PDA

View Full Version : Miguel Olivo


Mohoney
04-09-2004, 09:42 PM
I think this guy looks 100% better at the plate. I think .280+ with 15-20 HRs and 70-75 RBIs is possible from this guy. He doesn't look like he's going to swing at as many ball 4's as he used to.

poorme
04-09-2004, 09:51 PM
I'm a little concerned that he's only gotten 2 starts. Alomar is 38, but plays like he's 58.

voodoochile
04-09-2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by poorme
I'm a little concerned that he's only gotten 2 starts. Alomar is 38, but plays like he's 58.

I don't know about the age thing, but I want to see more of Olivo and less of Alomar. Unfortunately, Sandy is the personal catcher for 2 starters at least which just has to change for the good of the team. Time for Buehrle to get over it and say, "I'll take the offensive production and the better defense."

poorme
04-09-2004, 10:02 PM
I can't figure how a guy like Schoeneweiss has the "pull" to pick his own catcher.

santo=dorf
04-09-2004, 10:03 PM
I like Miguel's new stance and he looks like he's in great shape. :smile:

Daver
04-09-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by poorme
I can't figure how a guy like Schoeneweiss has the "pull" to pick his own catcher.

I would tend to be of the opinion that that Cooper wants Sandy catching him to make sure he is not ignoring the pitches called from the bench.

poorme
04-09-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I would tend to be of the opinion that that Cooper wants Sandy catching him to make sure he is not ignoring the pitches called from the bench.

Sounds plausible, but you would think the calls from the dugout would be orders, not suggestions.

Daver
04-09-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Sounds plausible, but you would think the calls from the dugout would be orders, not suggestions.

They are,but there is always the chance that the "confusion" excuse could be made.Schoenweiss has been known to take things into his own hands in the past.

SoxBoy14
04-10-2004, 12:00 AM
I've favored Olivio over Sandy since that grand slam he hit against the flubs last year in the first inning. Anyways Olivio has always been a power hitter, but when he picked off Matsui at second base today that was proof to everybody that Olivio is the better man. Both are great hitters, but Olivio's defense tops Sandy's. Hopefully Olivio stays this way throughout the season.

hold2dibber
04-10-2004, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by SoxBoy14
I've favored Olivio over Sandy since that grand slam he hit against the flubs last year in the first inning. Anyways Olivio has always been a power hitter, but when he picked off Matsui at second base today that was proof to everybody that Olivio is the better man. Both are great hitters, but Olivio's defense tops Sandy's. Hopefully Olivio stays this way throughout the season.

I don't think Olivo has ever been a power hitter. I don't think either Olivo or Alomar is a great hitter - but Olivo has the potential to be a damn good hitter. And his defense (or at least his arm) is simply awesome.

Daver
04-10-2004, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I don't think Olivo has ever been a power hitter. I don't think either Olivo or Alomar is a great hitter - but Olivo has the potential to be a damn good hitter. And his defense (or at least his arm) is simply awesome.

Miguel managed to hit for some power with Birmingham,but he is not a power hitter.He is the ultimate weapon,a defensive catcher that can make contact,and he has deceptive speed,as well as the ability,at least for now,to run the bases.I still think this ranks as one of KW's best trades,Olivo is still rough around the edges,but to give up a situational BP pitcher for an everyday catcher is a steal.

Tragg
04-10-2004, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Miguel managed to hit for some power with Birmingham,but he is not a power hitter.He is the ultimate weapon,a defensive catcher that can make contact,and he has deceptive speed,as well as the ability,at least for now,to run the bases.I still think this ranks as one of KW's best trades,Olivo is still rough around the edges,but to give up a situational BP pitcher for an everyday catcher is a steal.

Bradford is like Wunsch- not only in delivery but in usability.

It was a good trade on paper when it was made and it's a better trade now, despite Bean's self-serving statements to the contrary.

MaggPipes
04-10-2004, 01:29 AM
Olivo is going to be a big time stud. I really wouldn't be suprised if he was an all-star this year. Though, how many catchers do they keep? Because after I-Rod and Posada, who is better than Olivo?

JohnBasedowYoda
04-10-2004, 01:32 AM
watching the replay of fridays game was awesome. I couldn't see the game but watching our boys clobber the skanks and SHOCK them was great.

