Oakland acquires Jim Johnson
Posted 03 December 2013 - 11:37 AM
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.
Posted 03 December 2013 - 11:49 AM
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.
Posted 03 December 2013 - 12:39 PM
Posted 03 December 2013 - 01:58 PM
Posted 03 December 2013 - 05:12 PM
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 by kab21, 03 December 2013 - 05:27 PM.