Open Winter Meetings Thread

Beane is sitting in the catbird seat

With the ridiculous contract escalation for the plethora of #3-4 starter FAs, the constant and fever-pitch demand for starting pitching, the large number of teams chasing first basemen, and the relative competitive parity across MLB (i.e., 75% of teams think they'll be competitive next year), Beane just has to sit back and wait.

Any deals he makes -- this weekend up through spring training -- will be on Beane's terms.

by monkeyball on Dec 10, 2004 8:07 AM PST reply actions

Beane

I think that would be true of all trades he makes, if he does not get his trms they just do not happen. But I think the speculation is what is his terms for Hudson?

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 8:15 AM PST reply actions

what he wants for Hudson - Philly report

"[the Phillies] tried hard to pry ace righthander Tim Hudson from Oakland, only to give up when the A's kept insisting on getting both second baseman Chase Utley and reliever Ryan Madson in return."

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/102-12092004-414137.html

Ryan Madson: 3d year reliver with 2.28 career ERA
Chase Utley: 3d year 2B with .749 career OPS.

Anyone believe that one?

I assume if Beane made a deal like that it would be with the intent of using the salary savings to get another starting pitcher.

by matthias on Dec 10, 2004 8:27 AM PST up reply actions

Philly

You know, I can actually understand their reluctance to part with Utley. He's their only option at 2nd base right now.

by grover on Dec 10, 2004 8:32 AM PST up reply actions

I dont see why we would want him

We should be pushing for Gavin Floyd, not Utley.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 10, 2004 8:33 AM PST up reply actions

Why we would want him

Utley is young, cheap, and is going to develop some serious pop in his bat. If he plays full-time, he'll be one of the best offensive second baseman in the game in 2-3 years.

by Tony on Dec 10, 2004 12:00 PM PST up reply actions

Beane was in a weaker position

when he traded for Dotel, since it was mid-season and everybody knew the a's were desperate for a closer.

He is in a far stronger position this time.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 9:05 AM PST up reply actions

dan meyer and marcus giles for hudson

is what one of the atlanta papers is speculating. Again the A's would gain about 2 mil here and meyer has some impressive K/9IP and OBA numbers. It does not seem like enough to me though.

by Athletics fan and runner on Dec 10, 2004 8:43 AM PST reply actions

meyer

meyer is a left who pitched at AA and AAA last season.

by Athletics fan and runner on Dec 10, 2004 8:43 AM PST up reply actions

it's not enough

otherwise it would have already happened.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 9:06 AM PST up reply actions

Atlanta

The reason it hasn't happened is that the Braves think that Hudson is not enough for Giles + Meyer. In the sense that, they're losing a top prospect (locked up for 6 years) and a first-year arb guy (locked up for 3 years), in return for a pitcher in his final year of contract. It doesn't really matter that Hudson is a much more proven commodity than both Giles and Meyer comibined. The Braves would be losing alot of money. These aren't your mid-90's Braves. They couldn't afford to re-sign Russ Ortiz or JD Drew, do you think they'd want to take a chance on Huddy, giving up cheap, good players in the process?

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 10, 2004 11:31 AM PST up reply actions

I wouldn't be surprised

if Atlanta thought Huddy wasn't worth Giles+Meyer. I actually think he's worth more, but then I'm an A's fan.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

The key is

The Braves don't "need" to trade Giles as much as we "need" to trade Hudson. The Braves wouldn't be saving much money by trading Giles. On the other hand, we'd be saving money. So a talent-for-talent trade involving the two would hurt Atlanta more, since they'd be spending more while we'd be spending less. I'm sure Atlanta would do the trade if the A's evened out the money, but of course Billy Beane would much rather get talent AND savings in return for trading Huddy.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 10, 2004 6:49 PM PST up reply actions

"Need" to trade

Atlanta's "need" to trade and Oakland's "need" to trade are probable not as cut out as you make it. Atlanta just lost Wright and Ortiz from their rotation and are left with Hampton and Thompson. They may now have the worst starters in their division. I see a need there. The A's can move Hudson any time up to July and get a big package. On March first if Ellis is "fine" with his throwing, does Atlanta then have anything that Beane wants. If the A's must save money they can move a Durazo to the Jays for an Arnold and save 4 million right there. Then see if Johnson or a Keilty or Jaun Gone work at some cheap amount. We will see over time.

by dougald1 on Dec 11, 2004 11:11 AM PST up reply actions

Beane's great advantage

in trade talks for Huddy is that he doesn't actually NEED to trade him. So he can afford to wait for a deal that would actually help the A's get stronger for 2005 as well as beyond.

I don't believe Beane will make any trade that will weaken the A's for 2005 or beyond.

by OaklandSi on Dec 11, 2004 12:20 PM PST up reply actions

Atlanta

Actually I think that this is about the best we can do for Hudson, We would get the best 2nd baseman in baseball and a top tier prospect. When you factor in that we would have them for 3 + years for Hudson's 1 year and it would also free up a couple million to spend in the bullpen.

Our order would be more along the lines of other playoff teams, Kotsay, Giles, Kendall, CHavez, Durazo, Hatteberg, Swisher, Crosby, and Brynes. The rotation Harden, Zito, Mulder and Blanton would be respectable.

I think Beane only question is where is Ellis and do we need a 2nd baseman, or should we try to get a better prospect and take a little worse player.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 9:18 AM PST up reply actions

it would already have happened

if Beane thought that was the best he could do, and if he has in fact decided to trade Huddy.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 9:45 AM PST up reply actions

Already would have Happened?

One Atlanta just lost Wright the other day, (so technically I think they are in a position to look else where) I also think that Beane will be absolutely sure that no other team would be in a position to make a better deal (LA for one just got Kent and could trade cora and they have 2 of the best prospects in the game), if Ellis is part of the trade (which might make sense) then Atlanta would need to go over some Medical reports, and I guess there could be several minor points to Iron out knowing Beane he would try and find a way to get a 100,000 thrown in.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 9:53 AM PST up reply actions

Jose Capellan, not Giles........

Everyone keeps talking about Marcus Giles, but Braves Manager Bobby Cox put in a phone call to GM John Schuerholz to keep him. Any package for Hudson from the Braves should be for fire-balling pitcher Jose Capellan, who is ready to take a rotation spot this year. This dude throws serious gas, was throwing 98 mph at the Futures Games in July, anyone see that game on ESPN? Capellan phsyically resembles Armando Benetiz with his tree-trunk legs. At worst, Capellan could be our closer if he could not fill a rotation spot.

GangGreen23

by GangGreen23 on Dec 11, 2004 1:59 PM PST up reply actions

Hudson for Alfonso Soriano?

Has anybody mentioned this yet? Is this not out of the question, or am I missing something?

by McFood on Dec 10, 2004 8:49 AM PST reply actions

Soriano

Soriano makes too much for the A's to consider really and while he may be fun to watch his OBPS is not all that impressive. He is arbitration eliglible and is likely to make over 7 mil next year. The A's would be better with somebody else. And aside from that, there is no way that hudson is going to be traded to somebody in our own division.

by Athletics fan and runner on Dec 10, 2004 8:53 AM PST up reply actions

This just came up

See my diary, but i really like this option of getting Carlos Lee. Now that is a basher who would be nice in the 3 hole.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 10, 2004 8:55 AM PST reply actions

Lee

Makes too much. We need young cheap talent ready now. Plus, he is 1 year away from FA.

"obsessive" is what lazy people call the "dedicated"

by Beanecounter on Dec 10, 2004 1:16 PM PST up reply actions

rotation

The rotation Harden, Zito, Mulder and Blanton would be respectable.

Barely. Blanton has yet to prove he is a real major league pitcher. He'd be fine as a fifth starter, but if Hudson goes we have to get a respectable #4 - a Redman replacement.

by matthias on Dec 10, 2004 9:21 AM PST reply actions

Most teams

would kill to have a 1-2-3 of Mulder, Zito, and Harden. Name 1-2-3 that's better. There are some that are about even. The Cubs (Prior, Wood, Zambrano) and Astros (Pettite, Oswalt, Miller) come to mind. Maybe the Marlins (Burnett, Beckett, Willis). I think were just coming from a spoiled perspective as A's fans, having had the Fantastic Four for the last two years. The fact remains that that's still a helluva rotation, Huddy or no Huddy.

Today's broadcast is brought to you by..........Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it.

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 10, 2004 9:27 AM PST up reply actions

the problem

is the A's don't have enough firepower -- and can't afford to have enough firepower -- to offset having what would be a good but hardly unique threesome.

having hudson leading the best foursome in baseball -- something truly unique today -- would offset not being able to have as many big boppers as the other contenders.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 9:47 AM PST up reply actions

Firepower

Adding Kendall and Giles would go a long way to inreasing this teams firepower, you are talking about 2 guys whose oba is always amongst the league leaders.

Those 2 guys aloe could raise our runs scored by around a half a run a game.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 9:56 AM PST up reply actions

Giles vs. Huddy on 2005 A's

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3658

This article argues that "swapping one of the Big Three for a healthy Giles could net the A's about 35-40 runs at second base, an offensive gain of two to three wins over Ellis."

Then it goes on to add that losing one of the Big 3 could cost the A's 10-50 runs over the season.

Among other things this could illustrate why the A's won't accept Giles for Huddy.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 10:47 AM PST up reply actions

Giles

To me the article makes sense, and would be how Beane would approach such a trade. You pick up around 25-30 runs a year for Giles. Then you tack on a rookie pitcher who has as much upside as Blanton (a lh one at that) and have some money to go out and get a relieve pitcher or as some reports mention you try to get Cruz thrown in the deal.

You risk losing 10-50 runs a year in starting pitching for 1 year, So 2005 maybe a slight hit (though best case scenerio a 20 run advatage), 2006 and beyound a big improvement and maybe a huge improvement depending on Meyer.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 11:05 AM PST up reply actions

What about...

the 0 runs we'd gain from Hudson after next season, as opposed to the 35-40 Giles would produce over the next three?

I realize your subject line clearly stated "on 2005 A's," but any conversation about a Huddy/Giles swap has to acknowledge that Giles' contract is extremely inviting for A's over the next three years, while (barring a miracle contract extension), Huddy will give us those "10-50" runs for one more season (at a higher price than Giles) and be gone.