JohnBasedowYoda
04-10-2004, 01:40 AM
Whatever keeps our rotation happy. If they want sandy and that will help them pitch better, so be it. I just hope olivo has the patience to have less playing time and jump team or something

OurBitchinMinny
04-10-2004, 01:43 AM
I think olivo is going to have a solid year and just keep getting better. I wouldnt mind seeing alomar at DH from time to time to spell frank. And frank isnt exactly tearing the cover off the ball and the moment although he does have the looking K down pat

SoxxoS
04-10-2004, 02:21 AM
Despite our current roster...It is a lot harder to find a solid catcher like Olivo than a right handed bullpen specialist.

Judging from this bullpen, we could really use Bradford, though.

soxtalker
04-10-2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
Bradford is like Wunsch- not only in delivery but in usability.

It was a good trade on paper when it was made and it's a better trade now, despite Bean's self-serving statements to the contrary.

It's been awhile since I read Moneyball, but I don't recall Beane knocking Olivo. The point that Beane was making in Moneyball was that Bradford was undervalued by the Sox. And I think that the evidence was pretty good on this. Bradford was able to contribute immediately to the A's, but he was very much underused by the Sox. Olivo still needed a couple of years to develop. (And, as a number of posters comment regularly, relying on a prospect adds a lot of risk to the deal.)

Could we have used Bradford over the past couple of years? Sure. But the Sox management probably wouldn't have given him the chance. And we had a big hole in our organization at the catcher position. I believe that was a position of strength for the A's. The only regret that I have from this deal is that I'm troubled that the Sox apparently didn't see Bradford's ability.

Tragg
04-10-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
It's been awhile since I read Moneyball, but I don't recall Beane knocking Olivo. The point that Beane was making in Moneyball was that Bradford was undervalued by the Sox. And I think that the evidence was pretty good on this. Bradford was able to contribute immediately to the A's, but he was very much underused by the Sox. Olivo still needed a couple of years to develop. (And, as a number of posters comment regularly, relying on a prospect adds a lot of risk to the deal.)

Could we have used Bradford over the past couple of years? Sure. But the Sox management probably wouldn't have given him the chance. And we had a big hole in our organization at the catcher position. I believe that was a position of strength for the A's. The only regret that I have from this deal is that I'm troubled that the Sox apparently didn't see Bradford's ability.

So how is that "undervalued"- you trade a situational reliever for an excellent catching prospect. Regardless of the fact that our prize catching prospect was Josh Paul, the value on Bradford IS that he is a situational pitcher and situational pitcher for excellent catching prospect is not a one-sided trade on paper. Middle relievers are paid low salaries for a reason- that is their "value"

We'll see soon if Beane undervalued Neal Cotts. My guess is he did- and signficantly.

soxtalker
04-10-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
So how is that "undervalued"- you trade a situational reliever for an excellent catching prospect. Regardless of the fact that our prize catching prospect was Josh Paul, the value on Bradford IS that he is a situational pitcher and situational pitcher for excellent catching prospect is not a one-sided trade on paper. Middle relievers are paid low salaries for a reason- that is their "value"

We'll see soon if Beane undervalued Neal Cotts. My guess is he did- and signficantly.

First, let me say that I do not regret the trade, and, in fact, IIRC, I have felt that way all along. We needed a catcher, and I liked the fact at the time that Olivo was #2 on BA's Oakland prospect list. Most important, I like the idea of trading for prospects in general (which many do not).

Where we disagree is Bradford's value. I think that he has helped the A's a lot. I don't think that the Sox saw the same value in him. In fact, if Bradford's comments and the general commentary in Moneyball are indications, the Sox might never have given him an opportunity to shine like Oakland did.

I'm not disappointed that Bradford is gone; I am concerned that our evaluation process may a flaw that keeps us from seeing a Bradford in the future. I guess that this is a general worry that I have about the Sox system (not just the top levels like KW). We've had a lot of sure prospects that have failed in the past few years. Many on this board say that this indicates that you just can't count on prospects. I think that it may indicate that there is a flaw in our decision-making / evaluation process, and I'd like to see that that is understood and corrected.

Oh, and your comment about Cotts and Beane is a good one. I don't look upon Beane as a genius on evaluating individual players. I do think that he has been innovative in using the statistical approach to baseball evaluation to put together some very nice teams.

jabrch
04-10-2004, 11:21 AM
I still think Beane, his minyons, and Michael Lewis did baseball a disservice with Moneyball. Beane isn't the genious he is portrayed as. His calculator and spreadsheet methodology to baseball is not nearly as mathematically reliable as pencil-necked geeks want you to believe and his results to-date have been more tied to 3 stud pitchers who weren't even a focus on the book. His Moneyball draft can not yet be evaluated fairly, but I still don't think anything in that book is too revolutionary.

