessarily because they are outsmarting other teams. I liked the chances they took on Sheets and Holliday, but those moved didn’t prove as fruitful as other trades (such as Mulder for Haren, etc).

    Had the A’s had more money they might have been the ones to give Zito and Mulder long-term extensions. In cases like those it’s hard to tell the difference between being poor and being thrifty.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. CircleChange11 says:

    No, it’s me. I must be missing something.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. bballer319 says:

    So the moral of the story is that there was a market inefficiency with steroids and the A’s cornered it?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. I believe this is among the so much important information for me. And i’m happy reading your article. But want to observation on few basic things, The site taste is wonderful, the articles is truly nice : D. Excellent activity, cheers

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*