So far, which team has made the worst offseason moves? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

So far, which team has made the worst offseason moves?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

So far, which team has made the worst offseason moves?

Arizona
22
32%
Boston
4
6%
NY Mets
20
29%
Los Angles
9
13%
Oakland
12
18%
St. Louis
1
1%
 
Total votes : 68

Postby Rkiivs » Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:22 am

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:I just think that saying the A's had the worst offseason is shortsighted. Maybe they will end up being terrible trades - but then again, maybe they just ripped off a couple teams. Its way to early to tell.


Agreed. I just don't get some people being down on the A's. To me, the Kendall trade was THE best trade so far this offseason. He's getting paid about $32 mil over the next three years. The A's only have to shell out about $6 mil the first two years (total!), and then the Pirates are still kicking in $5.5 mil in the third year. They're getting an All-Star catcher with a .309 career BA (.319 last year) at a steep discount. That was awesome. What was the alternative? Pay Damian Miller $10 mil/yr to resign?

(Shame on me for not looking up all the numbers but I'm pretty close, I'm sure)

The pitching changes, feh, the jury is still out since the youngsters will need to develop but you can't deny they have potential. They get offensive help from guys to boot (Meyer is costing mere peanuts on his minor league contract). Kiko is an upgrade from Rhodes, how can that not be good?

The kicker is I haven't really like all Beane's deals and I have to admit this year has been nothing to complain about.
Rkiivs Beginner
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar
Innovative Member
Posts: 927
Joined: 9 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Why isn't anyone talking about the Yankees?

Postby GreenMonsterGoon » Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:30 am

Now let me preface this with the fact that I am a staunch Yankee hater and I'm usually somewhat irrational. But,

Jarret Wright is awful. Now I understand he had a wonderful year under Leo's tutelage, but what is the track record of those who leave Leo. Not too good. And the Yanks gave him what, 7 mil?

Carl Pavano has a record of 57-56. One good year got him 40 mil. Isn't that a Rich Rhoden move if you've ever seen one.

And despite reshaping their pen, does anyone really believe the changes that were made are dramatic improvements? They're still counting on a bunch of guys who blew leads to the sox.

Meanwhile, Boston has signed the best SS in the NL, A huge big game pitcher in Wells, A deal of Miller (albeit a risk), but he's 55-37, not 57-56. And added Clement, re-upped V-tek, took a flier on a stud (when healthy) like Mantei, and added a reliable long reliever in John Halama.
D-Mat, Schilling, Beckett, and Papelbon - Wow!
GreenMonsterGoon
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 384
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Wells, ME

Re: Why isn't anyone talking about the Yankees?

Postby Pacman » Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:56 am

GreenMonsterGoon wrote:Now let me preface this with the fact that I am a staunch Yankee hater and I'm usually somewhat irrational. But,

Jarret Wright is awful. Now I understand he had a wonderful year under Leo's tutelage, but what is the track record of those who leave Leo. Not too good. And the Yanks gave him what, 7 mil?

Carl Pavano has a record of 57-56. One good year got him 40 mil. Isn't that a Rich Rhoden move if you've ever seen one.

And despite reshaping their pen, does anyone really believe the changes that were made are dramatic improvements? They're still counting on a bunch of guys who blew leads to the sox.

Meanwhile, Boston has signed the best SS in the NL, A huge big game pitcher in Wells, A deal of Miller (albeit a risk), but he's 55-37, not 57-56. And added Clement, re-upped V-tek, took a flier on a stud (when healthy) like Mantei, and added a reliable long reliever in John Halama.


I like this guy. ;-D :-D Welcome GreenMonsterGoon. I got your back. ;-D
Image
Pacman
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2569
Joined: 10 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Birthplace of the US Navy

Re: Why isn't anyone talking about the Yankees?

Postby Tavish » Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:06 am

GreenMonsterGoon wrote:Now let me preface this with the fact that I am a staunch Yankee hater and I'm usually somewhat irrational. But,

Jarret Wright is awful. Now I understand he had a wonderful year under Leo's tutelage, but what is the track record of those who leave Leo. Not too good. And the Yanks gave him what, 7 mil?

Carl Pavano has a record of 57-56. One good year got him 40 mil. Isn't that a Rich Rhoden move if you've ever seen one.