Note the closing paragraph of the BP article: "[Huddy-for-Giles is] the kind of preemptive move that would better answer the second-base question while allowing the A's to focus their efforts on the two remaining members of the Big Three."

by Vic @ Athletics Nation on Dec 10, 2004 11:06 AM PST up reply actions

the reason I only said 2005

is that I'm assuming Beane meant what he said about contending in 2005. if so he cannot afford to weaken the starting rotation, which is the A's greatest strength (and most teams' greatest weakness), and the only place where the A's have a clear advantage. For 2005 that great rotation is affordable. Should they give up Hudson --their #1 starter -- they would significantly weaken their rotation, especially if they add yet another rookie, thus starting rookies at both the #4 and #5 positions.

if on the other hand Beane is not serious about 2005 then of course, trading one of the Big 3 now, even their #1, makes sense. But I'm going to take Billy at his word. that's why I don't think Huddy for Giles straight up is enough, nor Huddy for Giles and another rookie pitcher.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 11:12 AM PST up reply actions

Again

I suspect it's Atlanta who doesn't want to trade Giles for Hudson. Beane is the one who's expressed interest in Giles, but the Braves are reluctant to part with Giles, for financial reasons

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 10, 2004 11:35 AM PST up reply actions

Atlanta

You maybe right, I think they are still trying to figure out how to keep drew, and still have money for a quality starter.

Which means dumping A. Jones, if they can do that why trade Giles. Besides Mazonne has been able to pick guys up off the scrape heep and turn thier careers around why go out and get a top notch starter when you can get great production from the Bargain bin? (sort of the A's philosophy with a bullpen at least before last year)

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 11:44 AM PST up reply actions

fyi...

can't keep drew, didn't offer arbitration, so he's effectively gone.

by Eric in Atlanta on Dec 10, 2004 12:15 PM PST up reply actions

Beane can absolutely afford...

to weaken the starting pitching and keep the team in contention -- the Giles trade would significantly improve our offense for the next three seasons (and cheaply, to boot). Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but has the A's "clear advantage" in starting pitching helped them win a damn thing in the playoffs the last 5 years? What makes you think that one more year of the Fantastic Four, with a weaker offense behind them than any we've had in the past 5 years (with the possible exception of last year), would bring about a different result?

I can see the reluctance to part with a Big 3 member, but repeating the mantra that the team won't contend in 2005 if Huddy is traded just doesn't wash. We have no clue how Beane will proceed after trading a Big 3 member -- I find it extremely unlikely that he'd begin the season with two rookies in the starting rotation.

How are we supposed to contend in 2006 and 2007 if we get nothing but draft picks for Hudson, rather than arguably the best second-baseman in the league and attractive prospects?

by Vic @ Athletics Nation on Dec 10, 2004 11:39 AM PST up reply actions

Giles

You don't think we we only get Giles for Hudson do you? Remember, Beane may be going the weaker starting pitching, stronger offense, much stronger bullpin route.

Beane also said there may be more than one trade at the winter meetings...like trading both Hudson and Zito.

Beane is interesteg Juan Gone.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 10, 2004 11:21 AM PST up reply actions

weaker pitch, stronger offense needs more $$

The A's can contend in 2005 with the starting pitching that they have. Even if they deal Huddy for a great bat, that will not be enough offense to make up for the weakened starting pitching.

I don't think the A's will weaken their strongest resource -- which is still affordable in 2005. that is, if they're serious about contending in 2005.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 11:24 AM PST up reply actions

Hudson

I think they can contend with him or without him. Though without him is going to put more pressure on Zito and Mulder to bounce back and have good years. On the other hand Giles (or the bat acquired in the trade) and Kendall will also allow the team to compete better with just marginal pitching. There will not be any automatic outs in the order and it ould be an order that will hit top to bottom and could put some pressure on teams with it's running game.

Our staff would still be a above average staff and if we can square are bullpen away might be the best staff outside of Boston.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 11:34 AM PST up reply actions

Pitching and

defense win ball games!! We finished 1 game out because the relievers could not save games early in the season. Obviously, a timely hit here and there would have won a game or two. Offensively, how do you think we stack up with Swisher/Kendall and more production from Crosby vs Miller/Dye? Second base is a question and the 'pen' needs an upgrade. I don't think it takes major moves to fill these needs. IMHO pitching can be subtracted faster than offense can be added. Considering '05 only, I think the A's are more competitive with Huddy (assuming any trade of Huddy would be at least somewhat equitable). The caveat is any need to respond to marginal increases in the competiviness of the other division teams.

by PhillyAs on Dec 10, 2004 1:35 PM PST up reply actions

I like that

"Pitching can be subtracted faster than offense can be added."

And we all know that Beane knows this.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 3:02 PM PST up reply actions

Juan

I could see signing him to a heavy incentive laden contract and would be a type of player Beane would try and gamble with.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 11:26 AM PST up reply actions

that might happen

hopefully, if Juan is -- and can stay -- healthy. even so, i don't see how they would expect him to play every day. if Durazo is on the team he will be DH for the vast majority of games. and even if healthy Juan won't be playing most games in the OF.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 11:29 AM PST up reply actions

Durazo vs. Juan Gone

I'm thinking the discussions with Juan Gone are happening just in case BB and Durazo cannot come to a meeting point w/ regards to a contract. It's a subtle way to let Durazo know that we are looking elsewhere, and if you don't take a "hometown" deal with us, you'll be in Tampa Bay next year...I don't think Juan Gone & Durazo can coexist on the roster together. Plus, it basically takes away two bats come Interleague and World Series Time...

...unless, we trade Hatty and move Swisher to 1B. Making Swisher a DH is not going to happen, except for the rare occasion to give him some rest, and get another bat some action.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Dec 10, 2004 1:05 PM PST up reply actions

Makes sense

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 1:14 PM PST up reply actions

Juan Gone can still play some OF

the scary thing is the prospect of Mongo playing 1b.

Relax alright don't try to strike everyone out. Strikeouts are boring besides that they're fascist. Throw some ground balls it's more democratic.

by devo on Dec 10, 2004 1:49 PM PST up reply actions

BP is getting sloppy

That A's "update" was awfully damn stale. That could have been in the can 6 months ago. Nothing about Saarloos's injury status or contract status (isn't he a minor-league FA? and/or not on our 40-man roster?). Nothing about the serious doubts expressed recently by Forst about Ellis's shoulder. Nothing about our acquiring Harikkala as a backup 5th/spot starter.

I understand with their new revenue model, they need to reserve the interesting stuff for subscribers, but that piece was embarassing. Sub-AP-report level. They're not going to attract many new subscribers with that stuff on the free pages.

by monkeyball on Dec 11, 2004 1:49 PM PST up reply actions

Didn't Saarloos.....

get released?

AM dumps Zito, moves on to Bartolo Colon, ERA booms to a 6.0,"Me amor, Alissa (I love you my sweet chicken puff) is muy bitchy. Donde esta me masseuse". -ohad

by GreenNGoldGirl on Dec 11, 2004 2:33 PM PST up reply actions

Sarloos

He did get released but I don't think anyone will sign him because of his injury. The A's may give him a chance when he heals but he may miss the whole year.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 11, 2004 6:16 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks!

Thanks for the fact-checking, y'all. I couldn't recall Saarloos's specifics.

by monkeyball on Dec 11, 2004 8:08 PM PST up reply actions

Tommy John surgery

...out for 2005

by OaklandSi on Dec 12, 2004 5:29 AM PST up reply actions

BB Seller's Market

This is my first post on A's Nation. I am very impressed with the content, and the blogs. For what it's worth, I think Marcus Giles is the man BB wants the most. Overall, low 2005 salary and an excellent 2nd baseman. The Braves are desperate for starting pitching. When it turns to Sunday afternoon, Schuerholtz will pull the trigger. He's like the guy at the high pressure car dealer who needs a new set of wheels. He has no choice but to cave in. BB will play the role of Cal Worthington and get what he really wants out of Schuerholtz. The deal is Giles, Meyer and Capellan for Hudson & Ellis. Schuerholtz is not afraid to rent a player for a year. Look at what he gave up for J.D. Drew. They overpaid. Meyer is hands down the 2nd highest rated Prospect in the Braves Minor League System. That says alot. If they could somehow include Marte, this would be a killer deal. Highly unlikely though about Marte. Happy Holidays.

bambikiller

by bambikiller on Dec 10, 2004 9:43 AM PST reply actions

Giles

Good post Bambikiller (what do you have against bambi?). Welcome.

I think Atlanta is reluctent to give up Giles for Hudson because Hudson is signed for only one year. A Hudson extention may be part of that deal.

Also don't forget the Beane is the master of the 3, 4 team trade. As a Said in a previous post, two of the big three may be involved.

How about Giles for Zito and say, Byrnes?

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 10, 2004 3:35 PM PST up reply actions

Reply To Mr. Jim

Thanks for the nice compliment. As another Jim, I can wholeheartedly say the world is a better place with us in it. You hit it right on about Atlanta. There's too many rumours going on about Hudson. I can't keep up with who BB is talking to. My only hope is to see BB make the best of what could or will be another lost chapter on Oakland's roster. Hudson will now be be known as a "former" A's player. It's going to be difficult for A's fans to lose another drafted and "home grown" talent. Whoever scouted Hudson when he was at Auburn did a hell of a job for the A's. Whether it's Zito, Mulder or Hudson,if BB decides to trade one of them, it will hurt. It's been nice to see these 3 guys, effectively pitch for us. Right now, there's too many damn ifs about Oakland. If Schott would allow BB to spend more money, if Oakland / San Jose would build a new stadium, etc. We have to put all of this aside, and come back full circle to see what BB can do. I want to wake up and get that warm and fuzzy feeling I got when BB obtained Kendall. Do it Billy do it!

bambikiller

by bambikiller on Dec 10, 2004 10:37 PM PST up reply actions

Giles

If Beane really wants Giles he will work out a way to get him. I wish our Moneyball auther, Michael Lewis, was listening to all the talk for another book.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 10, 2004 10:42 PM PST up reply actions

Giles aint going

Cause Bobby Cox with all his seniority saids big fat NO. You don't think Leo Mazzone can work his magic on another Jaret Wright? You don't think Bobby Cox has the same level of sway as does GM Scherholz (sp?) of Atlanta? What Bobby wants, Bobby gets. Atlanta would be stupid to do this trade

by suggy on Dec 12, 2004 9:20 PM PST up reply actions

Huddy

I will be very upset with Beane if they trade Hudson for second rate talent. This will go down as a huge mistake if they do.

Hudson could be a future HOFer, while Oakland will get a below average second baseman or cheaptalent pitcher.

Go A's! All the way from Orlando, FL

by Ryan Hadden on Dec 10, 2004 10:48 AM PST reply actions

Below Average?

Giles is not a below average 2nd baseman now and still has a great upside.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 10, 2004 11:24 AM PST up reply actions

Hall of Fame is very premature

Look, I love Huddy, too, but if you go over to Huddy's page at baseball-reference.com you'll see that not a single one of his top ten comparables, either overall or through age 28, is in the Hall of Fame. Many are good pitchers, like Jack McDowell (an interesting comparison -- big winner, bulldog, big FA, fell apart by age 30), Bob Welch, Mike Mussina, Matt Morris, but it's a few cuts below the all-time greats.

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's really, really, unusual for a great pitcher to have so much trouble striking people out. I know about his HR rate and his great ERAs, but it's a serious issue. I really suggest you look at Jack McDowell's stats. He's listed as most comparable to Huddy, and he basically looks like Hudson through age 28, with more wins (b/c of run and BP support, probably) and more HRs. McDowell dipped down at age 28, missed 10 starts, a lot like Hudson, had a good year at age 29, then completely lost it.

by Nick on Dec 10, 2004 11:59 AM PST up reply actions

Comparison

Only their records are similiar. They are different types of pitchers McDowell lost his fastball and that was about all he had. Not so with Huddy.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 10, 2004 3:44 PM PST up reply actions

I grant you

that McDowell was more of a high FB pitcher (thus the HR), but he also threw a curve and, like everyone else at the time, a splitter. At the time, people were comparing him to Jack Morris because of his pitching style, tenaciousness, and high win totals. The splitter was one of his big pitches, and I wouldn't be surprised if it had a lot to do with his arm problems. I don't remember from back then whether that's what it was, but splitters injured a lot of arms back in the 80s and early 90s. McDowell wasn't small like Hudson, either. But Hudson relies on the splitter a lot, too.

I'm not saying that Hudson is doomed to mediocrity by the age of 30, I'm just saying that you can't "project" Hall of Fame -- sometimes a young, talented pitcher can fall from top 3 or 4 to being out of baseball in a couple of years.

by Nick on Dec 10, 2004 4:38 PM PST up reply actions

Comparison 2

Growing up in NY I got to see the pitcher who Tim Hudson is cloned from (except Hudson is a RH, this guy was a lefty). They are the same size (5'11/6'0/165 lbs.)and at age 29 BOTH were the all time active leaders in W/L percentage. I believe Hudson's career will continue to parallel this one. By age 30 Ron Guidry was 87-33. Here are his records by age: 26, 116-7 2.82. 27, 25-3, 1.74 (Cy Young), 28, 18-8, 2.78, 29, 17-10, 3.56, 30, 11-5, 2.76. I think this is the point that Huddy is in his career right now. If he continues to follow Guidry's carrer we can expect the following: Age 31, 14-8, 3.81, 32, 21-9, 3.42, 33, 10-11, 4.51, 34 (the comeback) 22-6, 3.27, 35 (the end) 9-12, 3.98, 36, 5-8 3.67, 37, 2-3 4.18.
I'd argue that considering the similarities in the 2 pitchers careers, styles, size, demeanor, that the Guidry analysis indicates that Tim Hudson's best years may be behind him.

by Napasteve on Dec 10, 2004 4:44 PM PST up reply actions

I would agree except my crystal ball is fogged up

An interesting comparision that escaped me until you brought it up. Very similar makeup. While Huddy's career could mimic Guidry's it also can be totally original. Huddy does not have to follow in anybodies footprints.
Having experienced it myself I can guarantee that age will affect Huddy, you, and I.
I suggest the three of us enjoy what we have.

"Billy Ball 2005" or "How to Win a World Series after Moneyball"

by A s Eh on Dec 11, 2004 10:02 AM PST up reply actions

How about this?

Beane trades Hudson, Zito, and Mulder to Anheuser Busch Corporation, which uses them to make beer commercials and, in exchange, provides unlimited 50-cent beer at the Coliseum for five years. Sure, the team would lose 107 games, but we'd all be too drunk to care. And they wouldn't be pitching for anybody, including the (insert name of hated rivals here).

OK, there may be a few minor flaws in this deal...

by AlamedaAphid on Dec 10, 2004 12:01 PM PST reply actions

I don't see any flaws

by Tony on Dec 10, 2004 12:05 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, but there must be some

I suppose it would take a lot longer to cross the BART bridge after the game, what with all the passed-out fans, puddles of fresh puke, etc.

Hell, the reputation of Oakland fans couldn't get any worse, anyway. Hit me with a chair, please!

by AlamedaAphid on Dec 10, 2004 12:18 PM PST up reply actions

no way we'd win 55 games

by elephant man on Dec 10, 2004 12:23 PM PST up reply actions

love it

time for Beane to play hordball, though. Throw in the Budweiser girls or this deal dies right now. Maybe a Cleidsdale or two to help with that congestion problem. Anyone interested in a drunken sled ride across the bridge?

LFB 4 ever

by Tim J on Dec 10, 2004 3:21 PM PST up reply actions

Can we trade the BART Bridge Sax Guy too?

If I have to hear the Flintstones theme or a squawking, honking version of "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" ONE MORE TIME while shuffling across the bridge with the herd...

by AlamedaAphid on Dec 10, 2004 3:46 PM PST up reply actions

Never mind...

Any team willing to take the Bart Bridge Sax Offender would probably insist on getting the A's Hardware Kids as part of the deal.

That would be like giving up Ramon H in order to get some sucker to take Terrence ".242" Long.

by AlamedaAphid on Dec 10, 2004 3:51 PM PST up reply actions

What a Deal...

With this deal attendance would go yhrough the roof.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 10, 2004 3:38 PM PST up reply actions

Busch? Ugh.

Make it Boonville or Anchor Steam, and you've got yourself a deal, though.

by monkeyball on Dec 11, 2004 1:52 PM PST up reply actions

Dodgers

Gammons is now saying that the Dodgers are the strongest suitors for Hudson. Now that they have Kent they can dump Cora. The Braves, it seems, are reluctant to part with Giles.

Just me...

by kaweahkaweah on Dec 10, 2004 12:30 PM PST reply actions

who else?

i've heard cora, who isn't all that great, plus jackson, an unproven pitcher...i'd rather deal w/ LA cuz depodesta's one of our own, but i think the best deal seems to involve giles. again, this is assuming billy even trades huddy...maybe this is all build-up to raise the market and trade zito instead?

by guy incognito on Dec 10, 2004 12:38 PM PST up reply actions

I dunno

Cora has an OBP of .314, vs, Scutaro who last season had (I think) a .297 OBP. Not a big improvement there offensively at least that I can see.

Just me...

by kaweahkaweah on Dec 10, 2004 12:44 PM PST up reply actions

LA, Boston, Toronto GM's

are all Billy's buddies. But any trade is all about improving the A's as a team, while not helping out any of our closest competitors (mostly in the AL west, but perhaps also in the AL east).

I haven't seen one trade rumor that offers enough for Huddy. Unless the real ones haven't been leaked to the media, this does sort of sound like Beane might be pumping things up for a trade of one of the other Big 3.

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 12:48 PM PST up reply actions

Just check out the newest trade

That i came up with. That would be a great deal for Huddy.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 10, 2004 12:50 PM PST up reply actions

Dodgers...

I saw that on Baseball today. What are the Dodgers offering?

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 10, 2004 3:39 PM PST up reply actions

Theoretically,

There would have to be Edwin Jackson and Antonio Perez as the starting pieces.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 10, 2004 3:42 PM PST up reply actions

Only if

A boat load of Depo's cash comes with it. It's the only way a deal with the Dodgers makes any sense. We get a ton of cash this year and next and let BB go after a free agent this year, or take someone on.

"Not the fucking ducks again." Tony S.

by rook on Dec 10, 2004 8:45 PM PST up reply actions

For crying out loud!

Why the hell would we want Alex Cora. He is of no use to us. God dammit

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 10, 2004 12:43 PM PST reply actions

I agree

You might as well just stick with Scutaro. Any prospects bundled in the deal had better be good.

Just me...

by kaweahkaweah on Dec 10, 2004 12:45 PM PST up reply actions

For Once

Ohad and I agree 100% on something. Cora is a waste of time and should NEVER be mentioned on AN again.

"obsessive" is what lazy people call the "dedicated"

by Beanecounter on Dec 10, 2004 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

La

I doubt that Cora would be a central piece of any trade, I would guess that he would be a plan B option to Ellis. But I think Jackson, Looney are considered 2 of the best prospects in the game. I would hope they would be included.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 10, 2004 1:56 PM PST up reply actions

Outfield

Oh, dear.

How does an outfield of Byrnes, Kotsay, and Swisher stack up again one of Anderson, Finley, and Guerrero.

Help.

by matthias on Dec 10, 2004 2:32 PM PST reply actions

By being partnered with

A better infield and a better rotation, obviously.

Having the best defensive CF in the AL and injury plaged stars playing for the Halos helps too.

Relax alright don't try to strike everyone out. Strikeouts are boring besides that they're fascist. Throw some ground balls it's more democratic.

by devo on Dec 10, 2004 2:43 PM PST up reply actions

At least...

it's not Beltran...

by Vic @ Athletics Nation on Dec 10, 2004 2:44 PM PST up reply actions

But..

...the Angels said they owe it to their fans to go after Beltran.. It's not over yet ,folks.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 10, 2004 3:47 PM PST up reply actions

I'll Tell You How It Stacks Up

It stacks up like that tall-stack of flapjacks that Bartolo Colon ate for breakfast this morning. That overpaid fatass can only take the Angels so far, and the rest of their rotation is about as intimidating as Kirk Reuter's "game face" (stop, you're making me laugh).

In addition, Glaus is no more, Bengie Molina is making $3M next year and the Angels blow. The Angels played there butts off this last year to beat us by one game after we lost Chavez and Hudson for significant chunks of the season.

So what have they done this offseason -- they added a 40-year-old CF (who plays like a poor man's version of a 34-year-old CF, but not like a 27-year-old CF); they are thinking about adding Cabrera (overpriced and overrated) or Renteria (who the Cards will sign for too much); and, they have not addressed the thing that will hurt them next year, namely, that half-assed rotation.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 10, 2004 3:00 PM PST reply actions

that's the key

Pitching will be what gets the A's to the postseason...and the more of it the better

by OaklandSi on Dec 10, 2004 3:04 PM PST up reply actions

Angels

Glaus is gone, but Dallas MacPherson has arrived and he's a beast. Yes, Huddy and Chavez were hurt, but so were Garrett Anderson, Glaus, Darin Erstad, and Troy Percival for significant stretches. Finley is not a great signing, but they're not done. They already signed Kendry Morales and have other items on their shopping list as well. (Cabrera, Pavano, etc) As long as Arte Moreno is willing to shell out money to keep them competitive, they will be. They're not going away. This is the dawn of the Evil Empire: Latin Edition.

Today's broadcast is brought to you by..........Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it.

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 10, 2004 3:12 PM PST up reply actions

They were hurt ...

But Glaus and Percy are gone so you can't theoretically add their production back in for this year - Erstad is always hurt ... and he can't hit a lick anyway ... and Anderson has probably peaked ... and was never quite as good as his rep anyway. He's never posted a .900 ops and has only posted 3 seasons of .830+ ops and he's starting to get old.

Relax alright don't try to strike everyone out. Strikeouts are boring besides that they're fascist. Throw some ground balls it's more democratic.

by devo on Dec 10, 2004 3:18 PM PST up reply actions

In Other Words, How Does This Stack Up?

A's v. Angels rotations, with AVG VORPs from last three seasons:

Hudson (57)
Mulder (45)
Zito (49)
Harden (41 -- 2004 only)
Blanton (1 -- 2004 only))

v.
Colon (44)
Washburn (31)
Escobar (32)
Lackey (18)
Shields (28)

I think I could stare Peter Gammons in the face and tell him that the A's top four pitchers would all be the "ace" of the Angels staff. And if Gammons tried to tell me otherwise, I'd kick him in the ass and tell him to get off my $20 bill.

by Uncle Charlie on Dec 10, 2004 3:18 PM PST reply actions

Dammit Charles!

LOL. You Sir were on a Roll. Like the Porn Starlet always says; Keep it Up!

bambikiller

by bambikiller on Dec 10, 2004 11:06 PM PST up reply actions

Kenickies

Yes, Peter Gammons is a dead ringer for Andrew Jackson -- but Jeff Conaway is even more so!

My friend and I have a campaign to start calling $20 bills "Kenickies" -- as in, "I was dropping some mad Kenickies last night."

by monkeyball on Dec 11, 2004 2:01 PM PST up reply actions

Gammons....

...was just on "PTI" on ESPN. They gave him five minutes to talk about Hot Stove stuff and Hudson's name didn't come up.

by jrbh on Dec 10, 2004 3:31 PM PST reply actions

I think

He knew he was gonna talk about it on sportcenter or something. Or maybe just the fact that ESPN is an oakland hater. Oh by the way, they showed like who could get dealt, and they talked about Pedro, and the visual was him striking out Jermaine Dye on the A's.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 10, 2004 3:36 PM PST up reply actions

Kearns and Mo Pena

Jason Stark of ESPN mentioned both Kearns and Pena as possible bait for Hudson and I'd like to say that both have the economic profile to suit the A's as well as the offensive dynamic that has been missing without Giambi or Tejada. Giles seems redundant, unless BB is planning to trade Ellis (since Scuturo is the logical back-up). If that's the case, I'd like to make a case for either of the Reds young outfielders. Send Burns to the bench or trade him and play an outfield of Swisher, Kotsay and either Kearns or Pena. If Dan Johnson takes first from Hatteburg, that is (on paper) a solid, defensively deep line-up with significant power. If Ellis is expendable, the A's are in a position to come away with Giles, a young pitcher AND a big bat outfielder which would make them considerably more intimidating offensively than they've been since 2001. BB has the chips.

If it's broken, fix it.

by Bosnian on Dec 10, 2004 4:52 PM PST reply actions

Wily Mo Pena

It absolutely the worst defensive outfielder in the history of MLB. Trading Tim Hudson for Pena would be a slap in the face to Oakland fans everywhere. Last year I saw Pena get hit in the head by a routine fly ball. Brought back memories of a former A's rightfielder, just without the 40-40.

by IndianaAsfan on Dec 10, 2004 6:17 PM PST up reply actions

Kearns / Pena or Dunn iffy

The Reds players mentioned are very iffy. Kearns has history of injuries last two seasons, Pena has odd contract that allows him to avoid the minor leagues and Dunn , mentioned in the Chronicle as potential trade for Hudson just strikes out way too much to be productive. He reminds me of Kingman.
If we do give up Hudson , I am worried about Mulders fall from grace at the end of the season and Zito being a .500 pitcher who goes on to make commericals.

Morada Mudshark

by Morada Mudshark on Dec 10, 2004 9:55 PM PST reply actions

History Lesson

I think there is somewhat of a precedent for the situation the A's currently face with regards to Hudson. As I'm sure most everyone here recall, in May/June 2001 there was a lot of talk among the various national media about how the A's would just "have" to trade their free agents-to-be (Giambi, Isringhousen, Damon) in order to get something in return. Of course this didn't happen.

I think Oakland is in a similar situation now. It seems most of the national media and other teams believe that Oakland just "has" to trade Hudson. We know from previous experience that it is highly unlikely that Beane feels the same way. Therefore it seems to me that there are only 2 possibilities:

The opening day starter for the A's in 2005 is Tim Hudson.
Beane trades Hudson for a package that makes everyone's collective jaw drop. And I don't consider Marcus Giles and a random good prospect to be such a package.

Remember that Beane himself has said, "The day you say you have to do something, you're screwed. Because you are going to make a bad deal. You can always recover from the player you didn't sign. You may never recover from the player you signed at the wrong price."

by JLeverenz on Dec 10, 2004 9:57 PM PST reply actions

Good lesson

But the key difference is this time the player we are likely to lose is a legitamite #1 starter. That is the rarest of all players in the majors and his value is greater than a good closer, a slugging 1st baseman, or a centerfielder. Actually, Damon was brought in before the season began as a one year rental, so there was never the intention to trade him.

by grover on Dec 10, 2004 10:09 PM PST up reply actions

Pitchers are unpredictable

But the key difference is this time the player we are likely to lose is a legitamite #1 starter. That is the rarest of all players in the majors and his value is greater than a good closer, a slugging 1st baseman, or a centerfielder.

I agree to some extent, grover, but with two caveats.

To the extent that Win Shares are legit (and I think they're pretty useful), no starter in a 5-man rotation ever accounts for as many wins as an MVP caliber position player. In any individual game, the starter is by far the most important player, however, so in a short series it makes a huge difference. Also, replacement options might make the pitcher more vaulable.
Pitchers experience dramatic collapses more often than position players. Beltran is a good bet to be a terrific player for many years. Huddy might get hurt next year and never be productive again. Giambi's collapse last year was suspicious because it was so unusual for a slugger to lose it so suddenly. This kind of thing happens all the time to pitchers.

So while a #1 is incredibly important, you don't really know you're getting one when the contract is signed. That definitely comes into play when the A's are considering what to do. Personally, I'm happier with Chavez signed and Hudson up in the air than the other way around.

by Nick on Dec 11, 2004 8:47 AM PST up reply actions

Like watching an accident...

I can't turn away, but can't really bear to watch.

I have always been an advocate of signing Hudson if possible, as he's been the best of the Big Three and I thought he was amenable to staying in Oakland. (Yes, I know about the injury history and related postseason struggles, so it's not a no-brainer.) It looks like my wish won't be coming true, either because Hudson doesn't really want to stay or the A's don't think he would be worth the price.

Some of you are enjoying all of this, as you show off your knowledge of minor league talent and #4 or #5 starters. Some of you make arguments about how it's necessary for the future of the team. Some of you are confident Beane will make a good deeal.

I don't know. I'm not even sure if my "Hudson is the one to keep" feeling is correct. But I'm certainly underwhelmed by the trade packages I've been reading about. Some of these guys may be considered valuable by their own teams, but aside from Giles - a superfluous addition, as we already acquired a banjo-hitting catcher and don't need another #2 hitter - the track record of these guys is pretty underwhelming.

The bottom line is this: Any of these trades decreases the chances of the A's winning next year. Are you ready for young Rich Harden to have the burden of being the #1 starter? Or Mark Mulder, who reacted to the pressure of Huddy's absence this year by going into a tailspin? Or Barry Zito, he of the declining statistics and inability to last beyond the 6th inning? Meanwhile, the back of the rotation will be a rookie and some guy we get in a trade.

The trade may be necessary for long-term financial reasons. It may be wise, given Hudson's contract demands and injury history. But once the deed is done, I'm not going to be happy. And I doubt most of the rest of you will be either.

by bear88 on Dec 10, 2004 11:41 PM PST reply actions

You said it very well

I don't see Beane trading Huddy for anything that would decrease the A's chances in 2005 -- unless the A's have decided that it's not important to win the division in 2005.

by OaklandSi on Dec 11, 2004 5:10 AM PST up reply actions

Like i said

And like most of us agree on: Every year is essentially a "re-tooling" year. What im saying is trading Hudson is part of the re tooling, that still keeps is in contention, and makes our team better for the future.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 11, 2004 5:15 AM PST up reply actions

I agree that every year the a's retool

but some moves would hurt short term contention more than others. As you know I believe letting Huddy go for less than a proven starter and offensive pop plus some other need weakens the A's chances for 2005 (though not for other years).

by OaklandSi on Dec 11, 2004 5:34 AM PST up reply actions

What you are saying

about a proven starter, offensive pop would be ideal. perfect. But that is not going to happen. I dont see any possible way to fit that criteria. A good example of filling would be us trading Huddy for Giles and John Thompson. Going back to my diary about fringe players. He has just one year on his contract left. The best possible thing we can get are fringe "prospects" who are ready to play in the majors, and who have a high ceiling. Trading huddy would enable us to get 2 or 3 of those. We can fill one of those criterias but trading Huddy for either offensive pop, plus fringe player or proven starter plus fringe player. Edwin Jackson and Antonio Perez are fringe players with high ceilings. If Yhency Brazoban was included, this would make us jump on this trade.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 11, 2004 5:48 AM PST up reply actions

I'm not convinced

that Beane feels that he absolutely needs to deal Huddy. if I'm right about that then he won't let him go for less. If I'm wrong then he will.

Obviously what I've seen so far coming from Beane leads me to my conclusions, and you interpret it differently. In the end neither of us has a direct line, and either of us (or both of us) could be wrong.

by OaklandSi on Dec 11, 2004 5:53 AM PST up reply actions

You are right

Heres a trade that kinda fits the criteria. Hudson to the Diamondbacks for Brandon Webb, Conor Jackson? Jackson is not ready now, but he is a fantastic prospect. We could throw in hatteberg and they can throw us bullpen help in valverde.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 11, 2004 5:56 AM PST up reply actions

Why would AZ do this?

Trade a young, talented, cheap pitcher for 1 year of Hudson, and throw in a good prospect, too? If this is on the table, BB should do it before they change their minds.

by Nick on Dec 11, 2004 8:52 AM PST up reply actions

Well..

..they're stupid enough to sign injure-prone Glaus to a big and long contract, anything's possible.

"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." - Spaceballs

by secret ASian man on Dec 11, 2004 1:03 PM PST up reply actions

To convince RJ

That they can contend. IF they did this, they would be instant contenders in the NL West. RJ, Huddy, and Ortiz would be the best 1-2-3 in the NL West, maybe even NL. They seem to have the money to re-sign him now also. Thye are developing a nice core over there. All the rookies they were forced to play last year are a year better, and a year more experienced. Cintron is a great young shortstop, Hammock a solid catcher, they still got Louis Gonzalez (who is injured but yea) Shea Hillendbrand. You catch my drift.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 11, 2004 2:47 PM PST up reply actions

reminder

the d'backs are in debt. myteriously they got some figure around $40 mill.

by ucla kid on Dec 11, 2004 2:49 PM PST up reply actions

They say

That they got 250 million bucks in working capital from investors.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 11, 2004 2:57 PM PST up reply actions

Ariz

Knowing BB if Ariz. is involved it would be a multiple player deal probably involve RJ going to another team.

Just my thought.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Dec 13, 2004 7:48 AM PST up reply actions

Retooling...

So, are we just aiming to stay competitive? We're getting thinner every year which diminish our chance to win it all. Our lineup doesn't scare teams anymore. The 3-run homer is a distant memory. There were a # of stretches last yr and esp in Sept where we struggled to score runs.
I just don't see how losing the staff ace is going to help us win it all. With all the trade possibilities that has been tossed around so far, nothing has blown me away.
If this organization is serious about bringing home a title, then Huddy stays.
Let's also not forget Seattle, Anaheim, and Texas have signed FA's and will be in contention. So, both the division and the WC will both be tough to win.

by sf drift king on Dec 11, 2004 5:24 PM PST up reply actions

agree...

...with everything you wrote bear. i don't understand this theory that beane is in a great position.

if beane could be honest, i'ii bet ya he'd say "i fuckin' hate this".

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 11, 2004 7:58 AM PST up reply actions

Let's Not Forget

"A's fans, having had the Fantastic Four for the last two years."

A lot of folks are real quick to talk about the "Fab Four" or whatever name you give them. Let's not forget, in addition to Blanton not being proven, Harden is still "largely" unproven as well. He had a great 2nd half last year but up till then was wildly innconsistent. He has the physical tools but needs time to develop the mental side of his game. I like Rich and feel he will be a great pitcher but at this stage in his career, "he ain't no Huddy"

by asfanfordays on Dec 11, 2004 6:28 AM PST reply actions

The opening day starter for the A's in 2005 is Tim

THATS WHAT I'M TALK"N ABOUT!!!!!
Huddy must be reinked.
Of all the A's...Mulder Zito Chavez Tejada I mean any and all,who do you look to when the chips are down or all in????
I say trade anyone but Huddy he is the "Catfish"/"Stew" of this time frame.

by asfanfordays on Dec 11, 2004 7:01 AM PST reply actions

I don't know about you, but...

...I was really concerned about our starting pitching last season.

Think back to September/October - I don't think anyone would have said that this rotation is the best in baseball. Huddy was a 4.50 ERA pitcher. Mulder was SHOT. Zito was inconsistent. Harden was the only one who showed some resolve and consistency...it worried me quite a bit, and I know it worried you too...And if I'm being honest, it still does. If things were to stay the same, this is how I would rank our pitching staff for 2005:

1.Harden
2.Hudson
3.Mulder
4.Zito
5.Blanton

I would be stoked if the A's could trade Huddy for Marquis and Calero or Ankiel from the Cardinals, but his that possible? Then, our pitching is quite a bit younger, and takes us into the future looking like this:

Harden
Mulder
Marquis
Zito
Blanton/Ankiel

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Dec 11, 2004 8:48 AM PST reply actions

Make no mistake about it

Harden is a great pitcher who could eventually be better than anyone else we have. Right now, he is not the pitcher that Zito and Mulder are. Without Hudson, our staff looks like this:

Mulder
Zito
Harden
whoever we get in the hudson deal
Blanton

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 11, 2004 8:55 AM PST up reply actions

our rotation sucked because

our bullpen sucked. everybody was stretched out and tired, and when our starters were about to blow the game nobody could come in because the bullpen would just make it worse

by rickeytime on Dec 11, 2004 10:10 AM PST up reply actions

NO

Our starting pitching sucked because our starting pitching sucked. When our starter were in the game, they were giving up clutch hits/homers/and lots of runs. Innings pitched were pretty identical to years passed.

Honestly speaking, you have to be a little worried about our starters. I know Billy is a little concerned too.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Dec 12, 2004 10:00 AM PST up reply actions

Constantly retooling...

...to win 90 games is a fool's game.

When our farm system stops producing the studs it has produced the last six or seven years -- and it will stop producing them -- the strategy falls apart and the A's are the Pittsburgh Pirates.

I want to see Billy roll the dice and go for it all now. Why not keep Hudson, sign a 2B or a big bopper at 1B or RF and try to win it all next year?

by jrbh on Dec 11, 2004 9:21 AM PST reply actions

Because we're "over budget"

If the A's want to win in 2005, you keep Hudson, especially given the uncertainties surrounding the rotation. You offer arbitration to Dotel (because we need a closer next year) and Durazo (because we need a bat) and try to find a cheap, right-handed outfielder with some pop. I don't think the second base situation is that much of a crisis. Ellis may come back, and we've still got Durazo. Maybe we get lucky with a cheap bullpen acquisition, but the pen hopefully gets better because Bradford returns to form and Street does well when called up.

If you think Hudson's demands are out of line or that he's not worth the investment because of his injury history, you don't worry about his contract demands. You essentially treat him like Tejada in 2003.

But we're not going to do that now becuase of money. The owners have to make their annual profit. So Beane will try to leverage his #1 starter to get "fringe players" he likes. Oh, joy. I am dubious about other team's hot prospects, especially those with lousy or mediocre statistics. A lot of them don't turn out. They're just puddles of potential, quickly forgotten. Remember all the minor league "talent" we got from the Cardinals in the McGwire trade?

I also would argue that the A's spigot of minor league talent is already running out. Harden looks like a good starter, and Crosby is off to a decent start, but that's nowhere close to what the A's were developing in the late 90s (The Big Three, Giambi, Tejada, Chavez).

The A's can go into next season looking to win a title. Or they can try to "contend" and hope the players they acquire in a Hudson trade pan out in the long run. But even if Beane makes a "good" trade, the A's are running out of time as a serious contender. And that's why it makes no sense to trade Hudson unless we're offered the moon.

by bear88 on Dec 11, 2004 10:47 AM PST up reply actions

That's Scutaro, not Durazo

in the first paragraph.

by bear88 on Dec 11, 2004 10:48 AM PST up reply actions

some of what you said

i'd agree with. however, i think the a's farm system is better than you say. i think the a's COULD go on a nice ROY string for another 2-3 yrs.

plus, i don't necessarily believe beane is looking for blue chip pros to produce for the a's. i think he's gathering poker chips to cash in when needed in 2005 or 2006.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 11, 2004 10:55 AM PST up reply actions

Farm system, and reasonable expectations

I'm not trying to be too critical about recent drafts or the state of the farm system. The 2004 draft looked like a pretty good one to me. Swisher and Street are, obviously, promising young players.

The issue, for me, is that the late-1990s A's produced an extraordinary array of talent, which allowed the team to compete at a high level despite an extremely low payroll. It's not realistic to expect that to be replicated anytime soon, and it disappoints me a lot that the A's have failed to take advantage of the players they had (or are about to trade).

As a fan, I resent that the owners kept the payroll so low, for so long, in order to keep making a profit every year. And now, I resent the idea of trading away our #1 starter and essentially conceding the 2005 season. Might the A's get lucky, and get excellent performances from the other starters and players, allowing them to be a serious contender this year? Sure, it's possible. But it's a lot less likely.

We all know that, so we try to justify the upcoming trade with dreams of better players than we're likely to get, or with arguments about how this will put the A's in a good situation in 2006. Given the payroll limitations imposed by the owners, defenders of the impending Huddy deal may have a point. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

by bear88 on Dec 11, 2004 11:19 AM PST up reply actions

Another thing people are forgetting

is that the plethora of All-Stars that we developed in the late 90's were a product of how bad we were. Mulder, Chavez, and Zito were all top 10 picks. When you draft that high for that long, you're going to produce some pretty damn good ballplayers. Plus, back then the A's had more influence in Latin America, as it was not as heavily scouted as it is now. This produced Tejada, Hernandez, and players like Ortiz that netted us the Jermaine Dye's of the world. This is why we don't have as many impact prospects as in earlier years. It's a biproduct of fielding a competitive team. It would appear that the A's are beginning to refocus their efforts abroad with the recent rise of prospects from our Dominican Academy, (Garcia, Herrera, etc.) which may be the light at the end of the Big 3.