Overhyped - but a good read none-the-less



Moneyball Draft
Swisher
Blanton
McCurdy
Fritz
Brown
Teahen
Baker
Kiger
Stavingksy
Colamarino (yeah him, the guy with titties!)

jabrch
04-10-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Oh, and your comment about Cotts and Beane is a good one. I don't look upon Beane as a genius on evaluating individual players. I do think that he has been inovative in using the statistical approach to baseball evaluation to put together some very nice teams.

Agreed - 100%

batmanZoSo
04-10-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I still think Beane, his minyons, and Michael Lewis did baseball a disservice with Moneyball. Beane isn't the genious he is portrayed as. His calculator and spreadsheet methodology to baseball is not nearly as mathematically reliable as pencil-necked geeks want you to believe and his results to-date have been more tied to 3 stud pitchers who weren't even a focus on the book. His Moneyball draft can not yet be evaluated fairly, but I still don't think anything in that book is too revolutionary.

Overhyped - but a good read none-the-less



Moneyball Draft
Swisher
Blanton
McCurdy
Fritz
Brown
Teahen
Baker
Kiger
Stavingksy
Colamarino (yeah him, the guy with titties!)

Even with Giambi and Tejada, they still weren't really built for success in the playoffs. And they show that year after year. Part of it's just flat out choking, but they never have speed, they can't play small ball...they're the new Braves of the early 90s--great starters and power...that'll get you to the playoffs, but you're not gonna hit too many homers off the likes of Clemens, Schilling, Martinez. Their system works over 6 months, but in a 5 game series it usually doesn't have a chance to prove itself--that comes from Beane's mouth.

TaylorStSox
04-10-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Even with Giambi and Tejada, they still weren't really built for success in the playoffs. And they show that year after year. Part of it's just flat out choking, but they never have speed, they can't play small ball...they're the new Braves of the early 90s--great starters and power...that'll get you to the playoffs, but you're not gonna hit too many homers off the likes of Clemens, Schilling, Martinez. Their system works over 6 months, but in a 5 game series it usually doesn't have a chance to prove itself--that comes from Beane's mouth.

Agreed, I think their performance over the last few years indicates how much of a genious Beene really is. How many post season series have they won?

MRKARNO
04-10-2004, 12:45 PM
A playoff team needs to be able to get on base a ton and Strikeout a lot of people just like a sabermetrician would like but also be able to bunt people over and that sort of stuff come playoff time.

Tragg
04-10-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I still think Beane, his minyons, and Michael Lewis did baseball a disservice with Moneyball. Beane isn't the genious he is portrayed as. His calculator and spreadsheet methodology to baseball is not nearly as mathematically reliable as pencil-necked geeks want you to believe and his results to-date have been more tied to 3 stud pitchers who weren't even a focus on the book. His Moneyball draft can not yet be evaluated fairly, but I still don't think anything in that book is too revolutionary.

Overhyped - but a good read none-the-less



Moneyball Draft
Swisher
Blanton
McCurdy
Fritz
Brown
Teahen
Baker
Kiger
Stavingksy
Colamarino (yeah him, the guy with titties!)

I don't know that it's a disservice- if you can filter out the "billy beane is a genius" part, it created interest, and makes some good points.

But I agree with you- if you boil it down, the As are an average team surrounded by 4 stud young pitchers- give him credit for their development, but his spreadsheet trades have made the As a very average offensive club.

And even the Foulke deal deserves scrutiny- while KW and JM probably did "undervalue" Foulke, one reason KW made that trade was because Foulke was walking after 1 more year. Well, Beane watchers need to factor that into their analysis of Beane (as well as the Cotts for Valentine I think it was side of the trade, as I mentioned above)

soxtalker
04-10-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Even with Giambi and Tejada, they still weren't really built for success in the playoffs. And they show that year after year. Part of it's just flat out choking, but they never have speed, they can't play small ball...they're the new Braves of the early 90s--great starters and power...that'll get you to the playoffs, but you're not gonna hit too many homers off the likes of Clemens, Schilling, Martinez. Their system works over 6 months, but in a 5 game series it usually doesn't have a chance to prove itself--that comes from Beane's mouth.

Good points. I suspect that this may indicate both the strength and weakness of the statistical approach that Beane uses. It has allowed him to build a team that does well over a long season. But two things happen in short playoff series. First, the number of games is smaller, so that statistical variations can really take over. Second, the game is played a bit differently by the teams involved. Of course, he and other statistical types could be modifying their strategies based on issues like this.

jabrch
04-10-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Second, the game is played a bit differently by the teams involved.

