PDA

View Full Version : Ben Sheets: Done



Sea Ray
07-28-2010, 10:45 PM
The A's $10 million gamble did not pay off.


ARLINGTON, Texas -- The Oakland Athletics confirmed what they had feared and announced pitcher Ben Sheets is out for the season due to a torn flexor in his right elbow.


Sheets was examined by Texas Rangers team physician Dr. Keith Meister on Wednesday, who said Sheets has a tear and would not pitch again this season.

A's manager Bob Geren said no surgery is currently planned, although Sheets needed an operation to repair the same injury when he missed the 2009 season for the Milwaukee Brewers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5418234

Stick a fork in him...

WVRedsFan
07-28-2010, 10:50 PM
This always scares me about pitchers--and big contracts. You just never know when they are going to blow up. No big contract, but Volquez went from All Star to not playing very quickly. Find the young kids who are good, ride them until they get expensive, and repeat.

Sea Ray
07-28-2010, 11:10 PM
This always scares me about pitchers--and big contracts. You just never know when they are going to blow up. No big contract, but Volquez went from All Star to not playing very quickly. Find the young kids who are good, ride them until they get expensive, and repeat.

That's exactly the cookbook for markets like ours. We can't afford to buy the proven guys like CC and Lee. We have to pile up the young arms knowing that some will either blow up or just not develop. Small markets really ought not take $10mill chances like Oakland did.

KoryMac5
07-28-2010, 11:13 PM
Not a bad gamble to make by the A's. They got 20 starts out of Sheets and he had been pitching pretty well as of late. I'm sure they would have liked to have flipped him for prospects but sometimes you win on these and sometimes not so much.

Brutus
07-28-2010, 11:55 PM
Not a bad gamble to make by the A's. They got 20 starts out of Sheets and he had been pitching pretty well as of late. I'm sure they would have liked to have flipped him for prospects but sometimes you win on these and sometimes not so much.

Yep I think it was a good risk. They hoped he would be a good deadline asset to move for prospects. I think, even in hindsight, it was worth the $10 million investment.

WVRedsFan
07-29-2010, 12:35 AM
That's exactly the cookbook for markets like ours. We can't afford to buy the proven guys like CC and Lee. We have to pile up the young arms knowing that some will either blow up or just not develop. Small markets really ought not take $10mill chances like Oakland did.

Yeah, that's why I cringed when we started talking about Cliff Lee. Even though Lee has been fairly healthy, it's not worth the risk IMHO. You pay for Scotty Rolen, and he will get injured, but rarely will he see an injury that will put him out for the better part of a year. Remember, Griffey always came back the next year.

Small market teams need to develop the pitching, and the Reds have done mighty fine at that. Travis Wood and Mike Leake are only two examples. Hopefully, Chapman will be the next. The Harang contract and arguably the Codero contract have come back to bite the Reds in the behind. I don't want to see that happen again.

TheNext44
07-29-2010, 12:40 AM
It's a pretty high risk with low odds of success if you ask me.

Assume he bounces back into form, and the A's can trade him for prospects. He'd be a rental whose coming off a major injury and a history of injuries. I seriously doubt they could get a top prospect for him. And even if they do, that is another risk on top of the original risk. Prospects have a abstract value, but they could end up worth nothing.

From a risk assessment standpoint, you are betting that something might happen, which will enable you to take another bet. That's a lot of risk to take on one sixth of your team's payroll.

The only way I can justify it, is if that $10M needed to be spent, and there weren't any better options available to the A's at that time. But I have to think that they could have found something less risky to spend that $10M on, if they had to.

Tom Servo
07-29-2010, 12:45 AM
I think signing Sheets to a one year deal was a good idea by Oakland but after missing all of 2009 it almost seemed like they were bidding against themselves to give him $10 million. I probably would have offered half of that.

MattyHo4Life
07-29-2010, 08:38 AM
You pay for Scotty Rolen, and he will get injured, but rarely will he see an injury that will put him out for the better part of a year. Remember, Griffey always came back the next year.

Rolen injured his shoulder in May of 2005 and pretty much ended the season for him. He did come back the next year and had a good year in 2006. In 2007 he had shoulder problems again, and his power had dissapeared. He only hit 8 home runs the whole year until he had shoulder surgery again in September. Rolen is an amazing player both offensively and defensively when he is healthy, but he isn't a player that you that you can count on being healthy. He could get hurt at any point in the season and be out for the year. Yeah, he will come back the next year, but he may not be the same for a year or two. He does have a history. I might have some of those dates wrong.... my memory isn't what it used to be. lol

I understand the point you are making, and I agree with it. I'm just not sure Rolen is the best example to use.

blumj
07-29-2010, 01:17 PM
It's a pretty high risk with low odds of success if you ask me.

Assume he bounces back into form, and the A's can trade him for prospects. He'd be a rental whose coming off a major injury and a history of injuries. I seriously doubt they could get a top prospect for him. And even if they do, that is another risk on top of the original risk. Prospects have a abstract value, but they could end up worth nothing.

From a risk assessment standpoint, you are betting that something might happen, which will enable you to take another bet. That's a lot of risk to take on one sixth of your team's payroll.

The only way I can justify it, is if that $10M needed to be spent, and there weren't any better options available to the A's at that time. But I have to think that they could have found something less risky to spend that $10M on, if they had to.
They tried to sign both Scutaro and Beltre, so maybe they did have to use their revenue sharing money and got stuck with what was left over by the time they could get anyone.

BoydsOfSummer
07-29-2010, 04:21 PM
That's a shame. Sheets was nails when healthy, and fun to watch. Nasty breaking stuff.