Today's broadcast is brought to you by..........Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it.

by nothinlikethetown on Dec 11, 2004 12:26 PM PST up reply actions

Frustration vs. Anticipation

i'ii admit to some past frustration plus my fair share of temper tantrams due to past loses in FA's and trades....i believe it started with the henderson trade to toronto.

nevertheless, i try to keep a steady perspective on this "little team by the bay". fact is, the a's are in a small market, they draw on average 2 mil per yr. and the payroll will probably top-out at 60 mil.

therefore, the a's had better have someone pulling the strings so the win/loss % doesn't mimic an elevator. beane has proven to be that guy. so, i sort of get excited wondering who the a's will get next.

but, i know what most mean when they say it's really disheartening to see most of the great players leave.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 11, 2004 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

Draft....

While it is true Chavez, Zito and Mulder were top 10 picks so were Prieto, Greive and Enochs (ok he was #11). Only Mulder was solid gold coming out of college. The A's have done well with Swisher, Crosby, Bonderman all late in the first. I think I would rather have 4 picks in the 15-40 range than one at pick 5 or 6.

As for the A's Latin players Herrera #2 and Garcia #6 according to Baseball America are still producing.

Most of this comes down to money. As long as the minor can continue to develop players the A's will compete at close to this pace. But with teams like the Yanks, Red Sox and A's spending 100+ million it will be hard to win it all.

by dougald1 on Dec 11, 2004 1:31 PM PST up reply actions

The Marlins Saga

The owner of Pro Player Stadium -- Wayne Huizenga -- has given the current Marlins owners a nice little shot in the arm by announcing that the Marlins will be unwelcome there after 2010.

Watching this stuff when you don't have an emotional investment makes you want to take a long, hot shower with about a pound of soap.

by jrbh on Dec 11, 2004 9:22 AM PST reply actions

Oh come on, it's perfectly legit

As the article I read explained, "dropping the Marlins would let the stadium pursue such events as cricket and soccer." I'm sure cricket (!) and soccer together would produce much more revenue than 81 baseball games. It's simple economics.

This is flat-out parody. Is there a single sentient person who read that account and didn't just assume that the whole business is just a ham-handed effort to jerk the Miami taxpayers around? Cricket! You're right about needing a shower to deal with this kind of cynical sleaze, but that part made me laugh out loud. But then I'm not a Marlins fan.

by Faust on Dec 11, 2004 5:08 PM PST up reply actions

CRICKET!?!

Huizenga is fucking crazy. Who the fuck would watch CRICKET in Miami?

"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." - Spaceballs

by secret ASian man on Dec 11, 2004 9:10 PM PST up reply actions

Beane aura - bah!

I'm sorry, the Beane aura has worn off for me. So we trade one of the biggest fan favorites, a gamer and a good citizen for some affordable swingers who may or not produce (a second baseman?! I thought we had two of those). Net-net the team is not better or worse, and it's first round out in the playoffs, if they even get that far. Worst of all, Hudson is gone, which is one less reason to go to the ballpark, which means fewer butts in the seats and less money for the A's. This constant reshuffling of the deck chairs is becoming seriously uninteresting. It's like Beane is more interested in the thrill of the deal than actually building a championship caliber team. The only saving grace is that I and my boys will get to watch Huddy win a championship somewhere else.

by OaklandMike on Dec 11, 2004 9:59 AM PST reply actions

Beane Aura

Get Real!

Have the A's got $15 million for Hudson? Lose him now and get something or lose him next year for a couple of draft choices.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 11, 2004 11:03 AM PST reply actions

Beane aura - bah!

Do they not have the money, or they are not willing to spend it. Fine, call it a money problem. It's the same result: We wallow in mediocrity. Beane makes these big-news trades, all the Beane-lovers start masturbating over what a genius he is, and then...what? We're no better off than we were before. Phft! That is real.

by OaklandMike on Dec 11, 2004 12:50 PM PST up reply actions

So what's the solution?

Keep Hudson in 2005 and then let him walk for a couple draft picks? You're screwed in 2006 with no Hudson and no immediate replacement talent.

Put it this way: you're going to get screwed either way. Do you want the lube or just go raw?

by grover on Dec 11, 2004 1:19 PM PST up reply actions

I don't get it....

Why buy a baseball team if you can't handle the economics? It is what it is. Schott knew that going in. What's the point of buying a ballclub if you know you'll never be able to contend, that you'll just become a farm club for the rest of the league? Give us an owner with some dough and some guts.

by OaklandMike on Dec 11, 2004 1:36 PM PST up reply actions

i'm not going through this again...

...look up the numbers.

the athletic's payroll has doubled in the past 4 yrs. i don't know of any other team in mlb which has done that with the success the a's have had.

it's OK to steal-just don't let billy see ya.

by bigelephant on Dec 11, 2004 2:17 PM PST up reply actions

economics

unfortunately, the economics of owning a ballclub are all about the bottom line. The A's are probably making Schott a tidy profit, so why should he be unhappy? The only reason to boost payroll is increase the chances of playoff money (and merchandising bump) or to maintain/boost fan levels.

by Apricot on Dec 11, 2004 4:17 PM PST up reply actions

So buy the A's

And if you can't do that I suggest you accept the situation as it is.

But if Schott's the problem why you taking shots at Beane?

by grover on Dec 11, 2004 5:17 PM PST up reply actions

Because...

I'm sick and damn tired of having to explain to my kid every year why one of his favorite players isn't with the team anymore. And Beane's the trigger man, so he gets the grief. Is it fair? Maybe not. But like I said at the beginning, he ain't impressing me anymore.

by OaklandMike on Dec 11, 2004 11:28 PM PST up reply actions

Motivational parenting

Perhaps you could use this as an object lesson for the rugrats: "Yes, little Timmy, Mr. Hudson got sent away. And if you don't finish your homework and take out the trash and accept a reduction in your allowance, we're going to trade you to the Steinbrenners across the street. George just bought a nice new lawn tractor that I think would look nice in my garage. Maybe if I sell you to George, he'll give me the tractor and pay for a year's worth of gasoline."

by monkeyball on Dec 12, 2004 11:35 AM PST up reply actions

I love these type of fans

I love these type of people that get lost in the win it all or the season is shit. Teams like the A's and the Twins make the playoffs four years in a row and are considered a failure. It is like they wanted to Cleveland or Pitt. fans because they did not make the payoffs so they did not choke.

I think baseball is the wrong sport for you. Football or Basketball might be more what you are looking for. Money is the same for each team. If you do not understand what a team like the Twins or the A's has done without the money it might be best to change sports.

And yes sometimes a good deal is like good sex.

by dougald1 on Dec 11, 2004 1:43 PM PST up reply actions

Pavano

It looks like the Yankees are going to spend another $40 million for Pavano. Baseball needs a salary cap! Hardball Times has an excellent article on some of the ridiculous contract recently signed.

What is the penalty to the Yankees for a $200 million payroll? $10 Million? It doesn't mean a thing to them. The A's and other small market teams have no chance in keeping their stars. Beane wants to trade for pitchers because he knows he can't keep Mulder and Zito very long. When will baseball realize that these contracts are killing the game?

I see where the hockey union offered a 24% reduction in salaries if the owners world accept a system similiar to baseballs. If they do, they are crazy.

What would Charlie Findley say?

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 11, 2004 11:31 AM PST reply actions

Salary Cap

Personally, I've always felt that if MLB wanted to reign in the spending of the Yankee's, they would find some way of forcing Steinbrenner to sell the team to an owner like Carl Pohlad. I imagine Pohlad would have the salary down to under $100 million within a few years, while simultaneously explaining how he has to cut payroll because NYC is a "small market" and can't support 2 teams.

Jonathon

by JLeverenz on Dec 11, 2004 12:54 PM PST up reply actions

Yanks pay 40%

In 2005 the Yanks pay 40% of whatever they go over 128 million. So say, the Yanks are at 200 million. 72 million times 40% or about 29 million. I bet George loves the day each year he has to hand over that check to Bud. S

by dougald1 on Dec 11, 2004 1:51 PM PST up reply actions

29 million

I would like to see that penalty money from the Yanks be redistributed to the other 29 or so teams in the league instead of being pocketed by MLB.

by sf drift king on Dec 11, 2004 4:47 PM PST up reply actions

29 Million

I think it is distributed to the teams that don't have to pay a penalty.

With Boston signing Wells and with what the need to pay their free agents, they're going well over the $128 million. Ain't it nice.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 11, 2004 6:23 PM PST up reply actions

Why the rumored trades don't look good to us

Remember: all the possible trades we're hearing about (some of which are false rumors anyway) are the ones Beane hasn't made. If Beane is planning to deal Hudson (which he hasn't said he is; right now he's talking a lot and listening a lot), Beane hasn't yet heard what he feels is the right deal, or the best available deal. When all you hear about are false rumors and rejected deals, they are bound to look worse than the only thing that matters: what actually happens.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 11, 2004 11:41 AM PST reply actions

True, but

my assumption is that the actual trade won't be dramatically different from the proposals floating around. I suspect we'll end up getting some combination of the players mentioned, and maybe a little extra as a team that really wants Hudson sweetens the pot.

I hope I'm wrong, but suspect I'm right. And aside from my disapproval of trading Hudson at all, I don't think I will like the package of players we get in the trade... so I'm annoyed in advance.

by bear88 on Dec 11, 2004 11:54 AM PST up reply actions

to stray from the hudson talk

i wouldn't be surprised if durazo got traded.

by ucla kid on Dec 11, 2004 11:47 AM PST reply actions

Maybe

I can imagine trading Durazo. He's coming off a very good season, so his value is fairly high - although designated hitters are worth less than position players. We do have a logjam at 1B/DH.

But Durazo was also our best hitter last season. If we trade him, we'd better get some hitting in return. Without Hudson and with two inexperienced starters in the rotation, we're going to need to score a lot more runs.

by bear88 on Dec 11, 2004 11:58 AM PST up reply actions

Durazo

With both Dye and Durazo gone, it means the A's have to come up with almost 170 RBI's and 40-50 homers. Johnson and Swisher may be speial but they are just rookies. Don't expect their offensive stats to be much better than Crosby's.