And despite reshaping their pen, does anyone really believe the changes that were made are dramatic improvements? They're still counting on a bunch of guys who blew leads to the sox.

Meanwhile, Boston has signed the best SS in the NL, A huge big game pitcher in Wells, A deal of Miller (albeit a risk), but he's 55-37, not 57-56. And added Clement, re-upped V-tek, took a flier on a stud (when healthy) like Mantei, and added a reliable long reliever in John Halama.


I understand you are a big Red Sox fan, but I'm sure you can see the obvious problem with your analysis. When the Yankees take a chance on two healthy pitchers you say they are bad moves. When the Red Sox take a chance on 3 high risk pitchers its genious. Sure the Red Sox got cheaper buys on their players, but does the RSN really care that if they don't win the WS or even, god forbid, miss the playoffs that they found cheaper alternatives?

BTW the Red Sox didn't sign the best SS in the NL. They traded away the best SS in the NL last season. :-D
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Why isn't anyone talking about the Yankees?

Postby Lofunzo » Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:37 am

Tavish wrote:
GreenMonsterGoon wrote:Now let me preface this with the fact that I am a staunch Yankee hater and I'm usually somewhat irrational. But,

Jarret Wright is awful. Now I understand he had a wonderful year under Leo's tutelage, but what is the track record of those who leave Leo. Not too good. And the Yanks gave him what, 7 mil?

Carl Pavano has a record of 57-56. One good year got him 40 mil. Isn't that a Rich Rhoden move if you've ever seen one.

And despite reshaping their pen, does anyone really believe the changes that were made are dramatic improvements? They're still counting on a bunch of guys who blew leads to the sox.

Meanwhile, Boston has signed the best SS in the NL, A huge big game pitcher in Wells, A deal of Miller (albeit a risk), but he's 55-37, not 57-56. And added Clement, re-upped V-tek, took a flier on a stud (when healthy) like Mantei, and added a reliable long reliever in John Halama.


I understand you are a big Red Sox fan, but I'm sure you can see the obvious problem with your analysis. When the Yankees take a chance on two healthy pitchers you say they are bad moves. When the Red Sox take a chance on 3 high risk pitchers its genious. Sure the Red Sox got cheaper buys on their players, but does the RSN really care that if they don't win the WS or even, god forbid, miss the playoffs that they found cheaper alternatives?

BTW the Red Sox didn't sign the best SS in the NL. They traded away the best SS in the NL last season. :-D


Touche. :-b

And why didn't I think about W-L records when determining how good a pitcher is?? ;-7

How can you diss Pavano and then mention Clement in a positive light?? :-?

I will say welcome to the Cafe, though. ;-D
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby ramble2 » Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:27 pm

Rkiivs wrote:
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:I just think that saying the A's had the worst offseason is shortsighted. Maybe they will end up being terrible trades - but then again, maybe they just ripped off a couple teams. Its way to early to tell.


Agreed. I just don't get some people being down on the A's. To me, the Kendall trade was THE best trade so far this offseason. He's getting paid about $32 mil over the next three years. The A's only have to shell out about $6 mil the first two years (total!), and then the Pirates are still kicking in $5.5 mil in the third year. They're getting an All-Star catcher with a .309 career BA (.319 last year) at a steep discount. That was awesome. What was the alternative? Pay Damian Miller $10 mil/yr to resign?

(Shame on me for not looking up all the numbers but I'm pretty close, I'm sure)

The pitching changes, feh, the jury is still out since the youngsters will need to develop but you can't deny they have potential. They get offensive help from guys to boot (Meyer is costing mere peanuts on his minor league contract). Kiko is an upgrade from Rhodes, how can that not be good?

The kicker is I haven't really like all Beane's deals and I have to admit this year has been nothing to complain about.


Nicely stated on the Kendall trade. I mean, of all the trades the A's made this off-season, the Kendall trade is the last I'd trash. That was a steal. I didn't even realize that the Pirates were kicking in that much of his salary too. I was looking at it merely in terms of salary swap, trying to determine what the overall net cost was after dumping Rhodes, etc.

