Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
March 18, 2004
Eric the Gold

The A's have decided that Eric Chavez is worth a long term contract, and have signed him to a $66 million deal over six years.

Why Chavez and not Tejada? Both put up 25 wins shares last year. And Tejada does play the tougher defensive position. But Chavez is a year younger, so at 26 he is still improving. He has a higher career OBA (.350 to .336), so he's improving from a higher level. My guess is the A's could only keep one of them at this point, and they chose younger player with the better OBA. I believe they made the right decision.


Posted by David Pinto at 01:32 PM | Transactions | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Chavez is one year younger *if* you assume that Tejada'a listed age is real. My guess: it isn't.

tim

Posted by: Tim at March 18, 2004 01:53 PM

It makes sense long term, I think. But if they chose Tejada, they could have had one more year of both of them, and maybe make a run with a much better lineup.

Posted by: Daniel at March 18, 2004 01:56 PM

Plus, they had Bobby Crosby ready to step in at shortstop.

Also, odd as it sounds, it looks like it's an awful lot easier to find a good shortstop than a good third baseman these days. There's Chavez and Rolen... and who else, really? A bunch of okay and/or aging guys.

Posted by: John Y. at March 18, 2004 02:08 PM

Of course, one might consider lefty-righty splits and Tejada's ability to produce no matter who is pitching an advantage to the former shortstop. Chavez's ongoing problems with lefties add to the debate as to who Oakland should've kept, but signing him to this kind of deal may have been essential to reputation and the long-term health of the franchise.

Posted by: Jack at March 18, 2004 04:37 PM

Well, they both show roughly the expected splits for a batter of their handedness. Lefties have more trouble with lefties, for a variety of theorized reasons that I don't care to get into.

The long and short of it is that Tejada is a lot easier for them to replace than Chavez. If they had a guy in the minors who they thought could step in at third base, they wouldn't have signed Chavez for big money. The reputation and long-term health of the franchise would've been fine, just like after Giambi left, and just like after Tejada left.

Posted by: John Y. at March 18, 2004 04:58 PM

David,

Could you please link to my site?

Posted by: Joe at March 18, 2004 05:06 PM

Now, will the A's pony up the dough over the next 3 years to keep their pitching studs? I think 2 out of 3 is probably the best that I would hope for. I think which 2 depends on how Mulder holds up and performs this year. Zito too. I think Huddy is a lock unless something goes terribly awry.

Posted by: McFood at March 18, 2004 06:55 PM

Bud Selig said that the A's will never be able to afford to keep their best players without a new stadium. Therefore, Chavez isn't one of the A's best players, in which case they're overpaying him.

Posted by: John Velousis at March 18, 2004 07:05 PM

I'm not sure what the A's farm system has coming up but I venture to guess that it had more to do with Bobby Crosby being able to step in and no 3rd baseman readily available. It also seemed from Billy Beane's comments that he always seemed to have more of a liking to Chavez over Tejada and his "swing at anything" ways.

Posted by: Rob G. at March 18, 2004 08:24 PM