The A's will keep Durazo. He fits his role and appears to be getting better. He may cost money to resign. If Johnson proves to be a major player, Durazo may go next year.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 11, 2004 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

What Happened???

To "we will probably be able to keep at least one of the "big three" but not all of them talk"????
If that were ever true how could that one not be Hudson???

by asfanfordays on Dec 11, 2004 12:13 PM PST reply actions

Not Hudson if...

He wants too much money.
His oblique injury is likely to get worse and occur more often.
Beane values his left handers more.

I think hudson is the best we've got and we can't keep him past 2005 than two draft picks are not enough compensation for me.

by grover on Dec 11, 2004 12:39 PM PST up reply actions

Replacements

I'll second that, and add that Hudson, as a rightie, is the most categorically replaceable of the Big Three.

(And note that by "categorically," I mean to exclude issues of character and leadership, which are singular to Hudson.)

by monkeyball on Dec 12, 2004 11:40 AM PST up reply actions

"I think we'll do something down here."

The biggest statement Beane has made that one of the Big 3 is going elsewhere. Maybe after all the talk about Hudson it'll end up being Zito after all?

Beane could swing it like this: get the market cranking out offers for Hudson, then pick the best one and say, "That's not good enough for Hudson, but ... I'll give you Zito for it." The other team needs a starter, and thinks maybe Zito can turn back into 2002 Barry with some new pitching instruction or a change in scenery ...

by rubin sierra on Dec 11, 2004 10:45 PM PST reply actions

VERY good thinking!

That's devious, Rubin. Very devious. Mongo like!

by monkeyball on Dec 12, 2004 11:42 AM PST up reply actions

He's gone

Posted on Sun, Dec. 12, 2004

Report: A's Hudson apparently headed to Dodgers

By RICK HURD and JOE RODERICK

Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.)

ANAHEIM, Calif. - The Tim Hudson sweepstakes apparently came to a conclusion late Saturday night at the Anaheim Marriott. The winner: The Los Angeles Dodgers.

Hudson's agent confirmed Saturday that Hudson will be sent to the Dodgers for right-handed pitcher Edwin Jackson and minor-league infielder Antonio Perez. The deal is expected to be announced on Sunday.

"I spoke with an executive from another team, and that's what I've heard," agent Paul Cohen said. "Until I hear from the principles, that's where we stand."

A's spokesman Jim Young told the Contra Costa Times he wasn't aware that any deal had been made. General manager Billy Beane couldn't be reached.

The apparent deal came after a 48-hour period in which several teams fought hard for Hudson, who was perhaps the most attractive trade commodity on the market. Hudson, 29, will earn $6.5 million next season in what will be the final season of his contract. He's expected to command at least $13 million a season if he hits the free-agent market next winter.

Whether that happens is still unclear, but Beane re-iterated Saturday that the A's would not make any trade contingent on the opposing club negotiating a contract extension for Hudson.

The deal officially will end the 4 1/2-year reign of the A's Three Aces. Hudson was 92-39 with a 3.30 in six seasons with the A's. He was 12-6 with a 3.53 ERA in 27 starts in what proved to be his closing act. His final A's season also was marred by a recurrence of a strained left oblique muscle, an injury that has plagued Hudson over the past three seasons.

In Jackson, the A's will receive one of the top pitching prospects in baseball. Jackson, a 21-year-old right-hander, has gone 4-2 in 12 appearances (eight starts) in the majors but is a hard thrower and was highly coveted by the Arizona Diamondbacks at last season's trade deadline. The Dodgers' unwillingness to part with Jackson was reportedly one of the reasons Los Angeles could not make a trade for Diamondbacks left-hander Randy Johnson.

The A's also will receive Perez, who hit .296 with 22 homers and 88 RBI at Triple-A Las Vegas last season.

With Perez's addition, the future of second baseman Mark Ellis falls into question. Ellis sustained a dislocated right shoulder during spring training last season and missed the season. He is eligible for arbitration, and the A's could now choose not to tender him a contract offer by the Dec. 20 deadline.

The Baltimore Orioles and St. Louis Cardinals had been major players for Hudson. The A's reportedly had been pushing hard for left-handed pitcher Erik Bedard, but the Orioles were reluctant to part with him. The O's reportedly also have inquired about lefty Barry Zito, but it's unlikely the A's will trade another starting pitcher.

The Cardinals were reportedly offering pitchers Dan Haren and Rick Ankiel.

by bigthree17 on Dec 12, 2004 12:51 AM PST reply actions

Not info from LA or Oakland

"I spoke with an executive from another team, and that's what I've heard," agent Paul Cohen said. "Until I hear from the principles, that's where we stand."

an executive from "another team"? that is, not from the A's or Dodgers? Cohen had not heard of this trade from either of the principles, so it's still a rumor.

that being said, I do think this rumor is more substantial than any other I've seen. But we'll just have to wait and see if it gets confirmed.

by OaklandSi on Dec 12, 2004 5:59 AM PST up reply actions

It's still speculation, but...

...if the deal, as proposed by the Contra Costa Times, goes through, I'm okay with it. I am.

Don't get me wrong, I will hate, absolutely hate, to see Huddy in another uniform. Regardless of his injury history, regardless of his postseason slipups, the man is a gamer in the truest sense of the world. He (even more than Giambi IMHO) signled the resurgence of Oakland baseball and I will always remember the sheer joy that was to be had watching him take off in the summer and fall of 1999. He also was an undisputed leader in the clubhouse, a fiery guy who gave his all and expected his teammates to do the same. Combine his talent with his tenacity and you have a great teammate. But it's also pretty clear that Huddy is just a great guy period. I will miss him.

All of that said, I think if a deal does go through, this one with LA makes the most sense. For one, it offers us two unbelievable studs of prospects, two guys with incredible ceilings who are both just now reaching their potential as well as a few years away from having to be signed to longterm deals of their own. For another, they come at important positions, with Jackson having the potential to become another A's ace and Perez becoming another staple of the infield (an infield patrolled by Chavez, Crosby, and Perez sounds pretty damn nice). For still another, having Huddy out of the league would both ease our (the fans') pain as well as that of our hitters (and how sweet would it be to see Huddy tear up the Angels in interleague play?!). And for still another, well, Huddy will give me an excuse to spend more time in So-Cal, maybe even hit up a few more games with Christy (of course, that's up to her too ~wink~).

So while part of me is wrenched by the possibility of this deal, another part of me sees how it would make a lot of sense. I love Huddy, I do, but I love the Oakland A's even more. I trust that Billy does the same and for that reason, I gladly say, In Billy We Trust. Even if it may just be In Billy "I" Trust in this particular instance.

Best to one and all

- Wes

by Wes7 on Dec 12, 2004 6:56 AM PST reply actions

now that it's pretty much over

i hope all a's fans can agree that hudson goes in the good guy column with tejada and guillen and not the bad guy column with giambi and foulke.

if he had to go, the dodgers isn't so bad. not only are we getting some decent players, but it's the nl, huddy fans can watch him beat the hated giants in person, and he's with depodesta on the new nl a's...

by xbhaskarx on Dec 12, 2004 7:55 AM PST reply actions

You are

Pathetic. No team or player would want you as a fan.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 8:54 AM PST reply actions

I'd say

this goes directly under the personal attack rule that has been discussed. I usually don't have a problem with people criticizing one another, but this was a little overboard. It's going to be an emotional day if Huddy is really gone. Dude has the right to be pissed, and upset, and has the right to express himself anyway he wants.

Contrary to what you might think, Ohad, this site is for A's fans to post what they're thinking and feeling about the team- good or bad. It's not just for posting ridiculous fantasy baseball trades 24/7 because you like to see your name on the diary list.

by Tony on Dec 12, 2004 9:26 AM PST up reply actions

How about

How about diskus' original "f u A's" message? That's a vicious attack if I've seen one. As a die-hard A's fan, his attack upsets me terribly.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 12, 2004 9:31 AM PST up reply actions

Either

You're being sarcastic (which is fine), or you're waaaaaaay too oversensitive. Isn't a personal attack on an organization of people an oxymoron?

by Tony on Dec 12, 2004 9:36 AM PST up reply actions

attacks

Actually it's a little bit of both. I found it amusing that Ohad got accused of when he was just replying to a guy who said "fuck you" to "the A's", which can mean the hundreds of people actually working for the A's, and/or the millions of A's fans around the globe (the so-called "A's Nation"). And if he means the latter, he had it coming to him.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 12, 2004 10:42 AM PST up reply actions

I understand his feelings

But how can you not say he was going overboard. He said Fuck you A's, and now he doesnt want to be a fan. He can express his feelings, then so can i, and i say that his feelings are ridiculous. Obviously he does not care about this team when because of one, i repeat one player he does not want to be a fan of the team anymore.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 10:02 AM PST up reply actions

If this is what he does

When Tim Hudson goes to another team, i wonder what he did when he got dumped for the first time...

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 10:03 AM PST up reply actions

Hot tempers

If the Hudson trade goes through, people's tempers are going to be running high. Hudson was a fan favorite, and many people hate the idea of trading him at all - much less for prospects. Others will defend the deal as painful but necessary.

People are certainly allowed to vent and express their frustration with the team and its leadership. I plan to do so myself. The point of the "community standards," as I understand that, is to discourage people from attacking others on the board.

If people say, "To hell with the A's," and you think that's a lame attitude for a fan to have, I would suggest you ignore it.

by bear88 on Dec 12, 2004 11:00 AM PST up reply actions

Sorry everybody

I didn't think it would be so controversial. I got mad at someone saying Fuck the A's, and lsoing faith. The A's are the one team that has proven that you should keep the faith when they continously make the playoffs byh losing key players.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 11:27 AM PST up reply actions

If it's a done deal...