I think that is the key. In the playoffs, the game is different. Mediocre hitters who have good ass/ankles ratios (or whatever other statistics these guys say is the perfect measure of a player) are not nearly as effective against the #1 - #3 SPs of top teams. It is easy to hit Cleveland's #5 or Detroit's #4 if you are a Matt Stairs. It is not so easy to hit Pedro Martinez. Then you need to have an extraordinary hitter who's strengths usually materialize somewhere other than a spreadsheet. Shorter rotations, more aggressive play make it a game of stars and a game of strength, not a game of moderatation.

gosox41
04-11-2004, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Tragg
So how is that "undervalued"- you trade a situational reliever for an excellent catching prospect. Regardless of the fact that our prize catching prospect was Josh Paul, the value on Bradford IS that he is a situational pitcher and situational pitcher for excellent catching prospect is not a one-sided trade on paper. Middle relievers are paid low salaries for a reason- that is their "value"

We'll see soon if Beane undervalued Neal Cotts. My guess is he did- and signficantly.


I don't think Beane undervalued Cotts or Olivo. The difference was the A's have been trying to win right now. And with that attitude they had to give up some talent to fill holes. Maybe Olivo will be great or maybe he won't. But the A's had Ramon Hernandez the last 3 yers who would have put up better numbers then Olivo's 2003 and the A's needed relief help so they traded for a quality reliever. Part of the reason they parted with a more talented player probably had to do with money. They couldn't afford to spend a lot on a reliever so they had t ofind a low salaried player who filled their needs.

After Beane watched Koch pitch for a year he new he needed to replace him. There was no doubt is Beane's mind that Foulke was as better reliever and could help the A's win now then Koch could. Maybe KW isn't as dumb as I thought and Cotts will prove me wrong. My big issue with Cotts is his high number of BB's in the minors.

But looking at it from Beane's perspective from the Sox, few people here criticized the Sox for giving up young talent to get Everett and Alomar to win now. So why should Beane get criticized when he got two productive pitchers from the Sox to help the A's win now. The only difference is the A's have gone to the playoffs 4 yers in a row while the Sox try to win a weak AL Central but always seem to make a stupid trade by trading a productive major leaguer for a young kid while trying to win now.

if the Sox had just Foulke in 2003, this team would have won the Central last year. What that probably would have led to is a hgiher payroll for this year (due to inceased attendece in sales for '04) and a team more likely to walk away with the weak ALCentral and a chance at a World Series.

What we got by finishing in second place was to play second fiddle to the cubs all off season while they used that extra $$$ to jack up their payroll while the SOx lost 6 FA's.

Bob


Bob

gosox41
04-11-2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I still think Beane, his minyons, and Michael Lewis did baseball a disservice with Moneyball. Beane isn't the genious he is portrayed as. His calculator and spreadsheet methodology to baseball is not nearly as mathematically reliable as pencil-necked geeks want you to believe and his results to-date have been more tied to 3 stud pitchers who weren't even a focus on the book. His Moneyball draft can not yet be evaluated fairly, but I still don't think anything in that book is too revolutionary.

Overhyped - but a good read none-the-less



Moneyball Draft
Swisher
Blanton
McCurdy
Fritz
Brown
Teahen
Baker
Kiger
Stavingksy
Colamarino (yeah him, the guy with titties!)

I thnk Beane is better then most at evaluating talent. He's pretty close to a genius. Every GM is going to make their mistakes (ie Bonderman) and make bad trades. But Beane does it less often an still manages to win with a slimmer margin of error (payroll).

What I took out of the book was the way of evaluating assets (players) in such a way to make all the parts more efficient (ie a better team). Every move Beane made in 2002 had to be made while sticking within a strict budget. Sure he'd give up in some areas of good talent (minor leaugers) to fill holes in the ML roster, but that's what he needed to do while that window of opportunity to win was open.

And the fact is if Cotts and Olivo turn out be stars, I'll give KW his due for trading for them, but also remember form 2001-2004 both the A's and Sox were trying to win in that particular year; there was no rebuilding for either team. During the KW reign of terror the A's have made the playoffs in a much tougher division 3 years in a row whhile the Sox have been a second place team averaging 83 wins a year.

Is Beane perfect as a GM? No. Is he damn good? Yes. Is he a genius? That's too be debated depending on what your definition of a genius is in baseball.


Bob

gosox41
04-11-2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by TaylorStSox
Agreed, I think their performance over the last few years indicates how much of a genious Beene really is. How many post season series have they won?


More then KW's White Sox.

Bob