Joe Blanton -> Philadelphia

by marc w on Jul 17, 2008 4:25 PM PDT Comment 28 comments

Billy Beane tries to ram it home to the remaining 15 A's fans that no, they're not trying to compete this year.

Oakland gets much-hyped 2b prospect Adrian Cardenas along with moderately intriguing LHP prospect Josh Outman and OF Matt Spencer.

What do you think? Did the A's get enough? Cardenas and Outman really isn't a bad haul - this is more upside (though waaay more risk) than they got from the Cubs.

Is this enough to help the Phillies hold off the Mets?

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Welll sheeeeit.

nice one, acblue.

by marc w on Jul 17, 2008 4:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, we are the same person.

by acblue on Jul 17, 2008 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A's got a lot for an overrated Blanton.

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Jul 17, 2008 4:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Kenji has back spasms

by Gomez on Jul 17, 2008 4:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

John Sickels org rankings for the Phils guys:

2, 3, 14. Again, not bad, Mr. Beane. For the whole quitting on the season, yeah, debatable. But IF you’re going to quit on a season, THIS is the way to do it.

by marc w on Jul 17, 2008 4:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Cupcakes with Sprinkles! THAT'S GOOD!

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Jul 17, 2008 4:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm trying to decide which Blanton thread I like better.

by JI on Jul 17, 2008 4:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Toss up, ain't it?

Good use of tags, acblue.

by marc w on Jul 17, 2008 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Graham

What do foresee happening to Blanton’s HR/FB rate? This is Dave C’s argument, of course.

I guess we’ll have to see, but if Blanton’s not a true talent x
tRA seems to basically agree that he’s not where he was last year.
So the argument comes down to how you treat his 2007 season – unrepeatable fluke (Silva 2005) or evidence that Blanton is solidly above league average?

(this threat is still on-topic due to being late/overlooked! Let’s use that to our advantage!)

by marc w on Jul 17, 2008 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Looking at Blanton's numbers with Matthew...

The reason he’s not doing as well this year is because his Kswinging% has plummeted without a drastic drop in his swinging_strike%. So he should rebound there.

He will suffer badly in Philadelphia (he’s going from a 92.3 HR park to a 116.4 one), so his HR rate will spike, but that’s not the same as Dave’s argument that the only thing keeping his alive right now is Oakland’s ballpark.

by Graham on Jul 17, 2008 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stupid question

how is Kswinging% different from swinging_strike%?

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jul 17, 2008 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Former is strikeouts, latter is strikes

by Graham on Jul 17, 2008 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Got it. Thanks.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jul 17, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

His swinging strikes aren't coming as third strikes, I believe.

by Teej on Jul 17, 2008 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's the only reason anyone thinks he's average

by davidcameron on Jul 17, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just ran tRA* on his numbers this year

He does indeed come out as a touch below average, although the numbers are very hazy since outs and run values have changed since ‘07.

by Graham on Jul 17, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not surprising, given his negligible K rate

Again, your view of this depends on how much you think his 2007 was ‘real’ and your sense of the value contained in ‘league average.’

Two questions:
1) Is it because I’m a mariner fan that Dave’s claim (that replacement level and average are much, much closer for pitchers) sounds crazy? How difficult would it be to get one league ave (forget replacement-level) season out of the many, many FA acquisitions the M’s have made in the past 3-4 years?
2) Why hasn’t Cupcakes’ value been affected at all by his poor 2008?

by marc w on Jul 17, 2008 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two answers:

1) Because of our defence, I think. Washburn and Tits were both right around what I’d call league average in ‘07.

2) His value has dropped significantly, but since he was great last year it had a long way to fall.

by Graham on Jul 17, 2008 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm....

1) Washburn was league ave. last year? xFIP 5.30, over 3BB/game, a bit lucky on HR/FB? I guess he got his k rate over 5, but… league fucking average? Check it again!

2) How do you know his value has dropped significantly? What could he have got in March – Carrasco AND Cardenas? I ain’t buyin’ it.
Unless the point is that his value dropped, only Pat Gillick didn’t get the memo.

by marc w on Jul 17, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clarification

1) He was -4.1 runs under average, I was speaking way too loosely

2) I thought you meant run value, sorry. Blanton was the 13th most valuable starter in the league last year though.

by Graham on Jul 17, 2008 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha

1) That still seems light. I trust you, but that seems really, really light for a guy who didn’t do anything well last year except skate by on a low HR/FB rate (not even his walk rate helped).

2) Oh yeah, he was clearly a top 15 guy last year. And he’s clearly not this year. But he just netted Billy Beane the kind of value that you’d expect from a top 15 guy year after year. It’s like this year (or 2006) just never happened.
This is a big question for GMs – how you account for a guy with an up and down history. Is 2007 more accurate as to who Joe Blanton is (it’s a larger sample) or is 2008 (it fits more with his career, and it’s more recent).

I don’t know, I just know that I think Billy Beane made one hell of a trade.

by marc w on Jul 17, 2008 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus you have to factor in that Gillick is a bad GM

by OlSalty on Jul 17, 2008 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think a top 15 guy year over year would net you more than a good A ball prospect,

an average AA prospect and an org soldier.

by Matthew on Jul 18, 2008 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess we still need to define 'year over year'

My question, could he have gotten more in March of this year? At that time, he’d just come off a top 15 year, but he’d also had some so-so years before that. You could make a case that he’d ‘turned a corner’ in his development or had learned something new, so you might weight that most recent year much more heavily.

It’s just harder to do that now, in mid July. His K rate is way down, the command isn’t in the exceptional range anymore, etc.

Clearly, if the guy was top 15 ‘year after year’ – like 3-4 years in a row – he’d net more than what the A’s got. But I’m not talking about a pitcher like that, I’m talking about Cupcakes.

by marc w on Jul 18, 2008 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs