December 3, 201312 yr http://sports.yahoo.com/news/acquire-closer-jim-johnson-os-051106837--mlb.html Apparently Beane has decided to go against his own rule of not trading for proven closers.
December 3, 201312 yr Interesting deal. The A's must have soured on Weeks. I'm not sure who is the "winner" here. But it certainly puts in perspective what both Dozier and Perkins are worth right now, Dozier in particular.
December 3, 201312 yr Interesting deal. The A's must have soured on Weeks. I'm not sure who is the "winner" here. But it certainly puts in perspective what both Dozier and Perkins are worth right now, Dozier in particular. Seems like a salary dump by Baltimore to me. Weeks one good season was the product of a very high BABIP. Johnson is going to be overpaid but is actually a talented player.
December 3, 201312 yr Apparently Beane has decided to go against his own rule of not trading for proven closers. No rule in Moneyball prohibits acquiring an "effective reliever" though. If they had soured on Weeks, particularly his defense, then converting an inadequate infield part into a productive bullpen piece sounds like a win to me.
December 3, 201312 yr Strange though that the A's of all teams are OK with paying a closer $10 million but couldn't find $13 million to spend on Tim Hudson. Doesn't seem like wise financial management for a team that seems to embrace their winning despite being near the bottom of the leagues payscale.
December 3, 201312 yr Isn't there a $20M windfall (TV revenue?) for each team starting this year? Maybe the As are approaching it as a chance to spend on an individual player or two, rather than spread it around more thinly. And Hudson for whatever reason (age?) wasn't to their liking for that expenditure.
December 3, 201312 yr I would have thought the A's would have gone with an internal option to close in either Cook or Doolittle.
December 3, 201312 yr Oakland also acquired a pretty solid reliever in Gregerson today, so probably part of a strategy that is a bit new to them.
December 3, 201312 yr Strange though that the A's of all teams are OK with paying a closer $10 million but couldn't find $13 million to spend on Tim Hudson. Doesn't seem like wise financial management for a team that seems to embrace their winning despite being near the bottom of the leagues payscale. I don't follow. they passed on Hudson but later signed Kazmir in his place. they also traded basically nothing they needed for 2 very good RP'ers on one year contracts. Individual RP'ers might be overrated but but a deep elite bullpen shortens the game considerably. And I think part of Beane's strategy has always seemed to pick up unwanted veterans on short contracts. edit - and spend his budgeted money. He always seems to spend the same amount of money. Edited December 3, 201312 yr by kab21
December 3, 201312 yr It's pretty clear to me... The A's are filling in some areas for a serious run at it. They've been close... It looks like they are trying to get closer.
Create an account or sign in to comment