Although we have yet to hear anything from Billy Beane or DePodesta...it sure sounds like it...and truth is, as much as we knew it could/would? happen, it makes me sick.
The A's have always been "my" team..and I learned long ago "it's the team, not a particular player", it still is an emotional blow thinking I saw Hudson pitch his last game for Oakland..and didn't know it.
One more run at it with the Big 3 (plus Harden) -guess it was too much to ask.
I still trust Billy Beane to work his magic...although this deal, IF if its true..is a hard one.

by LongTimeFan on Dec 12, 2004 9:28 AM PST reply actions

Why In Beane We Must Trust

As fans, we only get to see a narrow view at any moment: Will they sign Giambi? Will they sign Tejada? Chavez? Hudson? But if we could broaden our view, we would feel better if we knew Beane planned to sign Mulder, or Zito, or both. We're upset partly b/c we don't know--just as we were upset when Miggy left b/c we thought maybe he AND Chavy would not be signed. Then when Chavy signed and we saw how good Crosby will be, it stung a little less. Beane had all of that in view all along, but we only found out last winter. Same deal now--only Beane knows the broader plan. Trade all big 3 before his contract year? Sign the other 2? Invest in 1? I think Beane knew clear back when he negotiated the extensions with Big 3 how he would liekly be approaching Giambi, Miggy, Chavy, and the Big 3. It is agonizing for fans not to know, but really Beane has made the "right" (logical/prudent) decision 3 of 3 times so far--losing Giambi instead of paying $90mil, paying Crosby minimum salary to approximate Miggy's potential/career curve, and investing in Chavez...Until the view of the Big 3 broadens, I will try to ignore my narrow view, which is prejudiced by my tremendous love and appreciation for Hudson as a pitcher and gamer. I wish I knew what Beane was doing--but what's more important is that HE knows what he is doing, and his track record is damn good.

That all being said, what also hurts is that while Beane's job is to see players as commodities, fans see them--and get attached to them--as people. Ramon, Miggy, and Hudson were easy fan favorite types, not just stats and salaries to us. The joy of being a fan is getting attached to your favorite players; that's hard to do in the Oakland system--and in today's baseball in general. Capitalism sucks...but that's a rant for another blog.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 12, 2004 9:54 AM PST reply actions

the yanks and sox MUST be stopped!!!

if there was ANY friggin' financial equity in baseball (like football and basketball, two far more popular and well-run sports), i'd bet we could've kept huddy at a reasonable contract instead of potentially trading him for a couple of unproven minor-leaguers...i know, they could be great, but they could also suck ass. meanwhile, the yankees, already at $183 mill, signed wright for $21m, pavano for $40m, womak for $4m, boston added wells for $18m, might get renteria, and resign tek and pedro...unless baseball fundamentally changes, teams like the a's and the twins can only do what we've been doing for stretches of 4-6 years, before getting totally burned.

by guy incognito on Dec 12, 2004 10:15 AM PST reply actions

Hudson

I personally think moving Hudson is the right idea. The one item that continues to scare me is his trouble with injuries the last two years. While Mulder has had an injury history as well, they are not the same injury that occurs every year like Hudson. While I hate to see him go, if we can get two quality players for him, it will be well worth it.

IMHO

by Rickey35 on Dec 12, 2004 12:23 PM PST reply actions

re: member to member conflicts

Re "F the A's" (which didn't bother me, personally) and "You're pathetic" (which I didn't care for, personallly), I think the important point for all bloggers to remember is that some people think before they act, and some people act before they think--which doesn't make them bad people, just impulsive people. So instead of a blogger reacting so angrily to an emotional comment, why not just assume it was made passionately, maybe not rationally, and ignore it? At the very least, I'd say, make sure to criticize the comment, not the person. Now let's all form a circle, hold hands, and sing "Kumbaya," ok?

And if the A's end up trading Ellis (one of my own faves) along with Huddy, please ignore any comment that I post right after.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 12, 2004 4:36 PM PST reply actions

trade rumor

Nico,

I heard a rumor Ellis is going to be traded to the Indians for Arthur Rhodes.

Just kidding.

by matthias on Dec 12, 2004 5:04 PM PST up reply actions

kumbaya

well said, Nico.
we're all freaks about the A's, and because of that, sometimes might post something in the heat of the moment - but it should always be about the comment, not the individual.

and just since it's a perfect way of saying it, please pardon anything i might type if the trade w/ LA goes through, as is.

give me Werth in the deal as well.....maybe; otherwise, not a chance.

by catfish hunter on Dec 12, 2004 6:45 PM PST up reply actions

There has to be more to this trade

The minor-league second baseman is a throw-in. Essentially, the trade would be Jackson for one year of Hudson. Jackson's stats and arm trouble worry me. He was great in the lower minors and did well in his late season callup in 2003.

In 2004, Jackson was a bad pitcher. He didn't do well anywhere, and had arm problems. I assume he's supposedly okay now, but this does not make me feel very comfortable. I don't care how promising he's supposed to be. Oblique injuries are one thing. Arm problems are another.

If Beane and the owners want to go into a rebuilding mode for 2005, that's their decision. But I fear that Jackson will turn out to be an ineffective, injury-prone pitcher (which is what he's been). If that's the case, the trade will be nothing more than a salary dump.

by bear88 on Dec 12, 2004 5:07 PM PST reply actions

Jackson

Last year was his first bad year, and its not a coincidence it was paired with injuries..

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 5:11 PM PST up reply actions

Hard-throwing phenoms

There are countless hard-throwing pitchers who blow guys away in the low minors.

There are countless hard-throwing pitchers who make a good first impression in the majors when nobody has seen them yet.

There are countless hard-throwing pitchers who start having arm trouble and are plagued by it their entire careers.

This is all we get for Tim Hudson? He can't be counted on as a fourth starter, which the A's need. He can't, based on last year (one of the few in his baseball career) be counted on for anything. He is damaged goods. I don't know how damaged... maybe he's fine now. But Jackson isn't part of a package. Unless the rumors are wildly wrong, he's the centerpiece of the trade.

by bear88 on Dec 12, 2004 5:23 PM PST up reply actions

He had

a great year in double a, that aint low minors.

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 5:28 PM PST up reply actions

on the topic of: Rhodes to Indians

Of all teams, isn't it amazing that the Indians wanted Rhodes: last year, where did Arthur establish his legacy of inadequacy, if not in Cleveland?

I have very mixed feelings about the rumored Hudson for Jackson/Perez deal. On the one hand, as hot a commodity as Hudson is, the potential of losing him for two "Hey, they could have been great" flops is definitely there, and seems too risky for the trump card we hold as bait. On the other hand, no team would trade, say, a healthy Ray Durham and a young Mike Mussina even for Hudson--unless they were prospects that no one knew yet would turn out to be Durham and Mussina. So the only way you get a steal of a deal is to gamble on players when they still could be either Harden or Van Poppel, and no one can be sure.

But on the surface, when you throw in a recent injury (Jackson) and not one proven player to the A's, this deal seems too risky; I don't think it's the full deal Beane has put on the table (could the actual proposed deal involve a third team and another A's player?).

Beane doesn't need to gamble with young prospects, b/c the A's farm system is superior to the competition--he can gamble within his own system without trading his ace. Unless the A's scouts are certain these two guys will be stars, it wouldn't make sense to me to lose an ace pitcher without getting something proven in return, and so I find it hard to believe that's what Beane is trying to do.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 12, 2004 5:40 PM PST reply actions

Whats the AN record

for posts in a thread or diary? How many people are registered to this site?

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 6:52 PM PST reply actions

On the new site?

Way over 300. On the old version? Over 200, I think. Older memebers help out if you remember specifics.

by Jennifer on Dec 12, 2004 7:14 PM PST up reply actions

wait

are you talking about posts? or members lol

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 7:17 PM PST up reply actions

Posts,

sorry!

by Jennifer on Dec 12, 2004 7:20 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks

HOly smokes! 300 hundred? what was that about?!

Beanetown Baby

by ohad on Dec 12, 2004 7:28 PM PST up reply actions

maybe

butt board games

Duke tattoo

mixing meds/drinking

Mostly in the game threads.

by Sharon on Dec 12, 2004 7:34 PM PST up reply actions

I don't remember what it was about...

but the 300 was on the new site.

On the old site, Blez would open up new threads after so many posts because they would get sooo long, so we often had two threads for a game. Only when Blez was away would threads get out of control.

I've been looking back at past threads on the new AN, and Game 158 had 356 comments, Game 159 had 353, and Game 160 had 295 comments. I think those were the ones I was talking about.

I remember on the old AN, Sharon (the artist formerly Zonk. For some reason, everyone thought she was a he, so she gradually changed her posting name. It made for some confusing times, especially when we started talking about Mark Prior in a kilt), Blez, and I had 119 comments about getting Justin Duchscherererererer's name tattoed on our butts. Mrs. Blez put a stop to Blez getting his butt ink, though. We named ourselves "The Bottomless Pit," and that was what Sharon referenced in the above. Those were great times. :)

by Jennifer on Dec 12, 2004 7:49 PM PST up reply actions

Sniff, sniff.

It just hit me.

The reason we were going to get Duchscher's name tattooed on our butts was because of Huddy! I said Huddy loved Justin so much, he got his named tattoed on his right butt cheek. Then that brought up Justin Miller and Rob Dibble's ink. Sharon was going to get Mulder's name tattooed on her butt and I was going to get the entire roster and their stats put on my butt because it is so big.

All because of Huddy.

(sniff)

Does that mean if Huddy goes, the tattoo stuff goes with him?

by Jennifer on Dec 12, 2004 7:59 PM PST up reply actions

This sucks!

This drawn out trade has been torture! I'm going to have a difficult time recovering from this...

I'm keeping my tattoo. DePo can take a picture, but there's no way he's getting the real thing.

I had completely forgotten about how the whole Duke tattoo started. My memory is sooo poor...but I remember the whole Huddy/Melhuse/Harden/Huddy's wife thing.

by Sharon on Dec 12, 2004 8:11 PM PST up reply actions

Ugh

Can you say "fire sale"??? What a stinker of a salary dump. Charlie Finley would be proud.

Only advantage is that Hudson won't be burning the A's with an AL rival. I guess from Beane's point of view it's a plus that he's giving a gift to his pal DePo, but that's neither help for the A's nor consolation for A's fans.

Merry Xmas, Smog Dogs. Enjoy the ace you just got for nothin'.

MJB

by MJB on Dec 12, 2004 11:36 PM PST reply actions