And now that I've stopped hyperventilating over losing Hudson and Mulder (the emotional reaction) and been able to sit back and think about it, not so bad. Especially if people are going to use the Randy Johnson trade to Houston as a barometer for the kind of value that should be acquired. Leaving aside that the RJ for Garcia/Guillen trade took place in 1998 (practically an eternity ago, marketplace wise), Beane got good value for Hudson and Mulder in a market frothy over SPs. Skip Bayless (I know, I know, jackass, but no dummy) summed it well:

"Beane had the guts to trust in Branch Rickey's belief: "Trade a player a year early instead of a year too late"."
ramble2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 2952
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

Postby ramble2 » Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:33 pm

While I'm ranting about the A's, let's not forget one the first moves they made this off-season: J. Lehr and N. Cruz (who? :-D) to Milwaukee for K. Ginter. This trade could have big fantasy ramifications. No, really. Ginter could end up being a great 18th round draft pick, filling your 2B/MI slot with an acceptable average and 15-20 HRs. And with Kolb gone, could Lehr close in MIL? (No, really, does anyone know who's closing in MIL now?)

This has all the trappings of a classic Beane-ripping-off-clueless-GM move. It's the backend of the draft that can not just win but give you a runaway victory in your fantasy league. And from a baseball standpoint, what a great trade. Not flashy, but adds solid depth with a strong utility guy.

I'm just saying, that's all.
ramble2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 2952
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

Postby Lofunzo » Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:32 pm

ramble2 wrote:And now that I've stopped hyperventilating over losing Hudson and Mulder (the emotional reaction) and been able to sit back and think about it, not so bad. Especially if people are going to use the Randy Johnson trade to Houston as a barometer for the kind of value that should be acquired. Leaving aside that the RJ for Garcia/Guillen trade took place in 1998 (practically an eternity ago, marketplace wise), Beane got good value for Hudson and Mulder in a market frothy over SPs.


You can't really use the RJ trade as a comparison because he was dealt at the deadline and was going to be a FA after the season meaning that all they were guaranteed from him was 2 months. Mulder and Hudson are signed through the end of next season with Mulder also having a team option for 2006. The Cards and Braves will be getting a lot more bang for their buck than Houston did in '98.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby ramble2 » Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:59 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
ramble2 wrote:And now that I've stopped hyperventilating over losing Hudson and Mulder (the emotional reaction) and been able to sit back and think about it, not so bad. Especially if people are going to use the Randy Johnson trade to Houston as a barometer for the kind of value that should be acquired. Leaving aside that the RJ for Garcia/Guillen trade took place in 1998 (practically an eternity ago, marketplace wise), Beane got good value for Hudson and Mulder in a market frothy over SPs.


You can't really use the RJ trade as a comparison because he was dealt at the deadline and was going to be a FA after the season meaning that all they were guaranteed from him was 2 months. Mulder and Hudson are signed through the end of next season with Mulder also having a team option for 2006. The Cards and Braves will be getting a lot more bang for their buck than Houston did in '98.


I agree with you that the RJ trade isn't a good one to compare to the Hudson and Mulder trades. For the reasons you mentioned and a host of other reasons. I only brought it up because someone else did. The point was only to echo others here in defending the A's offseason moves.
ramble2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 2952
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

Postby Lofunzo » Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:06 pm

ramble2 wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
ramble2 wrote:And now that I've stopped hyperventilating over losing Hudson and Mulder (the emotional reaction) and been able to sit back and think about it, not so bad. Especially if people are going to use the Randy Johnson trade to Houston as a barometer for the kind of value that should be acquired. Leaving aside that the RJ for Garcia/Guillen trade took place in 1998 (practically an eternity ago, marketplace wise), Beane got good value for Hudson and Mulder in a market frothy over SPs.


You can't really use the RJ trade as a comparison because he was dealt at the deadline and was going to be a FA after the season meaning that all they were guaranteed from him was 2 months. Mulder and Hudson are signed through the end of next season with Mulder also having a team option for 2006. The Cards and Braves will be getting a lot more bang for their buck than Houston did in '98.


I agree with you that the RJ trade isn't a good one to compare to the Hudson and Mulder trades. For the reasons you mentioned and a host of other reasons. I only brought it up because someone else did. The point was only to echo others here in defending the A's offseason moves.


My thoughts on the A's this offseason are that I am surprised by the moves they made and who they dealt. If I was Beane, I would have wanted to keep Hudson, then Mulder, and Zito last. I like the other 2 over Zito. I would have done whatever I could to keep Hudson.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Oct. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Pittsburgh
(8:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact